Summary
Summary Ethics article summaries
- Course
- Ethics and The Law
- Institution
- University Of The Witwatersrand (wits)
Full list of articles which are fully summarized.
[Show more]
Content preview
―FINELY AWARE AND RICHLY RESPONSIBLE‘‘: MORAL ATTENTION AND THEMORAL TASK OF LITERATURE
Knowing the correct rules is insufficient to the task of ethical judgement.
Highest and hardest task is to make ourselves people ‗upon whom nothing is
lost‘; this applies to the literary artist as well. Relating to acquiring more than
general and basic skills, in order to make right and correct decisions.
A person armed with general principles would even in correct application to
the concrete case, be ill equipped to act rightly as they do not suffice to make
the difference between right and wrong.
Based on the analogy between the ethical imagination and the creative
imagination, more specifically that of the novelist. Finding moral attention and
moral vision through novels.
o ‗Novel is a paradigm of moral activity‘
Reading is based around the novel ‗The Golden Bowl‘ by Henry James.
Analogy between moral attention and attention to works of art, and between
moral achievement and creation of art.
Sees the scenario in which a father has to let his daughter go, with dignity, in
terms of her growing up and becoming a wife. Viewed also as the death of
her childhood. The author views this as paradigmatic of the moral: his
sacrifice, her preservation of his dignity, his recognition of her autonomous
life. Daughter stuck between banishing her father, where he will live the rest
of his life unhappy, and loving her husband at the father‘s expense. This is
viewed as moral anguish, giving a sense of regression and return based on
the decision to move on with her husband. Morality comes into question
based on a concept of betrayal towards the father. The father‘s act is seen as
the morality of sacrifice, giving up his own happiness to allow others (the
husband and to what the father believes his daughter) to experience
happiness. This sacrifice is only true if he does it in such a way as to not
place a burden on the daughter, ‗the right way at the right time in the right
tone‘ ‗he must wish to give her up‘.
Father acknowledges daughter‘s sexuality, maturity and freedom, this is
morally significant. He does not want to impede her, only spectate.
Renounces his own personal gain.
‗Sacrifice is an act of imaginative interpretation; it is a perception of her
situation as that of a free woman who is not bound by his (father‘s) wish.‘
The father‘s moral imagination is subtle and high not simple and coarse.
Precise not gross, richly coloured not monochromatic, exuberant not
reluctant, generous not stingy, loving not depressing.
It is stressed that the artistic manner the novelist uses to approach the
scenario gives it the ability to be compared to and viewed in a moral manner,
if it was flat and lacked creativity and artistic impressions, this would not be
possible.
The father expresses the daughter as a sea creature, signifying her autonomy
and freedom.
― A responsible action is a highly context-specific and nuanced and
responsive thing whose rightness could not be captured in a description that
fell short of the artistic.‖
The tone in which the Father speaks is significant and allows the morality of
his words, thoughts and actions to be conveyed. ‗His tone at last was right‘.
The descriptiveness again of the words in the novel allow then morality to be
convyed.
, ‗A good action is not flat toneless and lifeless‖-reference to connection
between morals and art
―perception without responsibility is dangerously free-floating, even as duty
without perception is blunt and blind.‖
The daughter respects the father‘s dignity – Another moral inclination.
―Novelists do not just create what they like, they are obligated to render reality
precisely and faithfully, guided by a set of principles.‖
―Without the abilities of perception, duty is blind and therefore powerless.
Obtuseness is a moral failing; its opposite can be cultivated.
The fact that the daughter views people in the novel as ‗fine art objects‘
relates to her viewing them on a morality level in respect to;
o Irreducible particular character of a concrete moral context and those
that comprise of it
o Scrutinize aspects of character in a perfective manner
o A determination to care for character as a whole
A novel such as the one depicted in the reading is supposed to call forth our
‗‘active sense of life‘‘ which is our moral faculty. Also the character‘s
‗‘emotions intelligence and moral consciousness become... our own
adventure.‖
―Progress comes not from the teaching of an abstract law but by leading the
friend, or child, or loved one- by a word, by a story, by an image- to see some
new aspect of the case at hand, to see it as this or that.‘‘
,SANDEL ON KANT
Kant grounds his stance on the notion that a human‘s worth is invaluable and
incalculable. Kant makes it clear that he does not look at individuals from a
utilitarianism stand point, and not from a universal oneeither in the sense that
every human being is his/her own person, and should be grouped amongst
everyone else.
Although human rights are a ‗universal‘ phenomena, they should not be
applied to everyone, the same, everywhere or rather across the board. Kant
is saying that human rights being looked at this manner should not be used
as a defence to maximise utility in the long run because the whole point is to
give each person, across the board, a sense of ‗individualism‘.
Kant highlights the point raised by Libertarians regarding the notion of what is
the moral basis of rights? He points out that Libertarians would argue the
notion in the sense that people should not be used as ‗pawns‘ by others, just
to advance their own agendas. Simply put: do not use other people for your
own benefit, especially if you have ill intentions. It is morally incorrect, and to
a certain degree, infringes on the fundamental rights of the individual.
