Welcome to the Philosophy Peer Review Workshop! You'll practice giving helpful feedback on a student draft about Kant's moral absolutism.
Immanuel Kant’s moral theory says you always have to follow moral rules without making exceptions. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, which says you must act according to rules that you could will everyone else to follow too. But what happens when following those rules leads to harmful consequences? Is Kant’s theory still good then?
Kant says you must always tell the truth, no matter what happens. He believes lying is always morally wrong because if everyone lied, then trust would disappear. Kant demonstrates this with his famous example where a murderer is at your door asking about a friend you’re hiding. Kant says you must tell the truth. However, in reality, doing this would clearly lead to your friend’s death. Does that really make sense?
Some critics argue that Kant’s moral rules are too strict and ignore context and outcomes. In real-life situations, we need flexibility to decide what is right based on circumstances. For instance, if lying could save a life, most people would agree that lying is justified. Kant’s categorical imperative does not allow for these exceptions, which can lead to morally unacceptable results.
I personally think Kant’s theory has some problems because it doesn’t consider real-life complexities. Morality should consider the outcomes of actions, not just blindly follow rules. For a theory to be useful, it has to work in practical situations, not just in theory. Kant’s strict rules fail this important test.
In conclusion, Kant’s moral theory may seem consistent and straightforward, but its rigidity can create troubling situations. Maybe morality is more about finding the right balance and not just following absolute rules.
Fill out the form below and use the Print button to create a hard copy.