Teaching Morality by Example(s)
v. Teaching Morality through Principle(s) – Notes on Kant’s Groundwork for
Metaphysics of Morals
*Written for the Theories
of Justice course with Professor Walsh
of Justice course with Professor Walsh
The quest for discovering what is
right and wrong - the fundamental quest of ethical philosophy - is a perennial
and universal quest. All human societies in all eras have engaged themselves
with it. As we trudge through this incredibly dense tract dealing with the same
issue, I don't think it would be totally outlandish to take a moment's pause
and have a quick glance at how others are dealing with the issue.
Most human societies in most eras
of history have taken the view that morality is taught best through examples
and not through mere principles. In the Islamic tradition, the life of the last
of the prophets is reflected upon, for this purpose. As the Quran says: "Those
who look forward to meeting with their Lord and to the Day of Judgment, and the
those who are forever dwelling on the thought of Him, in the Prophet of
God they shall find the perfect example (of a life well
spent.)" (The Holy Quran, Book of the Allies, Verse 21)
This is not too different from
the concept of the Great Example which Christians, at least in some eras of
history, relied upon. Confronted with a rathe mind-boggling moral quandary,
Justice Coleridge observed in R v. Dudley "[I]t is enough in a Christian
country to remind ourselves of the Great Example whom we profess to
follow..." In the Gospel of John, Jesus is reported to have said: "Verily,
verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do
shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go
unto my Father." (The Holy Bible, New Testament, Gospel of John,
Chapter 14, Verse 12)
So why did Kant feel the need to
embark upon this quest for the discovery of a "Metaphysics of
Morals"? Because he is concerned by the question: "why moral
teachings are so ineffective?" He points out two possible culprits:
one, relying upon examples, instead of principles and two, "looking for
all sorts of inducements to moral goodness." He is of the opinion that
"[i]mitation has no place in moral matters...[E]xamples can never
justify our guiding ourselves by examples and setting aside their true origin
which resides in reason." He is also of the view that his exercise
will improve our "knowledge of duties" making it more "theoretically
and precisely defined" and that once we have discovered the new
knowledge of duties, it will have "an influence on the human heart much
more powerful than all other motivations."
Pure Morality in the Kantian
sense does not exist in the real world. Kant admits it.
"[i]f we pay attention
to... what human beings do...I must admit... that one cannot in fact
point to any sure example of the disposition to act out of pure duty...."
And "[o]ne need not be an enemy of virtue ... to become doubtful at
certain moments whether any genuine virtue can really be found in
the world."
I think it follows that from this
observation that pure morality probably wont exist in the world - even after
Kant's remarkable intellectual feat in laying it bare before us. And creed
which tries to base itself on pure morality wont ever gain many adherents, nor
would it have much power on the human heart.
