But the denial of any kind of moral gray area seems slightly ridiculous to me. In my opinion, very few things in this world are black-and-white; our actions are shaded by our circumstances, our personal belief systems. I don't mean to imply that there is no right or wrong in this world, as proponents of meta-ethical relativism would claim. Rather, I think that even in the realm of moral relativity there is relativity. Morality is a multi-layered, multi-facted tenet of human consciousness--there is a gray area between moral absolutism and complete moral relativism in which I would place the human "conscience."
For the most part, I believe, it is the conscience, the little angel that sits on our shoulder, the Jiminy cricket in our head, from which we should derive our sense of morality. If the little voice in your head is telling you it's wrong, in most cases--it's probably wrong. However, there may be cases when your conscience demands that you do something that would be in violation of the "categorical imperative." While your action in a vaccum is immoral, you know that it was the "right" thing to do in that situation.
There are cases when rules that seem universal, like "don't break promises," should in fact be broken. In class we discussed this peculiarity in the example of a broken engagement. Though you may have promised to marry your fiancé, if you realize that you no longer love him or her, and that the two of you will not be happy together or are not right for each other, to go through with the marriage simply for the sake of keeping your promise would be highly immoral and unfair to the both of you. Kant defines "good will" as acting for the sake of duty alone--and though it may seem like your duty to marry your fiance, it is a more important duty to try and ensure the happiness of someone you care about. The sin of breaking your promise and the good will of trying to make your fiance happy are entirely seperate from each other--one does not negate the other.
To me, the whole concept of morality is extremely complicated--the best we can do is try to do good by listening to that little voice in our head (metaphorically of course--if there are actual voices in your head giving you orders you may want to see someone about that).
For the most part, I believe, it is the conscience, the little angel that sits on our shoulder, the Jiminy cricket in our head, from which we should derive our sense of morality. If the little voice in your head is telling you it's wrong, in most cases--it's probably wrong. However, there may be cases when your conscience demands that you do something that would be in violation of the "categorical imperative." While your action in a vaccum is immoral, you know that it was the "right" thing to do in that situation.
There are cases when rules that seem universal, like "don't break promises," should in fact be broken. In class we discussed this peculiarity in the example of a broken engagement. Though you may have promised to marry your fiancé, if you realize that you no longer love him or her, and that the two of you will not be happy together or are not right for each other, to go through with the marriage simply for the sake of keeping your promise would be highly immoral and unfair to the both of you. Kant defines "good will" as acting for the sake of duty alone--and though it may seem like your duty to marry your fiance, it is a more important duty to try and ensure the happiness of someone you care about. The sin of breaking your promise and the good will of trying to make your fiance happy are entirely seperate from each other--one does not negate the other.
To me, the whole concept of morality is extremely complicated--the best we can do is try to do good by listening to that little voice in our head (metaphorically of course--if there are actual voices in your head giving you orders you may want to see someone about that).
Katie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of the universal morality. In many situations, such as the ones you listed, there exist clear laws that can guide us to right and wrong. However, I believe in different situations right and wrong may not follow those laws that worked so well before. Sometimes, right and wrong may change or there may exist a moral gray area. I do not think personal belief systems justify certain immoral actions, but different circumstances may do so. I also do not think our morality comes wholly from the human conscience, but rather a mix of that and experience. Your example of the broken engagement is good and I think it sums up the argument well. A universal moral rule that holds up in most issues is broken in order to make the right decision. For me there is no universal morality. I too believe the best we can do is try and make the best moral judgements we can in the face of complicated moral issues.
I totally agree, but I find it strangely ironic that you analogize "Jiminy Cricket" sitting on your shoulder as your conscience. Maybe it is just me, but the reference to DUMBO here is bringing me back to the good old days of Disney. At the time I was completely lacking on any life experience and ironically when a priori knowledge had reign. Perhaps there is a subtle connection in your “Jiminy Cricket” to Kant’s a priori knowledge. So your argument could still remain within the Kantian argument for morality. Your “Jiminy Cricket” analogy strikes me as an emotional connection to a priori knowledge and the duty that derives from it. I think there is more room in Kant’s derivation of morality than most give credit.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKatie, I agree with you in that there is such a thing as moral grey areas, just not from a Kantian perspective. This work became famous because it provides "waterproof" logic to proving a moral argument. The Universal Law from the categorical imperative that you are referring to is simply a method of checking one's actions in order to see what the consequences might be, and from this method, every action can either be proven moral or immoral. For instance, we talked about breaking a promise. If one breaks a promise while acting in accordance with Universal Law, then nothing would ever get done because there would be no way to hold anyone accountable for their actions, which would mean that nobody can be trusted. Because of this consequence, breaking a promise is not moral according to universal law. Now, when one gets into the grey area, things do get more complicated. If one breaks an engagement, the act of breaking that promise is considered immoral according to Kant, however it was done for the reason of sparing someone unhappiness, which would be considered moral. It is possible to have immoral decision made for moral reasons, but according to Kant's Universal Law, the action is still considered immoral because of the bigger picture. If it were morally acceptable to break off an engagement, then it would be acceptable to break a promise, and we have already discussed the ramifications of that. The point I am trying to make is that the moral grey area is strictly opinionated, because when one refers back to the categorical imperative, any morally ambiguous situation can be categorized as moral or immoral.
ReplyDelete