Sárospataki Füzetek 2. (1998)
1998 / 1. szám - Dr. Frank Sawyer: Is there a place for God int he inn of Philosophy?
Dr. CranT Sawyer has already been done when Kant allows true knowledge to come only from the Vernunft. Other kinds of knowledge for Kant are only regulative (useful but not provable) principles, such as ideas about morality or God. What can these add when the Vernunft has already been chosen as the origin and judge of all certainty, and the only true data already defined as sensory (empirical)? As a result, western thought moved to the dualistic position where our understanding of ’empirical reality’ is said to be true, whereas our understandings of other things (moral, social, aesthetic, philosophical, religious matters) are said to be ’value judgments’, or ’constructions of thought’, not measurable as true. KANT’S ETHICS OF DUTY Kant’s ethics are a classic example of the deontological viewpoint (deon means duty or obligation). In such duty-oriented ethics the effect is not looked at, but rather what counts is the inner obligation. When ethics looks at means and ends, it is called utilitarian or consequentialist. Kant said that to think about results is to think about usefulness, not about morality. Morality is based on duty, not on self-interest, Kant says. Indeed, pure reason can tell us how we should act. Kant says: ask not about the result of an action, ask about the right principle and the pure motive. What counts is respect for the (universal) moral law, which is a ’categorical imperative’. Nothing is good unless it is done by a good will. When we talk about doing something because of results, Kant calls this a ’hypothetical imperative’, which is based on usefulness (utility), not on morality. For example, it may be useful to give money for the poor; but if someone does that out of fear or pride, it is not a moral act. It is a utilitarian calculation. Kant is especially remembered for two ethical principles. First, "I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim [ethical decision] become a universal law." Secondly, "One must act to treat every person as an end and never as a means only." Kant’s duty oriented ethics have been criticized, especially from the viewpoint of not taking consequences into consideration. Kant argued that when we look at consequences we are thinking of convenience, not of morality. Kant might be able to defend his view by saying that he does not mean that consequences are unimportant; rather, what makes a decision moral does not depend on consequences. Put conversely: consequentialist views cannot account for the need of personal integrity when a moral decision is made. It seems to me that we do best to admit that both duty centered ethics 30
