As we finish up the first half of the semester, it’s time for some reflection. We’ve covered six different ethical theories in roughly as many weeks, and I think we’ve all developed some inclination either for or against some of the theories we’ve discussed. I’ve always identified as a Kantian – I really like the Categorical Imperative, alright? But there’s a reason why I didn’t chose a certain essay question on our midterm…because I still don’t really know if one theory is clearly better than the others. After discussing their merits and demerits, I’m slightly torn about how to view morality, or rather, if the focus should be on the motive, action, or consequences.
I’ve always tended to think the focus of morality should be on the motivation/intention behind an action, which is inextricably tied to the morality of the agent. A morally good person will produce morally good actions, and in the cases in which an action results in unintended bad consequences, this doesn’t necessarily compromise the morality of the agent. But it’s not as simple as “it’s the thought that counts.” Isn’t it more important to cultivate moral agents, rather than moral actions? It seems to me that justice is intrinsically good when it rests within the character or will of the individual, and is relegated to a sort of instrumental good when morality is derived from consequences. Although I don’t necessarily agree with Aristotle’s tripartite soul and state, I think it’s important to examine how a person’s character and morality as an actor affect the actions his or she will commit. However, I also acknowledge and understand the problems with this viewpoint. By only focusing on the agent and his or her will, we form a theory that places no importance on consequences. In reality, however, consequences are what we have to actually deal with in everyday life, not intentions. This is where my uncertainty comes into play. I don’t feel comfortable removing all importance from consequences, but I wholeheartedly agree with Kant that we can’t really know the consequences of any action for certain. We can make inferences, and can expect that certain actions will have a corresponding consequence (the sun sets every night, but will rise again in the morning). But is this where morality lies? I don’t think so. I agree that consequences are what our laws and societies are constructed around, and what actually influence our lives in everyday interactions.
I don’t want to take the easy way out and say “why can’t you have both?” But as strongly as I believe the character of a moral agent will produce moral actions, I can’t ignore the necessity of morally evaluating consequences in “real life.” Has anyone else had a similar conflict, or am I maybe over thinking this?
I've definitely had (and still have) similar conflicts about motive, action, and consequences. I'm actually inclined to agree with you and Kant about the importance of motive. It doesn't seem correct to say that someone who accidently does an action with bad consequences has done something morally bad. However, it seems to me that Kant does not acknowledge that we should consider consequences when forming moral principles. When applying the categorical imperative, one considers consequences when he decides whether or not he should will his maxim as a moral law.
ReplyDeleteSo, to recap my position, motive is important for determining the morality of an action and a person. However, consequences are the key for determining whether or not certain categories of actions are moral or immoral. Furthermore, the Utilitarian calculus seems like the most objective way of resolving moral dilemmas. As for Kant's sense of duty, I don't see how it fits in.
Does my position make sense? Maybe it's completely inconsistent. I'm still thinking about it...
I understand where both of you are coming from; I too have had a very similar conflict. Right away I agreed with Kant and considered myself a Kantian. One’s motivation for their action should be carefully considered (through Kant’s Categorical Imperative). If the outcome shows that their action will be considered immoral than the act shall not be committed. Seems to make perfect sense. However, from a Utilitarian view the consequence of an action is what should be examined and carefully considered. And considering how the world works, in that consequences overpower intentions, I would have to say that I agree more with Mill than with Kant. However there are exceptions to every moral theory. Specifically with Mill, how can you choose the majority to benefit if you are directly affected and in the minority group? So clearly I too am still debating…
ReplyDelete