Every individual has the right to say: Their life, their work, their money, their
body etc all belong to them, and only them. You cannot own somebody. The
implications of such a notion are things such as consent. You are in control
and you know what you allow.
Kant however makes a very important point which relates to the point he
raised about human rights in the beginning. He mentioned that human beings
are rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect, no one can take that away
from you.
Kant argued that morals or rather morality was not about maximising
happiness for all, but was rather respecting people, but those very people
needed to understand that that can only happen when they respect
themselves first. It begins with YOU. As the saying goes: ―Charity begins at
home‖
‗Uniform‘ is what Kant is rejecting. The idea of utilitarianism and the fact that it
involves maximising welfare etc. He already made the point of how he views
individuals, and does not see them as a ―group‖, but instead as individuals.
Kant says that the whole idea of maximising welfare seems like a calculated
exercise on what will produce the best and greatest results (happiness).
Simply put by Kant: ‗Just because something gives many people pleasure,
doesn‘t make it right‘
Sandel is showing the reader the kind of stance that Kant is taking in the
above mentioned points, but what is important about these and those to
follow, is that he is being objective about this and makes it a point not to just
accept Kant‘s take on human rights, utilitarianism and so forth. Making this a
very interesting read, as it starts to show the reader the parts to human rights,
as well as utilitarianism and so forth, that had not been noticed before.
Sandel also showed the reader how objective Kant was too, and used plenty
of reasoning. Kant didn‘t make use of the notion of religion, more especially
God as a basis to justify the idea of morality, regardless of the fact that he
was a Christian. Morality, could have just been said to be, in simple terms,
the use of common sense.
Because Kant mentioned that as individuals we are rational, we do not
always succeed in acting rationally. This is true in the sense that once you
are in the heat of the moment, all rationality flies out of the window. You are
not thinking of what is the right or rational thing to do in this situation. This is
, exactly what Kant is trying to point out. Sometimes we do act rationally, but
let‘s just be honest, we 99.99% of the time, NEVER DO.
He also made the important point that, reason can and should be our
dominant ―emotion‖, all the time. Only because human being possess the
capacity to ―feel‖ and we are very good at responding to our senses. We are
almost programmed to like pleasure but completely dislike pain, for obvious
reasons of course. But we are not to let ourselves be governed by our ability
to ―feel‖.
Freedom was another notion that Kant raised, we are not exercising our
freedom as we really should, instead we are just slaves to the desires that are
within us, and those desires govern us. Eg: when choosing between which
flavours to order between a chocolate, vanilla, strawberry or bubblegum
milkshake, you may think that you are exercising your freedom of choice, but
what you‘re actually doing is choosing which will best satisfy your
preferences. A simpler example would be: If you love KitKat chocolate, it
would be a bit more difficult for you to choose another kind of chocolate in the
store, even though you have the option to choose. You don‘t want to,
because the Kitkat will best satisfy your preference. You have the desire for it
and not the others.
In the above point, Kant is showing us that we are not acting freely. Acting
freely, would be willing wanting to try something new.
There is the notion of autonomy. When we act autonomously, we do
something out of our own free will (moral law)
There is also the notion of heteronomy. When we act heteronomously, we do
something for the sake of something else, or to gain some sort of end results.
We are merely an instrument, hence we have no control over the end result.
For Kant, moral worth of an action is measured not from the consequences,
but instead from the intentions of the action. The motive is what is important.
He also mentions that everyone has a duty to preserve their own life, and that
the precautions we take to preserve our lives, lack moral content. Things like
wearing a seatbelt and keeping your blood pressure at a normal number are
not moral acts, instead just things that are instilled in us to do.
Kant also mentions that it is very difficult to understand what drives people to
do what they do. Eg: Suicide. You will never know the real reason why the
person was driven to that point. You will always just get an explanation that is
merely on the ‗surface‘.
Kant‘s categorical imperative basically tells us to treat people with respect. Do
not confuse this with the golden rule of ‗Do unto others as you would like
done unto you‘. The categorical imperative simply says that we just respect
people as rational human being, regardless of whether or not they deserve
that respect or not.
There is also the notion of a ‗lie‘ and how Kant looks at it. Sandel shows how
Kant asks whether he would defend a murderer and the notion of a lie
together. An example would be that of a serial killer looking for you from, who
is hiding right next to you in a closet. He knocks at the door and you answer,
he asks where your friend is. You have 2 choices of a lie, 1) She is not here
2) An hour ago I saw her down the round at the shops. In Kant‘s point of view,
the second lie is acceptable (morally) in this case, but the first one isn‘t. The
first was an outright lie and the second one was merely misleading, because
you used it as a means to control the outcome of the situation. Essentially
what Kant is saying that if your lie wasn‘t used in good faith, or as a means to
control the outcome, then it is morally incorrect.
Kant also rejected utilitarianism because he just saw it as a means to control
people, which is against his beliefs.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller youtuners. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R149,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
60434 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now