The Gullerud family vacation has an abrupt end.
I guess that Immanuel Kant was a great thinker, or something. For a guy who never went outside the boundaries of his hometown (seriously, he NEVER left his town, not even once) he really had a huge influence on the way people have thought about philosophy for the past few hundred years. Now I'm not an expert on Immanuel Kant by any means, nor am I an expert on his other writings of philosophy.
However, I did* just have a lesson in Kantian ethics so by the power vested in me by the internet I shall write about it! I'll begin by a few thought experiments.
Let's say that A wants to borrow some money from B. A says, "I'll pay you back" but secretly has no intention to keep it. In other words A is making a false promise. In order for us to see if this is a morally good action, we need to ask the following of ourselves:
Q: Could I will (or impose a rule upon the world) that "One can make a false promise"?
A: I suppose one could make a rule that yes, one can make false promises.
Q: If one can make false promises, what if everyone made false promises?
A: All people could still make promises, but if they were all false promises then none of those promises would be kept.
Q: So would there even be such a thing as promises anymore?
A: I suppose not. If there were no such thing as promises, then there wouldn't even be such a thing as false ones!
And that is exactly Kant's point. The idea that "one can make false promises" leads to it's own destruction. Therefore, a rule like "one can make false promises" cannot be true. Let's see another very similar example. This time, C wants to lie to D. Who cares why, he just wants to lie.
What if we willed "one can lie"? Then it's fine for people to lie.
What if everyone lied? Then nobody would believe anybody else.
Would there be any reason for language anymore? I suppose that it's reasonable to conclude that if nobody would believe anybody anymore, language would be useless... which would lead to no more lying.
And if there is no more lying, then the rule "one can lie" can never be done.
Kant was a big "rules" guy. He believed that since we are humans that brings with it certain obligations (rules) on our behavior. Kant distilled this idea into one wonderfully tangled statement called the categorical imperative:
We should always act so that we might will that our action be universal.
What the heck does that mean?
In other words, the only moral law is that you should only act so that anybody in your same position would do the same thing. So when it comes to lying or false promises, if those are actions that can be universalized without destroying themselves, then Kant gives them the thumbs up. But those two actions cannot. Therefore, thumbs down. :(
So let's make the rubber hit the road. E is at home. F comes running to the door and says, "Hide me!" F immediately hides in the attic. An angry mob comes to the door and asks, "Where is F! We're going to kill him!" What should E do? If E says, "Yes, he's upstairs" the mob will kill F. If E says, "No, he's not here" the mob will inexplicably say, "Oh," and go do something else.
So what SHOULD E do? According to Kant, if E lies about his knowledge of F, then we should test and see what happens if everybody believes that lying is okay. We saw above that it implodes. So this means that E must tell the truth and say, "E is upstairs." Kant is not worried about the consequences, all he is concerned with is telling the truth. Always. Circumstances matter not.
Kant believed that the main difference between us and the animals was that although we both have 'practical reason' (getting at some particular goal like food), humans have 'pure reason'. Pure reason is reasoning without a particular goal, trying to see what makes things tick. Questions like "what makes a stick float in water while a rock will sink?" are examples of humans trying to find rules.
If it is the case that humans are rule-followers, then in order to be human we should follow rules. If we should follow rules then we should only act because a rule allows it. All your actions ought to apply (as a general rule) to anybody. Thus we see the categorical imperative begin to emerge.
A Christian Response
Is lying okay? Person F saying "Hide me!" could easily have been Anne Frank and the angry mob could be Nazis. What would you do if some Nazis were banging on your door asking if you were hiding Jews?
Me, I'd lie to their face.
BUT WAIT! GOD CAN'T APPROVE OF LYING CAN HE?
Give me a second to explain. Kant's ideas about rules can easily be translated into the idea that there are 'absolute' morals. I don't like that word absolute. It has some baggage with it. In fact, throughout this blog I've purposely used a different term and that is 'objective'.
If all killing is absolutely wrong, then if a police man sees a terrorist with bombs strapped to his chest running into a public building the police man cannot shoot the terrorist even to save the people. "But surely there are exceptions to the rule"- No. If it is absolutely wrong to kill then it is always wrong in all situations. Yes, it's wrong for the terrorist to kill, but then it's equally wrong for the police man to kill. Strictly speaking, this is what the word absolute means.
So how is the word objective any different? This places moral values and duties in an object, namely God. As the source of all goodness and just behavior, His holiness is the standard by which all moral behavior is judged. So the terrorists actions - morally wrong. It has pleased God to grant life to people and He alone has the right to take it away.
What of the police officer's actions should he have decided to shoot and kill the terrorist? A police officer is a role that someone can fill at the request of the government. His job is to protect people and the government has given him the authority to use deadly force if necessary. And where did the government get this authority over life?
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4)
And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. (Genesis 9:5b-6)
There would be no justification for the terrorist's actions because he was acting contrary to God's rules (fifth commandment). The police officer does have justification for his actions because the authority for his actions can be traced back to God.
That is why I (at least I hope that I would have the courage) would lie to Nazis. They were an example of a government that was 'bearing the sword for nothing' (or if you'd rather, the NKJV's 'bearing the sword in vain'). I would appeal to God's standard that says, "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29).
Immanuel Kant. Because you had God's law written on your heart you knew that people ought to obey rules. But close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
Thanks for reading!
*stay at a Best Western last night... sorry, couldn't resist ;)
Posts
