hi i am christian dave el osorio i am going to discuss the first three sections of the ninth chapter of james and stewart rachel's the elements of moral philosophy the ninth chapter of james and stuart ratios the elements of moral philosophy tackles the question are there absolute moral rules phrase 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 and 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 authorized 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 german antscombe 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 anscombe 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 as a higher moral value do you believe that humans should always act in accordance with moral rules regardless of the 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 emmanuel can't observe that the word art is frequently used in an unethical manner many of our actions are guided by odds 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 can't refer 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 odds 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 odds 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 cruel 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 tank 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 alone even if you 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 can't believe 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 khan 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 anscombe 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 flying 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 flying 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 khan's arguments present the main problem with believing in absolute rules shouldn't arul be broken when following it would be disastrous now let's move on to our next chapter i am joseph janistankalagan 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 is 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 gich 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 loose or outrun the nazis gich 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 rational why am i saying this because simply if a person does so happen to reject this principle it wouldn'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 support 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 we 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 fishermen 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 point rather than prolonging the war or waiting for the japanese surrender now that's all for our report thank you for watching