Deontology Project

[Guevaristas]

These philosophers separate law from morality, and argue that the rights of all people are only those that the world community has agreed to in their international deliberative assemblies, organizations, and by their treaties.

Never Again: Ending War, Democide, & Famine Through Democratic Freedom by Rudolph J. Rummel

[carlsonap16]

if you knew the person was a killer, you would be morally obligated to kill him in defense of A.

[Guevaristas]

so you can never lie?

Imagine a hotel. A is in one of the rooms. The killer (B) enters the hotel with intention to kill A. Should C lie to B and tell B the wrong room to enter - in order to save the life of A, or not?

[TheBerkeleyBear]

@Guevaristas To be moral, you cannot lie to B. You are your own moral agent and C is his own moral agent. You are only responsible for the actions YOU take.

[Guevaristas]

@TheBerkeleyBear

ok, so i take no action and B then kills A. So the consequences are irrelevant as far as my own moral position is concerned?

But it's interesting to note criminal offences that do indded impose duties on people, if they then fail to act, they are held liable. The classic being duty to provide the necessaries of life

[TheBerkeleyBear]

@Guevaristas What is is not necessarily what it ought to be. Just because this law exists does not mean its necessarily moral.

[Guevaristas]

@TheBerkeleyBear true, that sounds like positivism. Laws are laws and their moral content is irrelavant, true or fiction?

[TheBerkeleyBear]

@Guevaristas your question is a tad unclear. Do you think I believe laws should not be based on moral content? That's fiction. Do you think I believe what is isn't always what should be? That's truth.

[Guevaristas]

@TheBerkeleyBear

Put it another way: if all people were to follow Kant's CI to the letter, this would result in all laws being "moral", do you think kant would agree with this?

[TheBerkeleyBear]

@Guevaristas Kant would not necessarily think these laws were moral. He would have to see the motive behind these laws. If the congressmen passed the law because it was their duty and not because they wanted to be voted back in office, then Kant would agree these laws were moral.

[Guevaristas]

@TheBerkeleyBear hmm someone acts in thier own self interest, eg. for pencuniary reward, can they still, according to Kant, have a "good" or "moral" motive?

[TheBerkeleyBear]

@Guevaristas Kant believes motivation from self-interest can be justififed as long as someone's motivation derives mostly from duty.

[Guevaristas]

@TheBerkeleyBear hmm this is where it's becomes cloudy. If i act in my self-interest then this can be "justified" if it "derives mostly from duty". But where does this duty itself derive from?

[TheBerkeleyBear]

@Guevaristas It is the duty to be moral. This duty comes from being a rational and autonomous creature.

[Guevaristas]

@TheBerkeleyBear are humans born to be rational and autonomous, or is this acquired?