Kant would say that the actions of someone who doesn't, for example, steal out of fear of the consequences are without moral value. We say that the people who act morally when it brings no advantage them are the ones whose actions have the MOST value. The intention of the agent is key, not the consequences of the agent's actions; a good will is only inherent good.
I don't understand the rest of your post; 'So the very act of encoding religious proscriptions into law makes less meaningful the decision of those who would follow the proscriptions.' -- that only applies to the individuals who subscribe to that religious order, though. Isn't the point of law to lay down some standards to which all citizens are beholden, regardless of religious belief and other qualifiers?
What I am trying to say (poorly, apparently) is that those who lobby to incorporate their particular religious rules into law defeat the very purpose of their effort. Controlling behavior through law and punishment is not the same as getting people to make moral choices. How's Edinbrrrrrr?
I agree with you, although I guess a utilitarian would say that they are the same since they have the same effect. :/ Sorry for geeking out on this post months ago, I was writing an essay about Kant at the time.
Edinburgh is fine, I assume. I am about an hour and a half north on the train. Here is a map. Hope you're well!
Comments 3
I don't understand the rest of your post; 'So the very act of encoding religious proscriptions into law makes less meaningful the decision of those who would follow the proscriptions.' -- that only applies to the individuals who subscribe to that religious order, though. Isn't the point of law to lay down some standards to which all citizens are beholden, regardless of religious belief and other qualifiers?
Reply
Reply
Edinburgh is fine, I assume. I am about an hour and a half north on the train. Here is a map. Hope you're well!
Reply
Leave a comment