Hi, I am Christian Dave L. Osorio. I am going to discuss the first three sections of the ninth chapter of James and Stuart Rachel's The Elements of Moral Philosophy. The ninth chapter of James and Stuart Rachel's The Elements of Moral Philosophy tackles the question, are there absolute moral rules? Phrased another way, are there rules that everyone must follow in order to be moral?
Absolute moral rules are universal rules that apply in all circumstances. They define what is good and evil, and guide people in what they ought to do. In this chapter, our goal is to shed light on the subject of absolute moral rules. To start, let us talk about the story of the 33rd President of the United States, Harry S. Truman. It was in the same year of 1945 that he became President and authorize the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The devastating effects of the atomic bombings led Japan to finally surrender in World War II. The decision to authorize the bombings, however, was not easy for Harry S. Truman. He was hesitant to use atomic bombs because they would kill women, children, the elderly, and other non-combatants and destroy hospitals, schools, and homes alongside military targets.
Using the atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities was based on the hope that the war would end fast, with the possibility of preventing more people to die and making an invasion unnecessary. While it was likely during the time, and indeed have happened, many innocent lives were taken. There was one distinguished philosopher who was against Harry Truman's decision.
Her name was Elizabeth Anscombe, an Oxford University student at the start of World War II, who co-wrote a pamphlet arguing that Britain should not go to war because countries at war inevitably end up fighting by unjust means. She also wrote a pamphlet explaining why using artificial birth control is immoral after Pope Paul VI affirmed the church ban on contraception in 1968. She accepted the church teaching on the ethical conduct of war. which put her in conflict with Truman. Ann Scombe authored another pamphlet, this time claiming that Truman was a murderer for ordering the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In Truman's defense, the bombings were justified because the war was cut short and lives were saved. However, Ann Scombe was not convinced by Truman's reasoning. For men to choose to kill the innocent as a means to their ends is always murder, she wrote.
Anscombe believed that people should not intentionally take innocent lives under any circumstances. If you were in Harry Truman's position, would you rather kill thousands of innocent lives to end the war and save a lot more lives, or let the war run its course despite the risk of losing thousands or millions of lives? Which course of action do you believe has a higher moral value? Do you believe that humans should always act in accordance with moral rules, regardless of their situation? There was one major philosopher who believed that moral rules are absolute.
His name was Immanuel Kant. One of his arguments was that people, under any circumstances, should not lie. Immanuel Kant observed that the word ought is frequently used in an unethical manner. Many of our actions are guided by oughts. We have certain desires and we recognize that taking a specific course of action will help us achieve our desires.
So, we follow the steps toward it. Kant referred to these as hypothetical imperatives because they tell us what to do if we have the relevant desires. Because the binding force of the odds is contingent on having the relevant desire, we can free ourselves from it by letting go of the desire.
Moral obligations, by contrast, do not depend on having particular desires. Moral requirements are categorical. They have the form, you ought to do such and such, period.
The moral rule is not, for example, that you should help people if you care about them or want to be a good person. Rather, the rule is that no matter what your desires are, you should help others. According to Kant, categorical oughts are possible, or in other words, we are obligated to behave in a certain way regardless of our goals because humans have reason.
Kant suggests that categorical oughts are derived from a principle that every rational person must accept the categorical imperative. This principle can be used to determine whether or not an action is morally permissible. When you're considering of doing something, consider what rule you'd follow if you actually did it. Would you allow everyone to follow your rule at all times? If this is the case, your moral rule is valid and your behavior is acceptable.
Otherwise, it should be forbidden. Kant uses the example of lending money as a great example. Assume a man is in need of money, but no one will lend it to him unless he promises to repay it, which he knows he will not be able to do.
Is it acceptable for him to make a false promise in order to obtain the loan? If he did, his rule would be to promise to repay a loan even if he know you won't be able to. Could he now wish for this rule to become a universal law?
The answer is no, as that would be self-defeating. No one would believe such promises if this rule became universal, and no one would make loans based on them. Kant believed that our behavior should be guided by universal laws, which are moral rules that apply in all situations.
One of his exceptionless rules is the rule against lying. He stated that lying under any situation is the obliteration of one's dignity as a human being. Kant presented two arguments in support of his absolute or exceptionless rule against lying. His main argument is based on the categorical imperative which we discussed earlier.
Kant argued that we could not will a universal law that allows us to lie because it would be self-defeating. If lying becomes the norm, people will stop believing each other. And Skumb was quick to point out a flaw in Kant's logic.
even when she agreed with his conclusion. The flaw is that not all forms of lying are self-defeating, so lying can also become universal. One example of this is lying to save someone's life or to keep someone out of serious trouble.
