In Kant's theory of common sense knowledge and morality, he explains that the idea of "goodness" should be able to be discerned by a rational human being. In other words, people have a natural tendency to determine what is good and bad. Human beings do not need be taught how to act or do good because we are born with a rational mind that dictates our actions. Is it possible for humans to naturally know good from bad? or is it something that we simply learn along the way by observing others? Personally, I must admit that I agree with Kant that rational human beings are born with an innate knowledge of what is good. Although many can argue that morality is gained through the process of life experiences, I believe it is not the primary element that provides us with the essential understanding of what is good. Even though it is necessary to the development of morality, it is not the foundation of our ethical understanding of things.
As we discussed in class, not everyone is capable of thinking rationally. For example, someone in class pointed out that a gorilla saving a kid could have been a moral act. We came to the conclusion that the animal saved the kid out of instinct and not because he was aware he was committing a virtuous act. Therefore, an animal cannot commit a moral act since it does not have the capacity to reason that he is doing something good for its own sake. Overall, I think Kant's theory achieves to explain the nature of morality in human beings.
I personally can't say that I agree with Kant's belief that humans instinctively comprehend morality, particularly at the level that reason would require. It is just too nuanced and charged by environmental and cultural elements to be condensed into a single stream of consciousness that would be valid in all scenarios. While I will happily agree that our odd quasi-emotions (like compassion) that sometimes compell us to act morally seem to be deeply ingrained into us, morality has developed entirely different facets and extrusions in response to various historical and political struggles, and modern perceptions of "right" and "wrong" have changed by leaps and bounds over the centuries. Does this not imply that morality is somewhat elusive to humans by default, and that it must be studied through trial and error as problems arise? If humans understand goodness by instinct, then why do modern societies so ethically outshine ancient ones? If virtue is our birthright, then how do we come to terms with the pandemic of immorality that has been present throughout all of history? It just can't be that so many people are "defective" in their misunderstanding of right and wrong. The answer seems to be that goodness and reason are not native to humanity and that "Duty" to virtue must be taught by those who understand its utility.
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear what other people think about this as well.
Nature vs Nurture is one of those debates that I don't think we'll ever know the true answer to, and even if we say that it's both, we don't know if it's 50/50, 30/70, or 85/15. This debate feels very similar. I have to go with the "both" answer and leave out which side dominates since I have no clue. I think we do have an innate sense of good and bad. I think most of us naturally develop empathy as we grow up (which is why I believe kids are so cruel and why some adults are so childishly awful--they lack empathy). I do believe we have a moral compass that--despite whether we follow it or not--points in the general direction of good.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as the commenter above me so rightly points out, we also really really suck at being decent to each other. There are some horrible atrocities in our past. There are horrible atrocities happening right now, even. We're better off than we were in the past, but we are nowhere near a Utopian society. So what gives? Well, I think our biggest mistake is believing in an "other". As in, it's "us" vs "them" and the them isn't as fully human as the us. That country full of foreigners with ways that we don't understand is different and therefore bad and so we don't have to feel bad for killing them because they are not like us, they don't have feelings and a family. And those women? Who knows what's going on in their brains. Their lady hormones probably makes things all weird and we superior men are the rightful leaders so let's not feel bad when we treat them as lesser. And those gays? I don't understand how that works so let's not let them get married or adopt because their love can't be the same as my love.
I believe we have an innate good vs bad that only expands as far as our "us" goes. It's society's job to make sure that that circle goes out the whole world until there is no "them". That's when we'll reach Utopia
I agree with Peyton, when he states that he "...can't say that I agree with Kant's belief that humans instinctively comprehend morality," I do not think that "Human beings do not need be taught how to act or do good because we are born with a rational mind that dictates our actions." I believe that we are not born knowing what is good and what is not. I think that is something we have to be taught or adapt to. The idea that a baby knows that stealing or murder is wrong does not sound right considering that they do not have object permanence at a very young age. When a child's mother or father takes them to the store and the child happens to take candy or something like that, then the parent has to explain to the child that that is something that we are not allowed to do as we freely wish. By way of reasoning the child would then know that stealing is something they should not be doing and would thus apply it to other situations. I agree with Thalia in her notion that "good vs. bad only expands as far as our 'us' goes." because as we grow older we adapt to the circumstances of right and wrong.
ReplyDelete