Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 19, 2024, 5:30 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kant's Categorical Imperatives
#21
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
(May 18, 2014 at 12:20 pm)rasetsu Wrote: But well-being for whom?
The individual and the collective, two scales that must be balanced with fairness and maximal well-being for all considered as thoroughly as possible.

Quote:Suppose we were able to double the well-being of non-blacks at the cost of half the well-being of blacks? Would this be more moral than the current situation?
No, because there's no rational argument to give any particular race or group an undeserved preference over another. And since we could always be the group left out, since the selection is arbitrary, living with the fear of that possibility decreases everyone's well-being.

Quote: Given the relative numbers, it would seem so. But we would object that this isn't fair, and therefore would not be moral. However, then you're invoking an additional principle beyond the first principle of well-being.
Well-being must take fairness into consideration since even if we are the ones who receive the most advantages in an unequal system, our well-being depends on a stable foundation; a society that doesn't value fairness will not prove stable. At any given moment, we could be the ones being cheated. Hence, we strive for blind justice.

Quote:One might argue that, in the general case, unfairness leads to less well-being, but in doing so, you would be abandoning your base principle in favor of general rules; you have started a slide away from pure consequentialist utilitarianism to rule-based utilitarianism, and are one step closer to a morality based on imperatives. And is it true that we eschew the unfair solution because of some "generality", or are we reacting to a moral principle that is equally as fundamental as well-being? I'd say the latter.
I don't see how that occurs; a principle of well-being must take in all the various consequences, for as many people as possible, and to different degrees, and base the given "rule" on that. The situation is always changing and so do the rules, as long as they always satisfy the principle of well-being as generalized.

Quote:So if we try to form a deontological ethics, it slides towards consequentialism, and if we attempt to erect a pure consequentialist ethics, it slides towards deontological approaches. The same paradox can be found with virtue based ethics. We pursue virtue for its own sake because it is good, but it is good because of its consequences. This is the problem of ethics. There is no "pure" solution which works in all cases.
That's an interesting take. I'll think about that more.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Official Thread to Discuss the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant Mudhammam 6 1420 August 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Why is Kant's practical reason for God wrong? filambee 23 6991 October 29, 2013 at 1:27 am
Last Post: filambee



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)