This week, we will consider how Deontology (specifically Kantian deontology) uses reasons to create rules in which to order society.
Please watch this video on Kant: Kant and EthicsLinks to an external site.
Loading media… Minimize embedded content
After watching this video, please discuss this central question that is central to Kant’s system of ethics. Do rational rules define morality? Kant argues that ethical actions are something that we can understand and know based on universal reason. This means that there can be a system of universal right and wrong that is understood and agreed upon within all cultures and nations. Do you think that there is such a thing as a rational science of morality? If reason and self-consciousness are what separates animals from humans and ties all humans together, can that be the basis to create a world where we agree upon what the “rational” rules are in society? Kant thinks that we CAN use reason to create a universal system of morality, of right and wrong, that is understood in every corner of the world, just like 2+2=4 in every part of the world. What do you think? Are these things inherently and indelibly subjective, or can human thought be more universal and rational, like mathematics and science?
This symposium is a chance for you to discuss together the ethical issues and questions that it raises, your own response to those, and whether that aligns with or does not align with a deontological approach. The aim is not to simply assert your own view or to denigrate other views, but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the Objective, eternal, and universal nature of ethics versus the opposite argument that ethics will always be subjective and local to time and place
Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution, you must specifically address the way someone with a deontological view would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach.
If you have a position, you should strive to provide reasons in defense of that position.
When responding to peers, you should strive to first understand the reasons they are offering before challenging or critiquing those reasons. One good way of doing this is by summarizing their argument before offering a critique or evaluation.