The second argument is we can never be certain about the consequences of lying, whether they will be positive or negative. The best rule, therefore, is to avoid lying and allow the consequences to take place. Even if the consequences are negative, we will not be held responsible because we told the truth. Kant's argument appears to imply that if a murderer approaches you and asks where his victim is, you should always tell the truth and let the consequences play out.
In this way, you avoid obliterating your dignity as a human being. Furthermore, Kant seems to assume that we are morally responsible for any negative consequences of lying. but not for any negative consequences of telling the truth. Critics of the arguments of Kant are not persuaded.
Therefore, he failed to prove it is always wrong to lie. While Kant believes that lying obliterates one's dignity as a human being, common sense suggests that some lies are harmless. We even have a term for them.
White lies. The flaws in Kant's arguments present the main problem with believing in absolute rules. Shouldn't a rule be broken when following it would be disastrous? Now let's move on to our next chapter. I am Joseph Janus Langkalagan and we will now be looking into section 4, Conflicts Between Rules.
Now the underlying question that comes about this topic is, would you break the rule? to do what you think is right. And by rule, I don't mean the literal or general meaning of rules, but rather the moral laws.
So here's a quick scenario. Suppose you're a single parent, and in this time of the pandemic, we all know how children below 15 years old are not allowed to travel. Let's say there's no one who could babysit your child due to the tight restrictions.
Would you leave your child at home with no one to watch? or would you bring and hide him? So how can we show or say that moral rules can't be absolute?
To put it simply, let's say that event X is undeniably wrong and is wrong to do so. Moreover, doing Y is also wrong. In an event wherein you have to decide between X and Y, what should you choose?
Peter Gitch An English philosopher and a professor of logic at the University of Leeds in England actually denied the occurrence of such conflict from even happening, appealing to God's providence. He said, God will not permit such circumstances to arise, and that if God is rational, He does not command the impossible. However, in World War II, Dutch fishermen smuggled Jewish refugees in their boats on their way to England, which would then be stopped by the Nazis patrolling the area. The Nazis would ask where they are heading, who is on board, and so on.
The fishermen would either lie or get everyone in the boat killed. They couldn't remain silent nor lose or outrun the Nazis. Gitsch appeared naive when given such an event that actually happened. The fishermen had to choose one rule over another, either subduing to the fact that lying is wrong or that facilitating in the murder of innocent people is wrong. Therefore, a moral view that absolutely prohibits both is incoherent.
This type of argument, however, is limited. It can only be levied against pairs of absolute moral rules. Two rules are needed to create the conflict.
That's why we can't have a third or an alternative rule. Which brings us to the one rule that we all believe in. Do what is right.
However, this rule is so formal that it is of less importance. And finally, we have the last section of our topic which is Kant's insights. Now let's remember that Kant viewed the categorical imperative as binding on rational agents, mainly because they are irrational. Why am I saying this? Simply, if a person does so happen to reject this principle, it won't only deem her guilty of being immoral, but irrational as well.
If you do or not do something, then you must have a reason why or why not, instead of saying that you just did it because you wanted to do it or just for sport, because then it would make you irrational and even immoral. Furthermore, if you accept any considerations as reasons in one case, then you must accept them as reasons in other cases as well. Because then again, the moral law is universal and reasons for one case should not only be applicable for that particular case but to all cases instead.
And if the conflict ever happens again, the reasons or rules upheld should be the same. as before. A person cannot proclaim him or herself as special in a moral point of view. I cannot simply take your food without asking and expect you to be okay with it while being mad at you if you take mine.
As mentioned before, when we violate a rule or do something, there is an underlying reason for such and to add, everyone else would be willing to accept. So going back to the Dutch fisherman dilemma, we could all agree and accept that the fishermen would just lie instead of allowing the murder of the Jewish refugees. With that, it is safe to say that moral reasons are binding on all people at all times, and there is no denying to that. A reason to be picked by one is a reason to be picked by all. Now in the case of President Truman, he actually had a better other options, which are that he could have dropped the bomb in an unpopulated area just to show the Japanese the power they have and inflict fear, thus making an opening for negotiations while minimizing the casualties.
The other option would be that the war could have just halted sooner and that the Allies could have just declared victory at that time. point rather than prolonging the war or waiting for the Japanese surrender. Now that's all for our report.
Thank you for watching.