Prior To Beginning Work On This Discussion Forum View

Prior To Beginning Work On This Discussion Forum View The Week 3 Cont

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, view the Week 3 content in the PHI208: Ethics & Moral Reasoning interactive multimedia, and watch the Deontology video in the Week 3 Guidance. Read Chapter 4 of How Should One Live? An Introduction to Ethics and Moral Reasoning, the Kant Required Reading Marked in Red for Immanuel Kant’s (2017) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” This discussion has two parts, both of which require careful examination of Section 4.2 in Chapter 4 of the text, so consider reading it more than once like you were asked to do in the Week 1 Reading Philosophy discussion.

Paper For Above instruction

Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics provides a rigorous framework for evaluating moral actions, centered around the notions of the categorical imperative and the intrinsic worth of persons. This essay undertakes a detailed exploration of these principles through the construction of a hypothetical test case based on Kantian moral reasoning, as well as an analysis of a pertinent sentence from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to illustrate a deontological perspective on justice and moral action.

Part 1 – Constructing a Test Case Based on the Formula of Universal Law

Kant’s formula of universal law posits that one should act only according to maxims that can be universally willed without contradiction. To exemplify this, consider a personal maxim: “Every time I am in financial need, I will lie to obtain money.” The universal law derived from this maxim would be: “Everyone who is in financial need will lie to obtain money.”

If this universal law were consistently followed, the concept of truthful communication would collapse, leading to a paradoxical situation where trust becomes impossible and the very notion of honest transactions becomes meaningless. This world would be characterized by pervasive distrust, and the efficacy of promises and contracts would be undermined. Such a world would be dysfunctional and morally incoherent, as everyone would be justified in lying whenever it suited their needs, including urgent or trivial reasons.

Assessing whether the maxim is moral involves examining whether it can be consistently willed as a universal law. Since the universal adoption of lying in financial needs results in a contradiction—specifically, that the very purpose of lying to gain money is negated by the collapse of trust—the maxim introduces a moral contradiction. Consequently, according to Kantian ethics, this maxim is not moral because it fails the test of universality.

Part 2 – Analyzing a Sentence from Dr. King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

From Dr. King’s letter, consider the sentence: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Rephrasing this into a maxim with a clear action: “Whenever I see injustice, I will actively oppose it because injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere.”

Applying Kantian reasoning, we analyze whether this maxim can be universalized without contradiction. If everyone responded to injustice by actively opposing it, the social fabric would be strengthened, and injustice would be actively challenged, promoting a just society. There would be no inherent contradiction in such a universal practice; instead, it would support the moral duty to oppose injustice, consistent with Kantian ethics and deontology.

However, if the universalized maxim were to be that everyone ignores injustice, society would become morally desolate, with injustice proliferating unchecked. This would directly contradict the moral obligation to uphold justice, indicating that the maxim is immoral in that context.

The contradiction in the universalized actions reveals that the moral action—acting upon the maxim of opposing injustice—is consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative. As such, the maxim endorses moral duty and is thus morally acceptable within a deontological framework.

Regarding whether a utilitarian would agree with the conclusion in these test cases, it depends on the varied considerations of happiness and overall utility. A utilitarian might prioritize the outcome of promoting social trust and justice, thereby supporting the universality of opposing injustice and condemning lying for financial gain if these actions lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In the case of the lie maxim, utilitarian reasoning might oppose lying if it ultimately causes greater harm through the erosion of trust and social cohesion. Conversely, in situations where lying might save lives or prevent significant harm, a utilitarian could justify its use if it maximizes overall well-being. Therefore, while deontology emphasizes moral duties independent of outcomes, utilitarianism evaluates moral actions based on their consequences, which could lead to different conclusions based on context.

References

• Kant, I. (2017). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press.
• King, M. L. Jr. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. The Atlantic Monthly.
• Wood, A. W. (2008). Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford University Press.
• Johnson, R. (2007). The Moral Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Routledge.
• Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Moral Philosophy. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Brandt, R. B. (1992). Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights. Cambridge University Press.
• Nielsen, K. (2019). Deontology and Modern Ethical Theories. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 16(3), 287–310.