We’ve heard in class many times that “Rational people
thinking rationally” will agree that something is either true or false, logical
or illogical, but is that necessarily the case? One of the most fascinating
things about human beings in general is that we can all examine the same thing,
but all come away with different but equally valid impressions of what we
examined. An easy example of this is the United States Constitution. While the
document itself is the same, there are multitudes of different interpretations
of it, all by rational people thinking rationally. Is one more right or
correct, one that is a definite, completely factual interpretation?
In the case of Kantian
philosophy, it was argued today that lying in the Anne Frank situation would
still be immoral because it violated the first principle: that it would not be
a good maxim for everyone to follow as a rule. Though the action might be
justified, it would still create the problem of an unjust general rule, however
is this really the case? A rational person thinking rationally could conclude
that this condones lying to save someone’s life, which means lying is
acceptable at times when lives are at stake. If lying was acceptable at those
times, a rational person thinking rationally might ask the question “Would
society suffer if this maxim were a universal law?” A rational person could
conclude yes, because people would be unable to trust each other, and thus would
be unable to function in society. Thus this person would conclude it would be
immoral to lie. However a rational person could also conclude no, because
society already operates in a manner where people can and do lie, and that
human reason is capable of sifting through lies and making judgments, and that it
would thus simply require an adjustment to the societal formula. This person
then concludes that it is moral to lie in that case because the maxim could
serve as a universal law. Thus, a rational person could come to two completely
different conclusions, which are both valid as neither of them is a hard,
provable fact. From this it can be concluded that “A rational person thinking
rationally” is not a good criterion for determining the validity of an
argument. This can be considered to be proven because I, a rational person
thinking rationally, have found it to be proven. What do you all think? Have I
correctly represented the argument of rationality? Can you provide any
alternatives?
I think what's at issue with the Anne Frank case is that, by lying to the Nazis (and concluding that it was a moral action) would imply that lying is sometimes moral and it could/should be a universal law that "lying is sometimes moral." This is not the society in which we currently exist. We have a basic understanding that lying is wrong. People still do it, and sometimes it seems justified, but the universal law seems to me to be that lying itself is wrong. In a society in which we say that lying could be moral, we no longer base our understanding of lying on the idea that it is wrong. When lying is no longer wrong, truth loses some value, and any society existing under that maxim would be chaotic.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess what I'm saying is that a rational person thinking rationally could only conclude that a maxim of "lying is sometimes moral" would be damaging to society if it were a universal law. Like we discussed earlier, something cannot be logical and illogical, so I don't think we can accept that one rational person sees one truth, and another sees another.
I think we should go back to Professor Johnson’s point about a “conflict of obligations.” A rational person should always come to the conclusion that lying is immoral, but there are likely going to be cases in which lying to someone is the lesser of two societal obligations. This does have somewhat of a failing in that it doesn’t account for each individual’s priorities, but I think Kant’s system somewhat relies on a society-wide system of trust, anyway.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don’t think the fact that you’re certain that another person could overcome an injustice that you carry out justifies the initial injustice. Deception would be an impossibility if every person in every society was able to clearly see through lies that are presented to them.
In your senario, can either rational person deny the rationality of the other person's thought? I think both people will agree that the rational for both thoughts makes sense, and therefore is not false. They agree of the facts of the situation, but disagree on the opinions of the situation. The first person and second person disagree on the weight of the factors, of the question of condoning reality. The first person believes, or has the opinion that the global effects and the ideal of condoning lying outweighs all local effects. The second person is of the opinion that the local effects and reality of condoning reality has more weight. Neither side can disagree with the other without thinking irrationally, because then they would be saying their opinion is right, because it is a better opinion. This is irrational thought. So they must both concede to each others logic, because they have not or rather cannot agree on an axiom. The phrase "rational people thinking rationally, would agree, " really menas that if this axiom is assumed, than any rational person thinking rationally would agree with blank.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that either man truly thinks that "lying is ok" could rationally be put forth as a universal law, or are you agreeing with the "conflict of obligations" idea?
Delete