Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I believe in the trolly problem that is the correct way to apply it. So you as the decision maker would be comfortable with the trolly running you over to save the 10 kids. If not the law isn’t universal it’s dependant on where you sit on the tracks.
|
The issue is that Kant's formulation doesn't fit particularly well with normal moral philosophy thought experiments. You can't assume away other possible circumstances when you're talking about extending an action to "universal law" status. You have to consider all other possible circumstances. Can you really say that it's a universal law that the bomber needs to live, there? What if he's carrying a contagious and deadly disease that will result in him dying anyway, but also everyone he has contact with, including the police who are on their way to arrest him for attempted arson? There are a million other formulations.
If you say, "in that circumstance, I would advocate a different maxim", then you don't have a moral theory, you just have your subjective moral intuitions in each set of circumstances, and the categorical imperative goes out the window. EDIT: Alternatively, someone might as, "well, why, in that circumstance, would your conclusion be different?" If your answer is, "because it would then save the greatest number of people", you've probably abandoned Kant in favour of utilitarianism.
Deontologists are a strange bunch, I don't think most students of moral philosophy think that it's a supportable way to live your life. And given that the base goal of a moral theory is to provide a goal for how to act, that's kind of disqualifying, imo.