prof.goodman

Discussion: below are instructions 200 words

Think of someone real or fictional whom some people regard as a “hero” for helping others, stopping something bad or evil, and so forth, even though by doing so they violated what would normally be considered a moral rule (focus on morality; don't simply think of someone who broke the law). For example, they may have lied, broken a promise, stolen, harmed someone innocent, or even murdered, but done so with good intentions. (Note: this last part is crucial: make sure you explain what it was that they did that would otherwise be morally questionable. Also, it need not be someone you think is a hero.) Try to think of any example that we would either all be familiar with, or something we can easily look up (in other words, don’t just make something up or describe something generic). Many examples are given in the guidance and the readings, including people like Robin Hood, Edward Snowden, etc. Please don’t use an example that someone else has already used! Now here’s the fun part: once you have thought of your example, evaluate what they did according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Is what the person did moral, or immoral, according to the CI? Do you agree with this evaluation of the action? If you agree, how would you explain to the person in your own words why what they did was wrong? If you don’t agree, and think that what they did was morally right, how would you respond to the question, “what if everyone did that?” When responding to your peers, consider whether they have correctly applied the Categorical Imperative, and if they agreed with Kant, consider what a consequentialist might say; if they disagreed with Kant, consider what a Kantian might say, and use those considerations as a springboard for dialogue and discussion.

Response to Rebecca:

Good day class,

The Arrow also known as the Green Arrow is the fictional character that I chose for this discussion. This character was looked at by many in the beginning as a bad man; even the police were out to get him for all he had done. This is a fictional character that originally came out in comic books and since then has become a television show. The Arrow would go after the bad men and would kill them or trap them using his arrows, hints where he gets his name from. This is morally questionable because who is he to be the judge and jury deeming who is evil or bad. However, the Arrow has also been there for people in need of his help due to finding themselves in trouble. According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative you can look at this in a few ways. Yes, the Arrow is taking bad people/criminals off the street; however, is it his right or job to decide who these individuals are? There is a justice system out there for a reason to do just that. With that being said there are many things that have to be considered and proven before judgement is placed.

Shaunetta:

Kant deontology is designed to achieve a goal (Mosser, 2013). That what I can say that Batman (Bruce Wayne) was trying to achieve in the city of Gotham City. He was crusading against the endless wave of crime in the city that was again the people. Batman was not obligated or even demand to do the act but this is what he felt that was right in the situation in order to help reduce crime in the city. In the case of Batman the two elements that Kant talks about in his theory which is you need to see two elements which is hypothetically which is the action is good for some purpose. The purpose here is to make the city and the people safe.  The other element is categorically, which declares the action objectively necessary without referring to any end view holds as an apodictic practical. In this case, he seen it to be necessary to help the greatest number of people. In order to help the people feel at ease I feel like his act was what was needed in order to restore safety to the city.

Angela:

The hero that I am going to discuss is a Navy Seal named Chris Kyle, also known as the American Sniper.  Chris Kyle was a trained sniper who was sent to Iraq to seek out and kill known terrorists.  Based on Kant’s categorical imperative, Chris Kyle’s actions while serving our country were moral and would fall under the categorical imperative because this was something that Chris Kyle had to do to protect his country.  “The categorical imperative, on the other hand, has no exceptions and is something one must do.  As part of the categorical imperative, Kant assumes that being a moral person is a requirement; it is not merely a goal people may choose to strive for Kant offers several versions of the categorical imperative” (Mosser, 2013).  It was his duty to do what he did and he was following orders given to him.  “An action that is done from duty doesn’t get its moral value from the purpose that’s to be achieved through it but from the maxim that involves, giving the reason why the person acts thus” (Kant, 2008).  I agree with Chris Kyle’s actions, he was doing the job he was supposed to in order to keep people safe from the enemy.  Often time’s people such as Chris Kyle are not seen as a hero and there are those out there who disagree with his actions.  But in a case like this, I believe he is a hero and should be recognized as such.  Unfortunately we are still dealing with horrible terrorist acts as of today and if Chris Kyle were still alive, I believe he would do it all again for the sake of protecting his country and it's people.