In the last class, we discussed Kant and his theory of deontology. Deontology says that morally good actions are done for the sake of duty. Kant believes that a good action is predicted when that action is based on duty. But wait, what? What if the good "duty" that someone has to perform will involve harm? Say for instance, you were in a courtroom and you had to testify on the stand against one of your family members who murdered someone. You just so happened to see the whole thing and your family member actually committed the crime. You put your hand on the bible and everything. The good duty here would be for you to tell the truth. It would be your duty to tell the truth against your family member because they did not do a good. Whether it being your brother, sister, mother, or even father. Would you lie for them? Would you perform your moral duty and tell the truth?
I guess what I am trying to say is, we all want to do good. Why is it that in Kant's view, we are doing good for the sake of duty? Why can't we do good just for the sake of..good? Just because we want to. Of course some people feel obligated to do good in their lives for whatever purposes, but let's be honest. Some people just don't care. They don't feel it is a "duty" to do good because no one is keeping score. Some may see it that God is for sure keeping score, but what is a god to an atheist? Everyone doesn't recycle, tell the truth, or go to church. Good being done for the sake of duty isn't an everybody kind of thing, especially when you say its a duty.
I believe that from your example, Kant would deem it to be morally good to tell the truth in court. Not only because it would be a moral duty, but because of his third law which states to act in reverence to the law.
ReplyDeleteAs for your second point, I can definitely understand where you're coming from. A persons sense of duty is subjective to the individual, and really is dependent upon his/her viewpoint. However, I think that Kant probably meant 'duty', as coming from a societal viewpoint, as opposed to an individual one. So what is collectively defined as "good", should be someones standard as to define what their duty is.
I agree with Rebecca on the first point. I would be morally right to tell the truth in court no matter what because it is just and logical.
ReplyDeleteI believe most people do good for the sake of duty. Most people have a reason behind doing moral goods even if it isn't a religious reason. People choose to do good while not believing in a higher power, and still do it because they are going to get something out of it.