Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
she has purchased. A proposed moral rule might be, “I may claim academic
credit for a report written by someone else.” However, if everyone followed this
rule, reports would cease to be credible indicators of the students' knowledge,
and professors would not give academic credit for reports. Her proposed moral
rule is self-defeating. Therefore, it is wrong for Carla to purchase a report and
turnitinasherownwork.
Commentary
Note that the Kantian analysis of the moral problem focuses on the will behind
the action. It asks the question, “What was Carla trying to do when she submitted
under her own name a term paper written by someone else?” The analysis ignores
extenuating circumstances that non-Kantians may cite to justify her action.
1.
The Categorical Imperative aligns with the common moral concern, “What if every-
body acted that way?”
According to Kantianism, it is wrong for you to act in a particular way if you cannot
wish everyone in a similar circumstance to do the same thing. This is a mainstream,
commonsensical, and fair perspective.
2.
Kantianism produces universal moral guidelines.
Kantianism aligns with the intuition of many people that the same morality ought
to apply to all people for all of history. These guidelines allow us to make clear moral
judgments. For example, one such judgment might be the following: “Sacrificing
living human beings to appease the gods is wrong.” It is wrong in Europe in the
twenty-first century, and it was wrong in South America in the fifteenth century.
3.
All persons are treated as moral equals.
A popular belief is that “all people are created equal.” Because it holds that people in
similar situations should be treated in similar ways, Kantianism provides an ethical
framework to combat discrimination.
1.
Sometimes no single rule fully characterizes an action.
Kant holds that every action is motivated from a rule. The appropriate rule de-
pends upon how we characterize the action. Once we know the rule, we can test
its value using the Categorical Imperative. What happens when no single rule fully
explains the situation? Douglas Birsch gives this example: Suppose I'm considering
stealing food from a grocery store to feed my starving children [4]. How should I
characterize this action? Am I stealing? Am I caring for my children? Am I trying
to save the lives of innocent people? Until I characterize my action, I cannot de-
termine the rule and test it against the Categorical Imperative. Yet no single one of
these ways of characterizing the action seems to capture the ethical problem in its
fullness.
