It is a fascinating book and I highly recommend it to anyone interested on the development of the ideas of Justice and Morality in the Western World. Sandel is an extremely good communicator of ideas and philosophical concepts (very rare for a philosopher when most of his kind like to sound smarter than the rest of us by using unintelligible words and terminology). Here I share few extracts from the book about Kant's moral theory, that to a Christian ear is like music. Music that conforms to my fundamental believe that Gods desire for man is what makes man objectively fulfilled in all his potential.
According to Kant, the moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done. What matters is the motive, and the motive must be of a certain kind. What matters is doing the right thing because it's right, not for some ulterior motive.
"A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes," Kant writes. It is good in itself, whether or not it prevails. "Event if ... that will is entirely lacking in power to carry out its intentions; if by it utmost effort it still accomplishes nothing ... even then it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which as its full value in itself"
For any action to be morally good "it is not enough that it should conform to the moral law -- it must also be done for the sake of the moral law" And the motive that confers moral worth on an action is the motive of duty, by which Kant means doing the right thing for the right reason!
While I was reading the above I remembered the following from 1 Cor. 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God." (NIV). There is no room for utilitarianism in Christianity!
Another interesting point in the book is the dichotomy that Kant describes between the natural law, the law of necessity which can be biological or social and the law that we give to ourselves, the law of freedom which is above any deterministic relationships.
"A rational being ... has two points of view from which he can regard himself and from which he can know laws governing ... all his actions. He can consider himself first -- so far as he belongs to the sensible world-- to be under the law of nature (heteronomy); and secondly -- so far as he belongs to the intelligible word -- to be under the laws which, being independent of nature, are not empirical but have their ground in reason alone"
The idea that we can act freely, take moral responsibility for our actions, and hold other people morally responsible for their actions requires that we see ourselves from this perspective -- from the standpoint of an agent, not merely an object. If you really want to resist the notion, and claim that human freedom and moral responsibility are utter illusions, then Kant's account can't prove you wrong. But it would be difficult if not impossible to understand ourselves, to make sense of our lives, without some conception of freedom and morality. And any such conception, Kant thinks, commits us to the two standpoints -- the standpoints of the agent and of the object. And once you see the force of this picture, you will see why science can never prove or disprove the possibility of freedom!After reading those parts of the book, I started thinking about some popular scientists that write books and make videos in youtube trying to convince us that all our actions are governed by biochemical reactions. Or some popular theologians that defend the notion of divine determinism. Just the idea of such concepts removes any objective notion of morality or accountability for our actions (I total agree with Kant here). These ideas are so absurd and disturbing that when I first encountered them at a young age I cried for 3 nights till God rescued me.
No comments:
Post a Comment