Chapter 5 What Matters Is the Motive / Immanual Kant
What is the Supreme Principle of Morality?(p.116)
Groundwork for the metaphysics of Morals(1785)참고
Kant claims that we have capacity for freedom and capacity for reason, and these two are common to human beings and closely connected. Kant argues that we can arrive at the 'supreme principle of morality" through "pure practical reason(순수이성)". Kant conceives acting morally means acting out of duty-for the sake of the moral law. The moral law consists of categorical imperative, principles that require us to treat persons with respect, as ends in themselves. Only when I act in accordance with the categorical imperatives, I am acting freely.
Contrast 1(morality): duty v. inclination
Contrast 2(freedom): autonomy v. heteronomy
Contrast 3:(reason): categorical v. hypothetical imperative
1. What is morality?(p.111) According to Kant, moral worth of an action consists in the motive of duty, namely, doing the right thing because it's right.
1) Does the action of the calculating shopkeeper have moral worth?(p.112)
2) How about the spelling bee hero?(p.115)-As long as he did the right thing because he knew that it was the right thing to do, feeling good about it(this is inclination) doesn't undermine its moral worth.
2. What is freedom?(p.108) According to Kant, to act freely is to act autonomously-to act according to a law I give myself.
3. Kant distinguishes two ways that reason command the will.
1) Hypothetical imperatives are conditional: If you want X, then do Y.
That is to say, if you want a good business reputation, then treat your customers honestly.
2) Categorical imperatives are unconditional:
(1)the first formation of categorical imperatives- to act only on principles
(=maxim원칙) that we could universalize without contradiction(모순).
Is it morally permissible to get the loan by making a false promise?(p.120)-check if the action puts my interests and circumstances ahead of everyone else's.
(2)the second formation- to treat everyone with respect, as ends because they are human beings, capable of reason, and therefore worthy of respect.
4. What is Kant's views on sexual morality, for example casual sex?(p129)
5. Is it wrong to lie to a murderer?(Kant says "Yes.") There is the difference between outright lie and misleading but technically true statement(p.132) A carefully crafted evasion pays respect to the duty of truth-telling.
Chapter 6 The Case for Equality / John Rawls (p.140)
In "The Theory of Justice"(1971) Rawls answers to the question: How can a hypothetical contract do the moral work of a real social consent(=contract)? Rawls believes that people would agree to the "two principles of justice" behind "the veil of ignorance." The first principle provides equal basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech and religion. The second principle concerns social and economic equality. Although it does not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it permits only those social and economic inequalities that work to the advantage of the least well off members of society(Rawls calls it "the difference principle).
The moral limits of contracts(p.142)
1. In some cases, consent(autonomy) is not a sufficient condition of moral obligation; unbalanced deal may fall short of mutual benefits.
1) Is consent enough?: Baseball cards and the leaky toilet(p.145)
2. In other cases, consent is not a necessary condition of moral obligation, if the mutual benefit is clear enough. The moral claims of reciprocity may hold even without an an act of consent.
1) How about Hume's house, The squeegee men, and Sam's mobile auto repair?
Consider four rival theories of distribution justice:
1. Feudal or caste system: fixed hierarchy on birth
2. Libertarian: free market with formal equality of opportunity(different starting point)
3. Meritocratic(능력주의): free market with fair equality of opportunity-Rawls rejects the meritocratic theory of justice on the grounds that people's natural talents are not their own doing, and that our society values particular talents is not our doing, so they can't be the basis of moral deserts.(당연한 보답)
4. Egalitarian(평등주의): Rawls's difference principle
Are these wage differences of the schoolteacher and David Letterman fair?(p.162)- Rawls answers that it would depend on whether these pay differentials arose within a system of taxation and redistribution that worked to the benefit of the disadvantaged.