Journal Reflections 3

Journal Reflections 3 - Journal Reflections #3 Sara...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Journal Reflections #3 Sara Martinson March 16, 2011 Kant believes that we are to act on principle and to treat each person we encounter as he or she deserved to be treated. The motives of our actions directly result in an outcome. So, for example, Kant thinks that even in a life or death situation where it is up to you to either lie or get your friend killed, you should always tell the truth. Julia feels that Kant’s position is a disregard for negative responsibility. Negative responsibility simply states that you are somewhat responsible if something bad happens and you could have prevented it, but you didn’t. Bernard Williams though wonders who could be responsible if you happen upon a situation where you must kill 1 and save a group of others or not kill the one and they all die. If the person chose to not kill just the one, should he really be held responsible for the rest dying? I don’t think that he should; which goes against what Kant seems to think. I don’t think the person should be held responsible for the deaths because he is not the one who instigated the killing. Kant feels that you can look at lying in this way also. You can lie or you can lie to save an innocent life. While the first scenario would be wrong at any and all times, the second one is wrong but to an extent. In my point of view looking at those two situations, they seem entirely different. Lying either way is always going to be wrong. We might think that lying for a ‘good reason’ is acceptable but either way it is the wrong thing to do. I also think lying and killing lie on different planes even if all sins are the same. I would be way more willing to lie about something in order to save a life than to kill someone to save an innocent life. March 16.5, 2011
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Kant feels that nothing is really good unless it is a good will. Talents and temperaments, even the best ones such as intelligence, judgment, courage, can be excessively bad if the person who holds these qualities doesn’t poses good character. Even things such as health, riches, power and over-all well being can create pride in a person which in turns makes them arrogant. Someone without a good will should not even have the opportunity to be happy. Even the best things in a person, without a good will, can make them bad. A bad person is far more dangerous when he is cool because he has a bad will. A good will doesn’t become good by what it brings about; it is just good in itself. I agree with Kant on this statement. I think that in order for us to really be doing something good in our lives we have to be doing it out of good character. Even the people with the most desirable characteristics aren’t good people if they aren’t using those ‘good’ traits for something better. As Kant had mentioned, you must always treat humans as ends in themselves not simple as a means. We are required to treat other humans with the utmost respect and like they deserve all the best. We aren’t to be treating them as simply a pawn in our own life plans. March 17, 2011
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 17

Journal Reflections 3 - Journal Reflections #3 Sara...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online