Kierkegaard and the leap of faith. Having racked my brain previously on Kantian ethics, it is only fair that I now discuss Kierkegaard's view. It is a painless ride, I promise.
Unlike Kant, Kierkegaard felt that ethics do depend an awful lot on what society says. According to Kierkegaard, the first part of ethics is following societal mores in a conscientious manner.
For example, if society states that drinking to excess is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong to drink too much. On the other hand, if society says that killing your son is a must in order to prevent a war or some other deed, then that action is morally right as well.
The main part is to be sure that you respond to every situation with awareness. We can all just let life happen around us and simply respond immediately to the stimulus or we can make a commitment to be ethical beings.
The key points are:
To chose inwardly and seriously
Believe that our actions for both good and evil have a truth value
Act in accordance with rules that are seen as universal to all moral agents (see above)
With that being said, there is a second ethics (if you will) that supersedes the first. This is God's will. God's will goes above societal ethics.
To illustrate, if God commands you to sacrifice your son that would break a societal norm (currently). In this case, Kierkegaard would say that we will have a “teleological suspension of the ethical”
And dear friends, as far as thinking goes, that is it for Kierkegaard's ethics. The rest he states we cannot know and must take a leap of faith.
His reasoning is thus...God told me to do this deed. No one in society can tell me if I am being rational or if I have lost my marbles. Since no one can tell me, I must take a leap of faith and simply believe it to be the truth...
OK, it's Wednesday and I am thinking of deontological ethics. How can I not? So naturally, my mind returns to Kant. The problematic categorical imperative. Sigh. Where to start?
So, I am breaking it down now and I am going to do it in simple terms. Hearkening back to Hume's beliefs that Philosophical ideas should be made easy to understand. So here goes- with minimal jargon and a tight grip on my reality of choice.
There are two imperatives: hypothetical and categorical.
A hypothetical imperative is an action driven by circumstances. Example: If I want to get drunk, I must first drink the Pinot Noir* * you can insert your own fermented beverage of choice, of course.
A categorical imperative is an absolute, unconditional requirement that remains unchanged regardless of the circumstances. Example: well, uh, gee... that's the tricky part, isn't it? Kant summarized it as follows:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
I, in good faith, can see that the universal demand that everyone who wishes to become inebriated must drink Pinot Noir has its faults. First, it would leave little of the stuff for me. And I am rather fond of it..but I digress.
Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentleman, the ride is about to get bumpy.
A hypothetical imperative will let me know what I need to do to achieve my desired outcome. I want to get drunk and hold onto the floor? I better have a couple glasses of wine.
Now, this decision does not tell me anything about the morality of my action. It just tells me how to reach my desired outcome. In this case, lovingly holding the toilet while setting on cold tiles. Is my action morally right?
According to Kant, the outcome of the action and any “good” that it may bring (reduction in stress and over thinking) to me or anyone else, is not relative. It doesn't matter at all in a moral sense. We cannot look at the outcome of my drinking to excess to state if the action is morally right or wrong.
No kiddies. In order to discover the morality of my action I must use pure practical reason (and I promised a jargon free explanation?).
Pure practical reason simply put means that it is not coming from my senses, the environment, any idea or hope of the outcome, my desires, my point in time, ext. taking out all subjectivity and leaving just the mind.
Oh no, with Kant morals are universal and objectively true. It doesn't matter that I think drinking is morally right, because the wine is chilled just so...
So, just how do we tell if my drinking of the wine is morally right or not?
The only way to judge the morality of this situation is to ensure that I am rationally expressing a good will and acting in recognition of a moral duty. We have to assume that I also have a free will (look I said I was keeping this simple- and Kant thought we do have a limited free will, so just go with it)
OK so my action has to be carried out with a sense of moral duty in order to be moral. By why, Lorrie, why?
Well, because being human, we tend to be slightly subjective. Being as such, it is natural to assume at times that what is best is what is best for US at that time.....
OK- but what is this maxim? What is the duty? And if it is consistent with the duty- does it count?
NO! This is Kant for crying out loud. It is not enough to be consistent with the duty! Remember, it must be carried out with the will. It must be carried out BECAUSE of the duty and nothing else.
The ends do not justify the means...
Now the maxims... (Deep Breath)
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. “
OK. Universal law? (Lorrie scratches her head and looks dazed) No cheating now! Remember that our particular outcome does not matter. What does matter is that we cannot have a maxim that contradicts itself. So I cannot will A and ~A at the same time. That is using reason alone
Quick illustration. Lets change examples. I have drank all of the Ponit Noir. The wine rack is empty. I am broke. It is Wednesday, I still have two days before I get paid. I am stressed and thinking way too much. I need money badly. My husband's wallet sets innocently enough on the table. I could just take the twenty dollars and not mention it to him. Right? (OK so it's cheap wine, better than nothing!) Right? According to this maxim is my action moral?
NO! It is a contradiction. If I universally will the stealing of money, then money would come to have no meaning at all. It would lose its value, wouldn't it? Money presupposes ownership but if everyone can steal money universally, the money itself would lose its meaning. Therefore, according to this first maxim- stealing would be morally wrong.
Maxim 2
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.
We all know what this means, right? We should always see people as having free will and as such they can never be a means to some other end. This would be a violation of the categorical imperative. If we want the good for ourselves, we must be willing to extend this to all others universally. This cannot be our will if we are using someone.
Example, Slavery. If someone “owns” another human being, then he/she is denying the liberty of all people. All of our wills are free or the first maxim (or the entire categorical imperative) inherently contradicts itself.
Last one..I promise. Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
OK this one is easy. All Kant is saying here is that we cannot live by maxims that we cannot universalize. We cannot will something universally that would cause an unnatural or unstable state of being.
So, you made it this far! Congrats! My apologies if I skipped a step or two but I think I have made it clear.
If not- you can try out Kant yourself. Here is his argument against theft:
“Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she could not possibly consent is a violation of perfect duty interpreted through the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from an unknowing victim, it may have been that the victim would have agreed, had the thief simply asked. However, no person can consent to theft, because the presence of consent would mean that the transfer was not a theft. Since the victim could not have consented to the action, it could not be instituted as a universal law of nature, and theft contradicts perfect duty. “
Very interesting question...any ideas? Right now, I work at an insurance company, just happy to have a job...I would have answered this one with something like, Ummm a think tank in DC? Ah younger days... actually what I would have answered back in college to this one would be, would you like fries with that?
OK, so Christmas is coming too soon. I have done no shopping yet. I don't like shopping. It's true, I really despise it. I must say that I enjoy shopping at book stores- but everything else, well, to me it is a waste of time. So anyway, I am not asking for anything for Christmas this year. No military history books, no magazines subscriptions, nothing. I am sure I will get loads of stuff and perhaps I am being a scrooge. I don't know. I am not ready for Christmas- but it is going to be here soon so Friday I will start shopping. Say a prayer for me in the religion of your choice- it can't hurt after all. In the mean time, enjoy this video from J.C. Pennys.
Ok People, I have been away for awhile. I had to do some business travel. But I am happy to say that while I was away there have been some wonderful videos on YouTube posted by my usual favorite, 911Truthteller. I love this guy's videos! Alex Jones deserves this constant mocking. It is not just that he is unstable, it is that he exploits others by provoking their fears. Would someone please just sit down with this man and clue him in on the fact that without our military he would not have the right to spew forth his vulgar insanity daily? He would have no right to collect money from all of his sheeple to support his family? Well, thanks to the Military for giving the freedom to continually mock him and support others who do so as well.
Posts
