I've always been one that I would consider of extreme moral character. And my view, you always knew what was right because it required the sGood = Bad
I've always been one that I would consider of extreme moral character. And my view, you always knew what was right because it required the sacrifice. Odd how this book was refered to me because the referer thought it would only bolster my resolve. Quite to the contrary, it destroyed my view on moral judgment with a simple stroke.
I grant that, as Kant depicted, without choice and freedom of will the concepts of good/bad and right/wrong are meaningless. But if you take that one simple portion of the equation you find that free will means that the concepts of good/bad and right/wrong have no meaning.
Think of it this way (and yes I am super simplifying it)... 1) The right thing as Kant puts it is something that one ought to do. You know if you ought to do something because a purely rational being would do it. 2) Doing the right thing is what we should all strive for. We should all strive and be that purely rational being. 3) So in the utopic society - or rather if we all got our (presupposed) wish to be that purely rational being, then we would be doing the right thing to the exclusion of all the bad things. That is to say there would be no bad actions. 4) The complete lack of all bad actions makes the ability to choose between right and wrong meaningless, because de facto you always do or are inconsequentially choose to do the right thing. 5) If it is the importance of the choice to determine right and wrong then without choice their is no right. 6) Since doing the right thing has value over doing the wrong thing, then the lack of having the meaningfulness of right devalues those social values. The devaluation of what is right makes doing the "right" thing wrong. 7) (6) works in reverse so that doing the wrong thing gives meaning to choice and therefore adds value to "right". Thus doing what is wrong is right. 8) Since doing what is absolutely wrong is absolutely right (and vice versa) is a paradox on its face, there really is no actual right or wrong. 9) One could say that on the ends of the scale, right and wrong lose their meaning because of this but that they stay intact somewhere in the middle. But the point that Kant was making was that there were absolute "maxims". Those maxims give us guidance to strive for and push towards, but in the end the achievment of those absolute rights is wrong so striving for them too diligently is wrong. If striving to do the right thing is wrong and vice versa, then there is no point to it (in the context of ethical debate that is).
Someone directed to read his stuff because it sounded so much like what I tended to believe but following his own logic, I had to reflect on my own judgments....more