Immanuel Kant puts an emphasis on treating human beings as “end in themselves” never as a means. In other words, he stresses the importance of respect. His principles protect individuals against abuses and being exploited, in that they should never get lied to, cheated on, or stolen from. For these reasons, when I first read about Kant, I considered myself a Kantian.
However, after our class discussions I have reconsidered Kant’s principles. Although yes, it is immoral to lie, cheat, and steal there are certain times and circumstances in which these acts can be justified. The example of hiding Anne Frank is a prime example of a time where lying is considered acceptable.
This example got me to thinking about other situations. So here is my scenario: Say there is a family who lives in poverty, the father of the family works at a minimum wage job and the mother takes care of the children because she is unable to work. They live off of food stamps and get by with the bare minimum. Recently though, one of their children has become sick, so sick to where it has become a matter between life and death. Their options now are to either let their child die or steal the medicine needed to help the child. What should they do?
Kant would say that they should let the child die, for it is immoral to steal. To act morally is to perform one’s duty, and one’s duty is to obey innate moral laws. However, he also says that moral duty is revealed though reason, in that if you violate it you will know you have because you will experience a guilty conscience. So would his argument for letting the child die be that you would feel guilty for stealing the medication that will save their life because it is immoral to steal?
I understand that stealing is immoral but in this situation I would have to say that it is necessary. Do you agree? Is it really more important to not have a guilty conscience about stealing medication rather than saving your child’s life? Or do you agree with what Kant believes; that the mother and father should act morally and perform their duty in which they cannot steal?
Although I clearly am favoring my opinion over Kant’s, maybe there is something I missed. Maybe Kant’s principles about duty should apply here. Tell me what you think.
Allycia, that is a tough scenario! I think if you were trying to follow Kantian principles, you would be in conflict with the first two formulations of Kant's categorical imperative- like we were for the Anne Frank example. If the parents did steal then they would be violating the first formulation as they would have to will the maxim of stealing as a universal law. However, if they do not steal, then the parents are taking away their child's autonomy for life. So, the parents would then be violating the second formulation of the categorical imperative. It is a difficult decision that is a lose - lose scenario either way.
ReplyDeleteRegarding guilt, I think that the parents would feel more guilty for not stealing than to steal because it is their child's life on the line. However, by considering guilt as a factor in their decision, the parents would probably move them away from the first or second formulation as well. So, they are still left with a pretty complex dilemma.
I have had the same dilemma! I used to think I was a Kantian. As much as I wish I could say that I am a Kantian, I simply am not. The way I act can only be judged as utilitarianism and the debate in class showed how I could not be considered a follower of deontology. Anyway, on to your scenario, I think Manali described a Kantian response very accurately. This situation is a very difficult situation to account for. Either way the family is violating some form of the Kantian Categorical Imperative. To steal or not to steal (and thus violate the children's autonomy) is a difficult assessment and Kant would not agree to either.
ReplyDeleteIf you remember, the end result of the situation presented with Anne Frank was that Kant WOULD lie, but that it would be declared immoral. Therefore, using similar logic, this family WOULD be able to steal the medicine to save the child.
ReplyDeleteThe main point Kant seems to make is that no matter the situation an immoral act is still immoral. Some philosophers declare that situational circumstances would allow an immoral act to be done on the grounds that the act is deemed temporarily moral.
For instance:
Utilitarian philosophy would state that the family could steal the medicine and not feel guilty doing so. This is because the events leading up to this moment created a situation where it was moral to steal [save a life]. This is the logic used in terrorist situations or in cases where a POW had to choose the assassination of a person.
Kant, however, believes that there is no situation where such an event is moral. The family could therefore steal the medicine, and certainly very few people would hold them at fault for it. However - to do so remains an immoral act.
Victoria,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to comment on what you've said. I agree with your characterization of Kant, although I'm a little unclear on your treatment of Mill. I'm not sure what you mean by a prisoner of war having to choose the assassination of a person, but I do think that your characterization of Mill is a bit off the mark.
For instance, Mill would not say that stealing medicine to save your child's life is always moral. For Mill, no action (considered without its consequences ) is ever always moral or immoral. That's a primary difference between Mill and Kant: Kant is willing to declare many actions inherently immoral, whereas Mill recognizes that morality must always consider contexts.
So, Mill WOULD say that stealing the medicine is moral IF doing so led to more aggregate happiness in the world than not doing so. However, if stealing the medicine would result in a decrease in aggregate happiness, then it WOULD NOT be moral.
Allycia,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, this is a very thought-provoking post. This is a pretty complex dilemma to be faced with. From our discussion in class, it is obvious that Kant’s ethical theory is fixed and leaves no room for situational circumstances. What I mean is that, despite the condition faced by this family or the potentially positive outcome (saving the child’s life), Kant would still consider the act of stealing an immoral one. We would all agree that stealing is immoral. However, I definitely understand your point that this situation necessitates the act of stealing, since it serves a greater good: saving the child’s life.
I believe that this dilemma will require the use of "phronesis" (practical wisdom). It is in situational dilemmas such as this one that one has the opportunity to refine their philosophical perspective about different issues. Although, this is a hypothetical scenario, let’s not forget that in a real-world setting there are always some exceptions to the rules and norms of society: Stealing may therefore be acceptable in this situation, even though it’s immoral.