Today in class we discussed the many complex ideals of Kant. However confusing this may be, something stood out from the lecture in my mind. Our Professor stated that "there are no laws to morals, just choices." This struck as something very strange. I am the type of person who feels that everything, whether it be morals or simply just ideas or thoughts, must have a set of rules or laws that they must abide by.
Therefore a question arises in my mind. If there are no laws to morals, then when it comes to choices, what is deemed right or wrong? I feel that the law would determine what is right and wrong, so if there is no law then possibly there is no right or wrong?
I feel as though the law and whatever force it seems you're looking for that deems choices right or wrong, are essentially the same thing or are at least governed by the same influence; societal opinion (by majority). The law really has no significance other than it's relation to the people which made the law up. If, for all intents and purposes we can agree on this then by no means is majority opinion necessarily right, morally speaking. Professor Silliman has often used the example of law making in Germany during WWII and the "laws" made against Jewish people. These laws are obviously morally repugnant, but nonetheless still technically laws. Moral law is something far more nuanced and intangible. Moral law is completely separate from those of society and subsequently do not rely or revolve around societal decision or influence. Rather, moral law depends on autonomy and the inner ability to determine what is right and wrong. Those choices are not determined by law they are determined by self. This is why no extrinsic law can possibly determine what choices are morally appropriate because only the habituation to choose correctly can result in moral correctness.
ReplyDeleteBrycen, I suspect you took my comment out of context. Certainly that view is not Kant's, though in some sense it is indeed Sartre's. Whether it is what I think myself, of course, is of no significance.
ReplyDeleteJoel, it's not entirely clear to me whether you are arguing for Kant or for Aristotle; they are in tension on this point.
I aimed (apparently drunkenly) to argue for the rational of Kant on this particular issue. It is my understanding that Kant necessarily bases his moral theory on one ability to run autonomously and effectively to the point of making calculated decisions concerning right and wrong. It was also my understanding that this self-governing was developed and enhanced via habituation. I'm I incorrect in thinking so? Unfortunately I fail to see how Aristotle is directly represented in my above post, nor do I see the tension you bring up.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to my recently posted comment,I was not actually drunk...
ReplyDelete