Expanding Upon Kant's Moral Framework

Ethics
1

Title says it all.

I am wondering if anyone has had similar thoughts to my own about moral agency of an individual.

My goal is to make the “test” or framework as foolproof as possible.

Basically my addition to the Framework would be the following:

  1. External pressures before the decision is made to try and push the individual towards the immoral choice.
  2. The immoral choice is “rewarded” with external rewards i.e. Fame /money/gifts etc.
  3. Anonymity of the “righteous” choice. The individual beforehand is told that if they make the “righteous” decision, the world will never know it was them that made it.
  4. Making the “righteous” choice comes at a personal cost.

That’s basically it. If someone somewhere knows of something similar, I’d love to see it.

Thanks

2

Welcome.

A little bit vague on what’s really going on here I think.

What is your addition doing, really? Is it just to say that sometimes we experience temptation we must overcome?

3

Not sure really lol. Just been thinking on it and this felt like the best place to put it and get actual feedback in a constructive way. I don’t think twitter or Facebook would appreciate it as much.

I’d say the point is to highlight how to define a choice as truly a moral one.

I’d also argue that the addition of anonymity creates a greater focus on the moral choice being made rather than the consequences of what happens.

It also removes any chance of reward an individual would get from making the morally righteous choice. That would probably mean the individual made the choice because it was in fact the morally correct one?

I guess my question would be, would a person actually make a moral choice is their situation was framed as such? If they did, they would be extremely noble correct?

4

Yes, the question for Kantian ethics asks whether there is any proper motivation for moral acts. Kant basically said, “If you act for reason x it is not moral, and if you act for reason y it is not moral, and if you act for reason z it is not moral…” At some point it must be asked, “Is there any reason to act morally?” For Kant it is not clear that there is, because he wants a moral act to be fully infallible. Any act that is conditioned upon some other factor will not be carried out unless that other factor is present, and Kant thinks this is contrary to moral thinking.

1 Like
5

Kant viewed the persons as an end, not to be used for some other goal. So if I hired you to work in my farm, paid you generously, and provided you a shelter, do not think that my action counts as a moral act. It does not.