Monday, September 25, 2006
Kantian vs. Unitarianism
When Kant put forth the question: “Can I will that my maxim become a universal law?” to decipher if what you are doing is morally righteous or not, it uplifted my thinking of morality. I’ve been having problems with Unitarianism because the subjectivity of it left little ground to build off of, it seemed. But now we are discussing something that can be proven.
The problem with Unitarianism in its pure form was the inconceivability to standardize the argument. Its basic concept is on an individual level and is therefore too aesthetic to be seen on a global scale. If someone had a passion to kill someone that outweighed the passion for that person to live, it would be morally correct to have that person kill the other. While this is just pure Unitarianism, all other forms of it are just concessions to Kant’s concept of respect and duty.
Giving greater values to higher life forms or actions is giving respect to that. When Unitarianism says that it is wrong for a person to want to kill someone, it is giving respect to that person as something more than just a vessel of happiness but rather a sentient thing that should be given esteem. Thus, Unitarianism is merely conforming to the actual representation of morality.
There are major problems that occur in pure Unitarianism that are void in Kant’s works and any variations of Unitarianism in some way concede points that Kant uses but keep their “moral head” as happiness, or rather the stopping of suffering, instead of good will.
The problem with Unitarianism in its pure form was the inconceivability to standardize the argument. Its basic concept is on an individual level and is therefore too aesthetic to be seen on a global scale. If someone had a passion to kill someone that outweighed the passion for that person to live, it would be morally correct to have that person kill the other. While this is just pure Unitarianism, all other forms of it are just concessions to Kant’s concept of respect and duty.
Giving greater values to higher life forms or actions is giving respect to that. When Unitarianism says that it is wrong for a person to want to kill someone, it is giving respect to that person as something more than just a vessel of happiness but rather a sentient thing that should be given esteem. Thus, Unitarianism is merely conforming to the actual representation of morality.
There are major problems that occur in pure Unitarianism that are void in Kant’s works and any variations of Unitarianism in some way concede points that Kant uses but keep their “moral head” as happiness, or rather the stopping of suffering, instead of good will.
# posted by Anonymous @ 3:00 PM 
