{"id":188,"date":"2020-11-10T00:49:12","date_gmt":"2020-11-10T00:49:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/?p=188"},"modified":"2020-11-13T21:40:39","modified_gmt":"2020-11-13T21:40:39","slug":"trump-and-lgbtq-rights-a-kantian-perspective","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/2020\/11\/10\/trump-and-lgbtq-rights-a-kantian-perspective\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump and LGBTQ+ Rights: A Kantian Perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The first prompt we chose asks whether individuals are justified in wishing death upon Trump. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kant states, \u201cthere is only a single categorical imperative and it is this: act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law\u201d (AK 4: 421). A maxim is a general rule that contains an action and a purpose. What this quote means is that it is necessary to look at the rationality of the conduct rather than its morality. This quote also mentions universal laws which are governing rules which humans have to follow. In order to test for universalizability and see if something is a universal law, there are a couple of steps in a procedure that one must follow. The first step is to formulate a maxim. The next step is to universalize the maxim. Next, we have to evaluate the possibility. A maxim that is not possible would result in an impossible world. Lastly, we have to come to a conclusion whether it is a universal law or not. If it is the latter, the action will be considered a moral duty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this example, the prompt is asking whether or not individuals are justified in wishing death upon Donald Trump. To see if wishing death upon Donald Trump can be a universal law, let’s do the universal law test. The maxim would be \u201cI will wish death upon Donald Trump because I disagree with his opinions\u201d. To universalize it, the maxim would change to \u201ceveryone will wish death upon Donald Trump because we disagree with his opinions\u201d. Next, it has to be considered if it is possible or not. Everyone wishing death upon Donald Trump is impossible and is not practical. Not only do many people agree with his political views and the way he governs but if all people were to justify murder through difference in opinion then there would be anarchy world wide. According to this scenario there will never be a point where everyone wishes death upon Donald Trump, therefore this scenario is not universalizable. Furthermore, within the scenario concerning if killing Trump or his death is justifiable, the scenario maxim leads to an impossible world; one where a contradiction takes place. According to Kantian philosophy since this world is not possible ( a world where everyone kills due to disagreements or everyone disagrees with Trump), it is not considered a universal law, and instead the moral duty of NOT wishing death upon Donald Trump arises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Kant and his Humanity law concerning moral duties it would be unjustifiable to wish death upon Trump for it contradicts his Humanity law. Kant defines the humanity law as, \u201cthe human being, and in general every rational being, exists as end in itself, not merely a means to the discretionary use of this or that will, but in all its actions, those directed toward itself as well as those directed toward other rational beings, it must always at the same time be considered as an end\u201d [Ak 4:428]. Kant\u2019s humanity law can be compared to the Golden rule and can be simplified to not using people to reap consequences\/desires for people are goals\/ends in themselves. Concerning whether wishing death upon Trump is justifiable or not, if the question concerns justifying killing Trump to reap beneficial political policies then the death of Trump would not be justifiable for Trump is a \u201crational being\u201d. Within this scenario Trumps death is justified due to said person reaping the benefits of his death but Kant states that no rational being should be used as \u201cmerely a means to the discretionary use\u201d. As well, due to Trump’s autonomy he is considered as an \u201cend\u201d instead of as \u201cmeans\u201d. However, If killing Trump is justified for the greater happiness of the country or one\u2019s self it is still not justifiable for you use the death of Trump to be either \u201cdirected towards itself\u201d or \u201c directed toward other rational beings\u201d. Furthermore, Kant described his humanity law \u201cground principle\u201d o as \u201cRational nature exists as an end in itself [Ak 4:429]\u201d. The grounds of his principle clearly states that Kant would find Trump’s death unjustifiable for within this scenario if his death is justified for the sole benefit of the positive consequences that one could reap then Trump is not being treated within his \u201cRational nature\u201d. No matter what justification towards Trump’s death, if it is based on others or one\u2019s self reaping the benefits of his death, Kant would believe it is unjustifiable for it contradicts his law of humanity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second prompt asks whether it is acceptable to end a friendship over a difference in “opinions” – in this case, regarding the value of LGBTQ+ rights in a society. It may be possible for this to be simplified to the question of whether a person should stop being friends with another person due to a difference in opinions. