Mortality - Philosophy
“Morality entails a system of
values and beliefs that we begin to learn at a very early age” (Shaw). Kantian ethics,
with its universal principles, implies that one should always show respect for
humanity in others and only act in a way that could hold for everyone; this is
something that Kant calls duty. Unlike Kant, "Cultural relativists (a.k.a.
ethical conventionalists) often tell us that we should not use our moral
standards to judge the beliefs or practices of other cultures. They see
absolutism as a kind of imposition of the absolutist’s moral beliefs on others
(Shaw). Cultural relativists wouldn’t want to judge people by the beliefs that
are held by others, even if they may be right.
Kantian
ethics and the presented moral dilemma, in which the protagonist is faced with
the decision to provide shelter and inform her father of her safety, offer a
unique perspective. This situation requires a thorough examination to fulfill
one's ethical duties. The focus is not on the consequences but how these
actions, if applied universally, would manifest a moral society. As Shaw
states, “Neither provides practical advice about specific situations, but
rather, through rational reflection, Kant aims to establish the supreme
principle of morality” (Shaw). In this dilemma, the protagonist would provide
shelter and inform her father of her safety, as both would be something that
could be applied to society, given that people who are in trouble need the
right to shelter and withholding information on the safety of someone’s
offspring would be a detriment if applied broadly. These duties would be upheld
without considering the potential outcomes. However, leaving out the bad grades
would also be a part of the moral dilemma. The protagonist must decide whether
it is ethical to withhold this information, considering the potential harm it
could cause. While lying would be something that would be a detriment overall,
withholding the information could be seen as restricting the father’s autonomy
to make a morally correct decision. “The goodwill unlike anything else is good
unconditionally. and what makes a goodwill “good” is will alone, not other
attitudes, consequences, or characteristics of the agent (Shaw). Kant wouldn’t
care about the recommendation from the psychology professor; that is not a part
of the moral decision. In addition to telling the father the truth about his
daughter's grades, the protagonist would then have an obligation to tell the
psychology department about the potential abuse of the father.
A
counterargument for the Kantian perspective would be that from a utilitarian
perspective, they view it as their duty but disregard the consequences. This
could be seen as avoiding the real choice. If people are unwilling to look at
the consequences of their moral choices and follow their duties dogmatically, then
it would be naïve to hope immoral people wouldn’t take advantage. You can
follow your duty of pacifism perfectly, but that’s not much relief to the
children of your society if they are slaughtered by people willing to take
advantage of your unflinching goodness. You can't universally allow people to
have autonomy while also stopping sociopaths from harming others.
From
a cultural relativist standpoint, one couldn’t judge how the father handles his
family. That would be his business, shaped by the context of his upbringing. “They
suggest instead that we accept other cultures' moral choices and rules as
normal for their society, as “right for them,” and not use our moral
perspectives to judge them” (Shaw). For the daughter to be sheltered, they
would have to call the father first and ask if the father accepted that. They
wouldn’t want to lie, so they would tell the father where she is. There would
be no reason not to tell the father she got bad grades because whatever action
he decided to take, given the information about his daughter’s grades, would
align with his cultural values. The protagonist wouldn’t claim to know the
whole story or the context of their relationship, so they couldn’t judge the
situation. If it is a part of the protagonist’s moral beliefs, including
getting ahead in doing favors for people who could then do favors for them,
they could get the reference to get into graduate school. “Cultural relativism
is the claim that one’s culture creates moral rules, and cultures differ in
their interpretation of moral rightness or wrongness” (Shaw).
A
counterargument for cultural relativism would be that what counts as a
“culture” is too subjective. You can say it's cultural, but when does a group
of people become a culture? Does it have to be a million people, a thousand or
even twenty? It doesn’t allow you to hold any group of people morally
responsible. It takes away people’s rights to things like freedom and gives
moral power to the majority, making people’s position in society a matter of
luck. Just because a group has historically held power and can influence culture
and what could be considered morally normal doesn’t make it right. That sounds
suspiciously like the naturalistic fallacy.
This type of dilemma is a hard one. One wants to do the right thing, but people's views on what is morally right can differ. Helping someone can look different to different people. Some could see it as helping if they tell the father what is genuinely going on, while others would keep her grades and where she is a secret. Cultural relativism doesn’t look at the bigger picture of what might happen, and Kantians consider it goodwill to disclose some of the information that could lead to harm. One must question what they would want someone to do for them in a situation like this and use their best moral judgment for how to follow.
©️The Rosebud Writings
Citations:
Shaw,
Daniel G., The Philosopher’s Quest, Pressbooks. CC BY-NC 4.0 https://pressbooks.ccconline.org/introtophilosophy/.
Accessed 29 April. 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment