Philosophy - Dialogue

Philosophical Dialogue on Morality: Kant versus Moral Relativity

Mercutio comes to Friar Lawrence’s cell after seeing Romeo and Juliet exit.
M: Dare I ask what mockery here hast thou just committed?

F: A mockery? What dost thou hold against me?

M: To marry a Montague and a Capulet ought not to be, in this case, moral.

F: It is a question of morality, you say? In all my days, I have followed just which morals I believe apply to me. As I have always been, I shall always be—my business is my own. It is not for you to judge what is right and what is wrong.

M: Nay, my dear Friar, I do not agree. Romeo and Juliet are quite sprung on love. However, I do not believe that it is solely to their benefit that you married them. With their bond, you also hope to be the one to bring about peace between the families, and that would make you greatly revered. Are Romeo and Juliet, then, not a means to your desired end?

F: And, if so, what then? Is not happiness of all a greater achievement than following strict moral laws?

M: I say to you that in order to assure freedom, one must consider all rational beings as an end in themselves, and not merely a means to an end. By using them as a means, you do not act under a categorical imperative. To achieve universal freedom, one must act as though through your actions your maxim would become universal law. It is the only way. There are strict moral laws that apply to everyone, everywhere, that all ought to follow.

F: Let me take your first point. Romeo and Juliet were a means to an end, of course – but are they not also an end? For, if their marriage were to bring about peace between the families, would they not be able to take pride in their love? Would it not make them joyous? As for your categorical imperatives and your universal laws, I cannot be swayed. All statements of “right” or “wrong” are only preference claims. There is no set moral code which everyone must obey. Each culture, nay, each human being has his or her own set of moral laws which reflect his or her upbringing. Is it fair to say that one person’s opinion on a moral issue is “wrong”?

M: I think so. If I understand what you are saying, it would be considered moral if I killed all Capulets because I was taught that from youth?

F: You speak of moral choices as one would consider what to eat for dinner. Morality is not only dependent upon oneself, but upon one’s culture and those groups surrounding that culture. If one were to decide to follow a certain set of moral laws, one not only applies them to oneself but to those around him or her. In order to remain part of a group, and be regarded with respect by other groups, one must act in a way that does not offend either group.

M: I agree morality should be also dependent upon others. But, what if a certain group has no connection with other groups? It would not be okay to kill members of your own group, because it would not be okay for them to kill you. The matter at hand is that moral law comes from oneself, and that as rational beings, reason gives us that moral law. It would not be a moral law to kill all the Capulets, as I suggested before, because there would be no basis for that moral law. If one were to come up with some sort of basis for moral laws, one would most likely come to some sort of Golden Rule conclusion, and in that case – it would never be considered moral to kill another.

F: It may be considered moral to kill another, in some cases, especially in groups, as you have suggested. Take the Eskimos, for example. The Eskimos kill their elderly, because they slow down the group, and eat what they have not earned. It is a matter of survival, and who are we to judge? In order for their group to survive, they must do what they do. Would it not be immoral to allow the eventual extinction of their group simply because it was immoral to kill the elderly?

M: You are suggesting that the existence of the group as a whole is more important that one person’s existence, and, while I take your point into consideration, you must put yourself in the shoes of the elderly in this situation. If I were an elderly person, would I want to sacrifice my life just because I grew old?

F: Then you speak of conflicting moral laws. “Do not kill” and “Help your family when they are in need” are two moral laws that people ought to follow, usually. However, which is more important? In the case of the Eskimos, helping the family is more important.

M: You have a good point, however, in the case of conflicting moral laws, one must think of the implications of the law becoming universal. The most important aspect of the categorical imperative is to think of the consequences if everyone in the world were to act in such a way. The Eskimos should not kill their elderly, because it would not be moral for every society to kill theirs. We have already agreed that morality should be dependent upon others – and in the case of the categorical imperative, morality is dependent upon all. Absolute moral truth comes from the synthetic a priori proposition that everyone in the world could act in such a way and it be considered moral.

F: You speak of absolute truths again, but you misconstrue the number of people that would find a certain act moral or immoral. There could never be an absolute set of moral laws, because not everyone thinks the same way. One person may think, “It is moral to steal from others,” while most would not agree. However, the person at hand has a different perception of morality. Perhaps this person lives off stealing from others, and does not think it wrong for anyone to steal.

M: Yes, but is he not making an exception of himself? The categorical imperative applies to not only everyone else, but to the self, and would he think it moral for others to steal from him?

F: Your point is well taken, dear Mercutio—but ho, those are laws that involve others in their statements. What when one speaks of cultural laws that do not imply treatment of others, like “Do not waste food,” which would be applicable in places where food is expensive and the population is poor and starving – perhaps in Ethiopia. But how those in America live! wasting food without thought to the less fortunate. The two places, so culturally divided, cannot dream of how the other half lives. Morality in these two places is as different as the abundance of food and money. Nay, morality must depend not only upon the action but upon the context of the action.

M: See I your point, cos, and I must argue your assumption that the morals in the two places must be as different as the living conditions. While societies hath different ways of viewing morality, constant is the basis for all morals – the Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – is generally accepted as moral principle.

F: Ah! But you see, there are problems with the Golden Rule. As I have previously discussed, not everyone hath the same wishes. Some people like to treat others kindly and be treated the same, and some people like to abuse others and also like to be abused. You see, it all depends upon one’s wishes as a rational being. Not all rational beings want the same things, which is what makes culture such a difficult barrier between societies. Physically and mentally, it doth serve as the great divider that separates us. While I have taken all of your points into consideration, I have not been swayed. It is because of cultural separation that there can never be absolute moral truths, only preference claims.

(A threatening voice is heard outside.)

M: As much as I enjoyed this conversation, the Prince of Cats seems to be luring me away from your cell at the moment. It is time for this feud to end. (Shouting as he exists.) A plague o’ both your houses!




Date: 3/6/05
Words: 1058
Links with syllabus: Core Theme—The Human Condition
Optional Theme 8—Principles for Moral Actions—Normative
Ethics

Bibliography and references:
Hospers, John. 1988. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis: Third Edition. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
Wood, Allen W. 2005. Kant. Massachusetts. Blackwell Publishing Limited.
Bowie, Andrew. 2003. German Philosophy: Kant to Habermas. Cambridge. Polity Press.
Wong, David B. 1984. Moral Relativity. Berkeley. University of California Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Shakespeare, William. 2003. Romeo and Juliet. USA. Lorenz Educational Publishers.