Moral, Imoral... Amoral
March 30th 2007 13:05
Hey all,
more on the study of our moral, metaphysical chimeras...hehe, a post to avoid misinterpretations
By the time Kant lived, there were 2 concurrent "morals" fighting their place in the world. In one's side, the anglo-saxon utilitarism. In the other, the german/french kantism (there are other names for it, but this is the one that helps me better materiallizing the idea in my head...).
Utilitarism could be defined as moral like this: A good action is the one that brings more good than evil to the world (this "world" considers anything that can suffer, including animals, etc.)
Kantism defines moral like this: A good action is the "uninterested" action. It is the things you do for others that doesn't help you in anything. This can only be done by beings that have "freedom" (in the Rousseau sense), which excludes animals.
Notice that in utilitarism, when you do good only for you and it doesn't create any evil for others, than this is a moral action. In kantism, this kind of action would not be considered neither moral nor imoral; as i like to say, it is an amoral action.
The argument that include animals in the utilitarism ethics is that, since they are beings that can suffer, they should be taken in account in this "good vs. evil math".
The argument that excludes the animals in kantism is that they don't have any freedom. Animals can't take decisions as humans, they are way more controlled by their instincts than us. Thus we can't apply a moral to their side. If we can't apply a moral to their side, they are excluded from our moral. To be simple, the argument is: even if we try to help animals and do them good things, we'll never see animals helping or doing any good for us. Animals don't have a "Africanpeace" to conuterpound our "Greenpeace"....
These 2 morals devided western though in a way that even these societies grew up different (even though you can see bits of both morals in both sides...not everybody in France read Kant, neither english people read Bentham..). In one side you have the anglo-saxon way, in the other the german/french one. Yeah, since the XVIII century these guys have their divergences..anyway, their leaders did not take these rules in account all the time...
Showing the bad part of each one:
Utilitarism leaves place for the "ends justify the means": if you kill 1000 to save 10000, it's ok. The important is the result.
Kantism can be considered vague: moral actions can never be atested by anyone that not the person that did it. It is hard to analise, and obviously unnatural. One could say "almost religious"...
So now you're asking yourself "and where the hell are you in all this?" hehe, before get to this, we have to say that since the begining of the XX century there was a guy that asked himself "what the hell are all these foolish ideas these people sell around?" Hehe, greetings from our german big moustache wako friend Friedrich Nietzsche.
So, the thing is: moral, as these people though in their days, are huge chimeras (sometimes) created out of good beginings. The Kant good begining is the universality, the categorical imperatives.
If you read my posts in ethics you might think that i'm more to the utilitarian side, but the problem with them is that they created some good rules out of a bad base. On the other side, the problem with Kant is that he, as Nietzsche shows, falled inside metaphysical illusions to develop his moral. hehe, metaphysical illusions he defined himself to avoid falling in the proofs of God...
Concluding: in ethics, there are only 2 rules that apply: -categorical imperatives, -life's value cannot be measured (Nietzsche's idea)
Apart of these 2, all "ethical actions" are chimeras. You should follow these rules not because they are ethical, but because they are a base in which life can "live". Not only "live", but "develop". And to develop in "grand style".
hehe, please let me know if you don't agree. Next time i'll be closing our "essays in collectivity", but i had to write some lines about kantism and utilitarism, before i get misinterpreted...
cheers. Uula
more on the study of our moral, metaphysical chimeras...hehe, a post to avoid misinterpretations
By the time Kant lived, there were 2 concurrent "morals" fighting their place in the world. In one's side, the anglo-saxon utilitarism. In the other, the german/french kantism (there are other names for it, but this is the one that helps me better materiallizing the idea in my head...).
Utilitarism could be defined as moral like this: A good action is the one that brings more good than evil to the world (this "world" considers anything that can suffer, including animals, etc.)
Kantism defines moral like this: A good action is the "uninterested" action. It is the things you do for others that doesn't help you in anything. This can only be done by beings that have "freedom" (in the Rousseau sense), which excludes animals.
Notice that in utilitarism, when you do good only for you and it doesn't create any evil for others, than this is a moral action. In kantism, this kind of action would not be considered neither moral nor imoral; as i like to say, it is an amoral action.
The argument that include animals in the utilitarism ethics is that, since they are beings that can suffer, they should be taken in account in this "good vs. evil math".
The argument that excludes the animals in kantism is that they don't have any freedom. Animals can't take decisions as humans, they are way more controlled by their instincts than us. Thus we can't apply a moral to their side. If we can't apply a moral to their side, they are excluded from our moral. To be simple, the argument is: even if we try to help animals and do them good things, we'll never see animals helping or doing any good for us. Animals don't have a "Africanpeace" to conuterpound our "Greenpeace"....
These 2 morals devided western though in a way that even these societies grew up different (even though you can see bits of both morals in both sides...not everybody in France read Kant, neither english people read Bentham..). In one side you have the anglo-saxon way, in the other the german/french one. Yeah, since the XVIII century these guys have their divergences..anyway, their leaders did not take these rules in account all the time...
Showing the bad part of each one:
Utilitarism leaves place for the "ends justify the means": if you kill 1000 to save 10000, it's ok. The important is the result.
Kantism can be considered vague: moral actions can never be atested by anyone that not the person that did it. It is hard to analise, and obviously unnatural. One could say "almost religious"...
So now you're asking yourself "and where the hell are you in all this?" hehe, before get to this, we have to say that since the begining of the XX century there was a guy that asked himself "what the hell are all these foolish ideas these people sell around?" Hehe, greetings from our german big moustache wako friend Friedrich Nietzsche.
So, the thing is: moral, as these people though in their days, are huge chimeras (sometimes) created out of good beginings. The Kant good begining is the universality, the categorical imperatives.
If you read my posts in ethics you might think that i'm more to the utilitarian side, but the problem with them is that they created some good rules out of a bad base. On the other side, the problem with Kant is that he, as Nietzsche shows, falled inside metaphysical illusions to develop his moral. hehe, metaphysical illusions he defined himself to avoid falling in the proofs of God...
Concluding: in ethics, there are only 2 rules that apply: -categorical imperatives, -life's value cannot be measured (Nietzsche's idea)
Apart of these 2, all "ethical actions" are chimeras. You should follow these rules not because they are ethical, but because they are a base in which life can "live". Not only "live", but "develop". And to develop in "grand style".
hehe, please let me know if you don't agree. Next time i'll be closing our "essays in collectivity", but i had to write some lines about kantism and utilitarism, before i get misinterpreted...
cheers. Uula
| 56 |
| Vote |
