PHI 2200C Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Categorical Imperative, Universalizability

13 views1 pages

chocolaterat107

1 Apr 2019

School

St. John's University

Department

Philosophy

Course

PHI 2200C

Professor

Paul Gaffney

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

If you are honest and get caught, that is fine. If you are doing the right thing but your motives are selfish, that is practical. We are distinguishing pure morality from it. Self-love isn"t wrong, but it doesn"t deserve moral credit: good will, foils. Foil- someone that is against what kant has to say. Aristotle- self-help, to be moral, happiness- kant- nothing wrong with that but that is not what we are doing and is irrelevant. Mill- utilitarian (justify everything by the advances of goods- the most goods the most numbers). You can"t make everyone happy and please everyone but if the end result is good (even if you have to do something bad) you are fine. Newton- for every action, it must be an opposite and equal reaction. Everything that we do is determined by outside forces. In that sense, we have no freedom and responsibility. If newtons physics is correct, there is no such thing as morality.

Related Questions

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

PHI 2200C Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Categorical Imperative, Universalizability

Document Summary

Get access

Related textbook solutions

Physics: Principles with Applications

Related Documents

PHI 2200C Lecture 11: Notes 11

PHI 2200C Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Categorical Imperative, Hypothetical Imperative, Sanctity Of Life

PHI 2200C Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: Categorical Imperative, Universalizability

Related Questions