Thursday, October 8, 2015
Questions Brought Up During Symposium
I brought up two different questions for each of the philosophers this week during symposium. My first question was directed towards John Stuart Mill and I asked, “Since he believed in utilitarianism and how moral worth derives from consequences and decisions should be made for the greater good, would police committing violence against innocent people due to the thought of protecting the greater good of the people be a good moral decision?” Most said no, because police brutality is hurting more people and isn’t doing any good for the community. I also agree coming from that perspective because police brutality is wrong and is hurting the community. My second questions was for Immanuel Kant who believed in the fact that no matter the consequence, if your intention was to perform a goodwill then it is good in regardless. my question was, “If Islamic Extremist believe that killing others who do not believe in what they believe in because it will be better for their religion, is the will a goodwill?” Most also said no with question, because if religions were killing everybody who didn’t believe in what they believe in then there would be no more people in the world. You also wouldn’t be able to will that as a universal law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With the police brutality, you mentioned that they were innocent people. If they were innocent people, then they are not a threat to the overall community as the police claim them to be. Therefore, I agree with you when you say that this is not a good moral decision. I think when police try to say that they did their actions because they were trying to help the community is a way for them to not accept what they actually did, which was killing innocent people. I think this way they are able to justify their wrong within themselves by making it seem like what they did was a good action. For your second question, I do not believe that if someone is killing on behave of their religion, there would not be any more people in the world. If anything, there would only be people of their religion in the world. I would not say this is right because like you said you cannot maxim this action as a universal law. But, I also believe that not in the case of killing others, but in some other sense one can argue that their "duty" is closely related to their religion. There are many people that live by their religion as a strict code of what to do and what not to do. So I feel that this could potentially be a matter of conflict of duty.
ReplyDeleteI believe that any kind of extremist religious group that chooses to kill anyone for the sake of their religion does not have a good will. Even though most people associate religion as being a rather healthy element in humanity, it can be a dangerous weapon in the case of extremism. Even though people do something horrible in the name of something normally thought as good, it does not make the will a good will. People with rationality and reason cannot logically justify their murder for the sole sake of their religion. They may be desiring to do good in their religion, but that would be an illogical good will which is not a real good will at all.
ReplyDeleteA lot of extremists acts are discounted by the "any rational person acting rationally" clause. If someone is on the extreme end of any spectrum, their opinion is on the subject is skewed by emotions, which I believe would make them irrational. In many instances of extremist religious movements, their emotions are what decide what they actually believe.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour Kant question hits at the center of a long confusing question of motives. The problem with saying 'oh he meant it in a good way' is too often used as an excuse to justify someone's wrong doing. However in certain circumstances it is entirely the case that the individual was trying to do what they thought we morally right. In the end it comes down to how we determine morals and whether or not those morals are relative based on class, religion, or anything else.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to ask your first question of Kant instead of of Mill, to see what the justification of / reasoning behind the answer would be in that case.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, according to Kant, the consequences would not determine the morality of the action; only the will behind it would. And yet, of course, the will is not necessarily good, if it cannot be willed as a universal law. So, it seems that we would need to look closely at the wills of each officer, to see whether they could actually qualify as "good," before stating whether the officers' actions can be considered morally good or not.