To begin, we started with the most important factor that Kant faced. Morality versus our emotions. To Kant, emotions should not get in the way of any decision because then he believes it is no longer a moral action. Mason discussed the idea that maybe the emotions are an after thought of the decision. What if you act on impulse? Does this mean that it is not moral as well because you did not think about it rationally? Something else I found interesting was our talk on "doubling up glasses". Since Kant said that we can't remove our own "glasses", does that mean that to see other people's perspectives we must place another pair of glasses on top of our already existing pair? One would think that after a couple of layers, the vision would be quite blurred. If we view multiple things as being right, maybe that just means that we add on some clip-on sunglasses to our already existant glasses.
We briefly discussed the idea of living. Kant based his life off of routines and very rarely strayed from these set routines because it made him very uncomfortable. Should we as humans base our lives on routine? Is that truly living? There is a difference between living and simply existing. I personally thing Kant just existed because he did not leave room for much fun in his life. I think that to truly live, life should not be planned out every minute of every day. There must be some sort of difference, and not everything that happens should be planned out from the beginning. To kind of go along with this, Kant discussed the idea of our thoughts having"limits". We decided in our group that there are no limits on our thoughts. If our thoughts were limited, then how could anyone become enlightened and know something that someone else doesn't know about. The "great" philosophers did not have limitations on their thoughts, so why should we. Everyone deserves to be allowed equal opportunity to create new ideas.
(If you have never seen Mean Girls, please disreguard these memes)
So according to Mr. Kant, we are supposed to separate our emotions from our rational duty. Mason had a great point today when he said that sometimes duty and emotions overlap. Often we become emotionally attatched to our job or duty. Does this still make it morally wrong to base our decidions off of these feelings? This idea of separating emotions is not an easy thing to do. Personally, I think that most people base their decisions on feelings and emotions in order to make a better life for themselves. D.Q: Why must morality and sympathy be separated?
D.Q: What determines rational behavior?
F.Q: What is Kant's definition of a Phenomenal world? Answer: A world we experience through our senses.
With the glasses metaphor, I immediately related it to Franklin's bifocals, which were highlighted in the movie National Treasure. There are several colored lenses attached, but they can be lifted as to give a different view and to give sight to things that were once invisible. This is how I think of the glasses metaphorically. We can keep adding lenses to the glasses, different colors, but we can never remove the original set of lenses.
ReplyDelete^ I like this analogy.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I found really interesting was that Kant rated morality on a scale: with those who overcame emotions to do their social obligation at the far "most moral" end.
I feel like--and this is an ad hominum- Kant may have done this because he apparently did not experience much empathy; he appeared to be almost mechanical (a thoughtful automaton, if you will)-like in his behavior, which I would assume was an outward reflection of his own mental status.
DQ: do you think it matters WHY you do something 'good' or just that you did something good?
FQ: what was Kant's criteria to be "moral" (a la good samaritan)
I do believe that there is not a limit in the sense that we can always learn more and more. However, there are some things that the human mind will never be able to fully comprehend. Like our source of creation for example.. whether it be God or a multiverse kind of thing.. neither can be proven, so our knowledge here is kind of limited.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't think that a person who feels compassion and cares for other people should be discredited from their moral actions because they acted based on their emotions. Doing something because you want to verses doing something because you feel like you have to because it's your "duty" does not seem to be a bad thing to me.. I see where Kant was going in that we should not base every choice we make solely on our emotions, but I think he went a little too far here. Much like the other philosophers we've talked about. Matthew made a good point when he floated to our group. He said that he thinks (or maybe he was quoting Chloe, I don't remember haha) that the philosophers are kind of like the fashion designers who do runway design. They are extremely over the top and no one would really believe like that or wear something like that in real life, but it inspires other people and other designers to apply it in a way that works in everyday life. This made a whole lot of sense to me. We can take little bits of the philosophers' extreme ideas and find ways to apply them to our daily lives.
On his idea of telling the truth ALL THE TIME, even if your best friend will get killed because the murderer asked you where he is, doesn't make much sense to me. Again, I see where he's going. If it's moral to tell the truth, it should be like that all the time. It's sometimes annoying how there are so many exceptions to the rules. Wouldn't it be so much easier if everything was black and white, and we always knew exactly what the "right" thing was to do? The english language for example.... spelling would be so much easier if it was always "i before e except after c"... but it's not. We have words like weird that just completely throw us off. This is why I like math, not as many exceptions to the rules haha. Anyways.. I just don't think there's a way that we can rationalize morality. There's always going to be that gray area.
I definitely think there's a difference between morality and emotions. However, I do not agree with Kant. I like the analogy Dr. Oliver brought up: If a Nazi is banging on the door asking if you're hiding a Jewish person, is it morally wrong to lie to the Nazi even though a human life is on the line? I say definitely not. I believe God understands a situation like this, and would quickly forgive this false testimony (Or if you don't believe in God, insert mother nature etc. to understand the breach of morality).
ReplyDeleteIn reality to the multiple glasses idea, I agree. We can't just remove our views, or glasses, to fit someone's demands. And no matter how hard someone tries, he or she can never truly see anything from the view of another person.
DQ: Can a person have “multiple glasses?”
FQ: Who thought emotions needed to be ignored when making decisions that involved morality?
FQ: Who did Schopenhauer base his philosophy on? Answer: Buddha and Kant
ReplyDeleteDQ: Do you think that when someone harms others, they are also harming themselves?
Do you think it is possible for one to be truly content and truly satisfied?
I think that there is a connection between emotion and duty, and I tend to think of it in psychological terms as in positive reinforcement. If duty tells us to do something and we feel good about it afterward, eventually we will get to the point where we enjoy doing things that we feel duty bound to accomplish. Endorphins being released will only create a desire in us that fuels us into accomplishing more of the same or similar tasks. Much like Pavlov's dogs, we will acquire a reaction to the stimulus based on the chemicals released once we accomplish such tasks. Some people, of course, may never develop such a connection, and Kant may have just been someone who felt little compassion and therefore used duty to point him in the morally correct direction, a noble notion if such a supposition is true.
ReplyDeletehttp://psychology.about.com/od/operantconditioning/f/positive-reinforcement.htm
FQ: Who took George Washington's maxim "I cannot tell a lie" too far?
Kant
DQ: If everyone told the whole truth, would the world really be a better place?
Mason
Haha I like your factual question, Mason; true story.
ReplyDeleteI think it is good if you do good. If you do good because you want to do it from the bottom of your heart, that's awesome. If you don't want to do good but you do it anyway because you know you should, that's good too! Because, like Mason said, if you make yourself do something enough times, you will eventually begin to accept it, and then want to do it more often.
Dwight L. Moody said, "Some say if only my fears and doubts will leave then I will get to work. But instead you should get to work and then your fears and doubts will leave."
You cannot expect your negative emotions to grow tired of you and leave; you have to force them out by doing things that are contrary to their nature. Scared of lying to a Nazi to save your friend? Just do it! Doubt you can actually climb that tree to save the little girl's kitten? Just do it! When you take risks for the good, while it may not always turn out like you want it to, you will be stronger for it. Like James 1:2-3 says, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, when you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance."