Kant is a formalist. Formalists believe that the rightness of an action is given by the action's form.
What's the form? A moral naturalist would say: the moral "fact" (recall moral facts are given by moral norms accepted by social-moral-selection). Kant doesn't need this. His categorical imperative works from the presumption that we're all inside the Sapiens Club. We all have REASON.
The problem is that Kant never allows for exceptions to the rule. "Breaking a promise" is wrong. Always wrong. This is a problem for a comprehensive moral theory such as Formalism.
A theory must offer viable solutions in the world, and the world is a jungle.
What if I promise A something, but now, if I keep my promise to A, then B's life is in danger? Should I keep the promise? Kant doesn't say. But W.D. Ross, a 20th Century formalist, did. His theory is known as Pluralistic Formalism.
an action is right if it falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation.
In our previous example, the promise to A is a prima facie duty (a duty at first sight). I must perform this duty unless... well, unless keeping my promise to A endangers the life of B. This second duty (breaking the promise to A) though wrong in NORMAL circumstances, now becomes ACTUALLY right (Ross calls it ACTUAL duty. The duty doesn't say "break your promise." It says, rather, "DON'T ENDANGER THE LIFE OF A PERSON."
Ross recommends a criteria of duties that I have revised:
1. justice (being fair to people)
2. fidelity (keeping one's word, contracts, written & oral),
3. reparation (compensation in kind to others for one's breaking duties in 2.),
4. benevolence (doing good to people),
5. gratitude (making up, compensating what people have done for us),
6. non-maleficence (avoiding wishing or doing evil to people: think of treating people merely as a means to an end),
7. self-improvement (taking care of oneself).
No comments:
Post a Comment