Shaley Hurless

Professor Israelsen
5 December 2016
Reflection
At the beginning of this semester we were asked to answer a question similar to What
makes something morally right? I said something about the Golden Rule, and if my feelings had
value then so did others feelings, and something defined as morally right would give others the
rights and respect that I thought I deserved. I had no clue. If I am being really honest, I still have
no clue, but there have been a few subjects that have peaked my interest and made me think that
maybe someone else could have answered the question of morality.
The first subject that I found myself thinking about on a regular basis was the existence
of a god, Anselms ontological argument specifically. I found it intriguing to speculate on an
origin or source of all other things. At the same time I knew that the existence or nonexistence of
a god would not change my view on ethics. I was never convinced by Divine Command Theory.
I think Kant was right when he stated that there can be no moral model because even holy figures
are only deemed as good after they conform to our already set moral standards (G 4:409). If
morality is a part of god or originated from a god, then I think it must also be possible to derive
moral standards from reason. I also think that if there is a god, then Kant was right in saying that
it is gods nature to only act according to reason (G 4:412).
The subject of human nature became central to my acceptance or rejection of an ethical
theory. For me the questions were specifically Are all humans equal? and If not, why should
we all be treated equally? My interest first began with Aristotle. He defined human nature as
our ability to act according to reason. (Nicomachean Ethics) These questions troubled me most
when trying to make sense of Kants Categorical Imperative formulation of Humanity. Beings
with reason should be treated as ends, not merely as means(G 4:429). If we are not equal, then I
see no reason why I should not be the exception to a rule or use others to obtain my own selfish
desires. In answer to
my questions, I think Kant would say that the only thing that separates us is
our inclinations. Reason is always the same. Reason always comes to the same conclusions no
matter who uses it. The ability to use and act according to reason is what qualifies all human
beings as ends.
Freedom, I am still trying to understand. If all human beings have the ability to reason,
certainly some things can enhance or restrict that ability. If I had to answer the question What
makes something morally right? again, I would say it had something to do with freedom. The
thought that I am currently swayed by goes something like this: Never act in such a way that
takes away your own freedom or the freedom of another. If it enhances freedom then it is
morally right. If it takes away freedoms then it is morally wrong. Freedom is not be the ability to
do whatever one pleases without consequence. It is the ability to use ones agency freely and to
not be subject to the will or actions of another. Examples of this statement could be never
withhold the truth from another and restrict their ability to reason, never participate in activities
or ingest substances that could take away ones physical abilities, never neglect talents and reject
opportunities. If I had to adopt a moral standard today, this would be the one.