04.02.2013 Views

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

fl* ETHICS<br />

faculty which makes them as inn<strong>at</strong>e and essential parts of<br />

the n<strong>at</strong>ure of the person judging. Kant's account, which<br />

ascribes the origin of moral judgments, to a part of<br />

our n<strong>at</strong>ures whereby we particip<strong>at</strong>e in reality, makes<br />

admirable provision for this characteristic of directness<br />

immediacy*<br />

Wrong Action Never an End in Itself. The theory<br />

derives another source of strength from the sharp distinc-<br />

tion which it draws between wh<strong>at</strong> are termed c<strong>at</strong>egorical<br />

and hypothetical imper<strong>at</strong>ives. The imper<strong>at</strong>ives of desire<br />

are, it affirms, hypothetical in the sense th<strong>at</strong> they all<br />

depend upon an 'if'. 'Do 9<br />

this, they say, 'if you want so<br />

and so/ Wh<strong>at</strong> they do not say is, 'Do this for its own sake<br />

and for no other reason <strong>at</strong> all.' Yet this precisely is wh<strong>at</strong>,<br />

according to Kant, the moral imper<strong>at</strong>ive does say. It is a<br />

characteristic of moral action, in other words, th<strong>at</strong> we are<br />

willing to regard it as an end in itself. Th<strong>at</strong> this distinc-<br />

tion between c<strong>at</strong>egorical and hypothetical imper<strong>at</strong>ives<br />

does correspond to an admitted fact of experience is, I<br />

think, clear. Actions of the kind which are usually termed<br />

immoral are always prompted by some motive other than<br />

the motive to perform the action. They are always, in<br />

other words, means to an end beyond themselves. We<br />

tell a lie because we want to deceive somebody. We forge a<br />

cheque because we want to obtain money to which we are<br />

not lawfully entitled. We do somebody a bad turn because<br />

we want to pay off a grudge. But moral action serves no<br />

particular purpose beyond the action. While we require<br />

an incentive to tell a lie, we require none to tell the truth;<br />

it is, we fed, the normal and n<strong>at</strong>ural thing to do. Similarly,<br />

we tend to act honestly, unless we have a particular reason<br />

for being dishonest. We help a person who is in distress,<br />

unless there is some factor of personal inconvenience or<br />

danger to deter us. Other things being equal, in short,<br />

we do wh<strong>at</strong> we ought to do, because doing wh<strong>at</strong> we<br />

ought to do is intuitively recognized by us to be an end<br />

in itself. The fact th<strong>at</strong> other things rarely are equal should

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!