Philosophy
Whenever I teach ethics, one point in Kant's discussion that always gives rise to an interesting conversation is his claim that for an act to be of moral worth, it cannot serve any positive purpose for the person who does it. Even if it just makes you feel good, that's enough to to say that the act is selfish and not of moral worth.
But we could more charitably interpret the point (and, of course, there is reason in the text to do so) such that if there is possible gain, we may be glad the person does it and we may encourage them to do it, but it is only when there is sacrifice that we truly know the person deserves praise for doing something morally good.
So, this brings up a question I was asked by a student yesterday. Suppose we think not of acts that bring some benefit to the person who does them, but also acts that require no sacrifice. For example, my long distance service, Working Assets, donates a portion of their proceeds to good causes. I make no more long distance phone calls than I would have, I do nothing I wasn't going to do anyway. But I am in some way benefiting the world. It is a desirable act, it is an act worth encouraging, but is it a good act?
Similarly with recycling. We still consume the same amount. We still throw it into a can. We just throw it into the blue can on the left. We've done nothing different, yet we made a small difference. Is that act, therefore, deserving of moral praise? Do you have to do some thing to have done something morally good?
- Tax Ethics
If someone donates all of the proceeds from some work, say an author donates his royalties from a book or a chef donates a meal, to a worthy cause, we think it is surely a good act. Suppose the person then claims the donation on their taxes. does that...
- Supererogation
Driving home from dropping my in-laws at the airport this morning at 4:00, I was thinking about supererogation, that is, acts that are good, but not necessary, actions that are morally above and beyond the call of duty. TheWife and I recently had a discussion...
- When Is Good Enough, Good Enough?
The deep questions are often not the technical, complex ones, but the simple ones that challenge the technical complex answers that arose from earlier "simple" questions. In grad school, I was very lucky to study ethics with Susan Wolf, a philosopher...
- Judging Actions, Judging People
One of the barriers to robust moral discourse in our society is a reluctance on the part of smart, thoughtful, caring people to make clear judgments about the actions of others, even when the actions are clearly wrong. One of the major sources of this...
- An Explanation Of Kant's Moral Argument
Kant?s moral argument focuses on the notion that God must exist to provide structure to the moral universe. Technically he did not believe that is was possible to prove the existence of God through rational or empirical means. It is important to outline...
Philosophy
Do You Have To Do Something To Do Something Good?
Whenever I teach ethics, one point in Kant's discussion that always gives rise to an interesting conversation is his claim that for an act to be of moral worth, it cannot serve any positive purpose for the person who does it. Even if it just makes you feel good, that's enough to to say that the act is selfish and not of moral worth.
"Suppose then the mind of this friend of mankind to be clouded over with his own sorrow so that all sympathy with the lot of others is extinguished, and suppose him still to have the power to benefit others in distress, even though he is not touched by their trouble because he is sufficiently absorbed with his own; and now suppose that, even though no inclination moves him,any longer, he nevertheless tears himself from this deadly insensibility and performs the action without any inclination at all, but solely from duty -- then for the first time his action has genuine moral worth."Moral worth, to Kant, requires your being pathologically unable to experience empathy and yet have an anal retentive attachment to duty. O.k., sure, a bit over the top.
But we could more charitably interpret the point (and, of course, there is reason in the text to do so) such that if there is possible gain, we may be glad the person does it and we may encourage them to do it, but it is only when there is sacrifice that we truly know the person deserves praise for doing something morally good.
So, this brings up a question I was asked by a student yesterday. Suppose we think not of acts that bring some benefit to the person who does them, but also acts that require no sacrifice. For example, my long distance service, Working Assets, donates a portion of their proceeds to good causes. I make no more long distance phone calls than I would have, I do nothing I wasn't going to do anyway. But I am in some way benefiting the world. It is a desirable act, it is an act worth encouraging, but is it a good act?
Similarly with recycling. We still consume the same amount. We still throw it into a can. We just throw it into the blue can on the left. We've done nothing different, yet we made a small difference. Is that act, therefore, deserving of moral praise? Do you have to do some thing to have done something morally good?
- Tax Ethics
If someone donates all of the proceeds from some work, say an author donates his royalties from a book or a chef donates a meal, to a worthy cause, we think it is surely a good act. Suppose the person then claims the donation on their taxes. does that...
- Supererogation
Driving home from dropping my in-laws at the airport this morning at 4:00, I was thinking about supererogation, that is, acts that are good, but not necessary, actions that are morally above and beyond the call of duty. TheWife and I recently had a discussion...
- When Is Good Enough, Good Enough?
The deep questions are often not the technical, complex ones, but the simple ones that challenge the technical complex answers that arose from earlier "simple" questions. In grad school, I was very lucky to study ethics with Susan Wolf, a philosopher...
- Judging Actions, Judging People
One of the barriers to robust moral discourse in our society is a reluctance on the part of smart, thoughtful, caring people to make clear judgments about the actions of others, even when the actions are clearly wrong. One of the major sources of this...
- An Explanation Of Kant's Moral Argument
Kant?s moral argument focuses on the notion that God must exist to provide structure to the moral universe. Technically he did not believe that is was possible to prove the existence of God through rational or empirical means. It is important to outline...