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it is not appropriate to reduce this particular conflict to a mere difference of opinion, this is not a debate about abstract economic policy or favorite schmear flavor, but the eligibility of a group of people for basic human rights. Kant\u2019s categorical imperative may actually lead us to unusual conclusions about human rights. Here we address the specific scenario: the poster is struggling to decide whether a friend not supporting LGBTQ+ rights is enough reason to end their friendship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the categorical imperative, there are three (previously explicated) steps by which we should evaluate whether this action and purpose aim at the good. Kant requires these hypothetical rational agents, which are essential to the structure of his moral philosophy \u201cact as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature\u201d [Ak4: 421]. The maxim should be articulated as a \u201cI will cut off my friend to express the value of LGBTQ+ rights.\u201d In order for this action to be acceptable to Kant, this maxim cannot be a partial demand, you must act in a manner that all other people can also act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, we should universalize the maxim, and in this imagine a world where all people take the action, namely cutting off friends who do not support the rights of LGBTQ+ people. All people would cut off friendship with people who do not endorse the same values concerning the human rights of LGBTQ+ people. If individuals are cutting people off in order to change the opinion of the friend, this contradicts the humanity law as we are treating those individuals as mere means. Not supporting rights for LGBTQ+ people also might encompass a broad range of beliefs which have varying degrees of exclusivity, and distinguishing between these beliefs if not explicated may result in unwarranted or unreasonable action. This maxim is explicitly about whether the individual values the rights of LGBTQ+ people, and not about the opinions that they hold about LGBTQ+ people in general. Regardless of these consequences or complications, the maxim does appear universalizable and it produces a coherent world in which friend groups are divided based on differences in beliefs. Friendship is a voluntary relationship between two people that is mutually beneficial, thus there is no teleological contradiction with the nature of friendship.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kant\u2019s formula of humanity suggests that one is never morally justified in using another person\u2019s humanity as a mere means to an end – even if that end is to save your own life. When attempting to apply this to the case at hand, the maxim that is being applied must be considered. If the poster\u2019s maxim was \u201cI will no longer be friends with this person so that they change their minds about LGBTQ+ rights,\u201d they may be using them as a means to achieve an end. In this case, it would seem as though the poster is actively changing their interactions with their friend to achieve the outcome of them changing their mind, which would involve intentionally including their friend in the realization of the end. Even if the poster thinks this will benefit their friend, they are still actively implicating another\u2019s behavior in the production of their desired end, which Kant would say is not morally permissible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, if the poster\u2019s maxim was formulated to be something like \u201cI will cut off my friend to express the value of LGBTQ+ rights,\u201d Kant\u2019s answer could be different. In this case, the friend is not being used merely as a means, but is employing their own autonomy to choose how they spend their time and which ideas and arguments they expose themselves to and tolerate. They aren\u2019t using the friend\u2019s humanity as they aren\u2019t expecting any result to come from an action on the part of their friend – instead, they are changing their own actions to attempt to respect and support the autonomy of others to make their own decisions regarding who they marry and how they spend their time. This maxim seems much more universalized, and almost approaches the definition of friendship – the ability to choose to surround yourself with people who you enjoy spending time with and who improve your life. Ultimately, Kant would probably support cutting the friend off if the purpose of the action is narrow and personal enough to remain both universalizable and to respect the autonomy of the friend in question.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The first prompt we chose asks whether individuals are justified in wishing death upon Trump. Kant states, \u201cthere is only a single categorical imperative and it is this: act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law\u201d (AK 4: 421). A maxim … Continue reading Trump and LGBTQ+ Rights: A Kantian Perspective<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1590,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[9],"class_list":["post-188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reader-submissions","tag-kant"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1590"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":221,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188\/revisions\/221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}