Friday, September 26, 2014
Kant's Third Proposition
In most circumstances I would agree with all of Kant's Propositions of Duty. However, this is not a perfect world and I think the third proposition is not always correct. In general, most laws are just. But there are some that were not enacted with proper reasoning. These laws do not deserve reverence. I'm not just talking about the incredibly unjust laws, such as any law that condoned slavery, but rather some relatively recent ones as well. Many people view the Patriot Act as a law that was agreed upon unwisely following the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Americans have seen many freedoms taken away, and everyday we learn of more ways our privacy is violated. In an ideal world all laws would have the people's best interests in mind. Until that time though, Kant's third proposition will be slightly flawed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the only thing that I would contest in your argument is that if people are just moral agents and feel that giving up some privacy in order to protect the overall population how is that not having the people's best interest in mind?
ReplyDeletethe only thing that I would contest in your argument is that if people are just moral agents and feel that giving up some privacy in order to protect the overall population how is that not having the people's best interest in mind?
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with your statement on Kant's third proposition. I won't go into specifics, but there are plenty of examples in todays world in which laws are corrupt. Leaders are only human beings, and are therefore not perfect; so naturally, not all laws will be perfect. In these cases, it would almost seem more just not to follow these laws.
ReplyDeleteI agree to a certain point. I think that protecting our citizens is important, but to the point of violating their rights with how some people in the TSA treat others, is an extremely flawed law. Also, protecting our country is very important, but the prejudice and racism that goes on while doing so is unjust, and frankly unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point on the third proposition, that not all laws are done justly and for the best interest of man. But i would also like to say that i dont completely agree that you agree with the first two propositions, in that they all three have flaws that need to be taken into prospective
ReplyDelete.
I have a few points of curiosity concerning your post. You make the claim that a person's duty is to complete what they were put on Earth to do, but how does one go about discovering such a purpose? Also, such an idea relies on the assumption that we were in fact placed here as an intentional act of creation and that each of us has some specific calling for our lives. Kant's works were focused on providing rational arguments for a standard of morals and our duty to uphold them, and I believe he did an astounding job of it. The ideas you describe in your post don't sound bad, but they have the inherent problem of being vague and are built upon metaphysical theories. The result is that they are not very convincing, and that was the problem Kant was trying to solve.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds great to say that a person should do "x" because it coincides with their calling, but on what authority to you claim to know a persons calling. Some people reference their religious god, but people hold many different faiths in the world. Without a rational argument for a universal moral standard, a disagreement about a calling hits the barrier of my god vs. your god (which never ends well).