The Rationality of a Rational Actor
In class we have talked about how the actions of a rational actor can be applied to all other rational actors if the action is morally good and complies with the maxim. For this to happen the person must be carrying out the actions for the sake of duty rather than self fulfillment. I think that the more interesting aspects of this philosophy come when it is applied to the ideas of abortion and pulling the plug on an individual in a vegetative state. Both of these dilemmas deal with the taking or potential taking of life depending on how someone might classify whether a fetus or a person in a vegetative state is alive. One of the most concrete maxims is that killing is immoral and this is true because the reverse of that would be that killing is moral and in that case we might all be dead. The caveat to this is that it only applies to other rational actors thus killing an animal would not be considered immoral. This means that if it can be proven that a person in a permanent vegetative state is not a rational actor then it would not be immoral to pull the plug. The way I think is the best way to arrive at the conclusion on whether a person is a rational actor is if they could preform a rational act. Thus a person in a vegetative states could not preform the maxim of not lying and this implies they are not a rational actor and a family pulling the plug on a loved one in a vegetative state would not be immoral. The same process can be used for a fetus because a fetus could not carry out a rational act it is not a rational actor. However there is a caveat I believe that is not based in Kantian philosophy which, unlike a person in a permanent vegetative a fetus has the potential to become a rational actor. I think that is the moral dilemma that would be hard to define and apply to all rational actors which is whether terminating a potential rational actor is the same a killing a rational actor. Although Kantianism is very water tight when it come to defining morality through maxims and applying those to all rational actors I do not believe that it can cover all moral dilemmas.
I think that the beauty in Kant’s argument is that most of the scenarios that would arise could be accurately described by the maxims and one’s duty. Kant would have had a difficult time anticipating the great strides we have made in the medical field especially when it comes to end of life care and pre-birth care. It was much simpler for him to answer these questions because in his time they would most often answer themselves. There was no such thing as a person in a long term vegetative state or pre-birth life versus death. Science has certainly made things argument for the water tight nature of his argument. I wonder if strides have been made in this field in an attempt to reconcile the problems that time has brought to the Kantian argument.
ReplyDelete