[i'm having a very serious case of deja vu as i begin to write this. I don't know if i've already ranted on it...perhaps here or in an email. If i'm being repetitive, don't worry, because repetiveness is my job. In other words, it's my job to be repetitive.]

Ever since i took that ethics and morality class at RU, i've been facinated with the teachings of Kant. I have utmost respect for his theories, but i've always been conflicted with their actual application. As i'm sure you know, he refuses to ever look at the consequences of decisions. Instead, he says that a person can ony have control over his own decision making and that's where the focus should be. The classic example of Kantian theory is this: If you were hiding an innocent jew in your house (during nazi germany) and an SS soldior came to your door, you couldn't/shouldn't lie to him. If he asks "do you have any jews hiding in your place" you'd have to admit to it, even though you KNOW that means that an innocent person will be murdered.

Kant justifies such a perplexing theory by saying that the person in question does not have any control over the circumstances he finds himself in. Nazis exist independent of him. It's not his fault the SS soldior is going to commit an unethical action. All the person can do is stay true to himself and not lie.

Obviously, the problem is that not everyone will stay true to the Kant code. While it is noble to try and stay ethical in the cespool that is mankind, being a martyr is futile and pointless. It's almost downright arrogant to be so concerned with your own morals that you sacrafice the good of the world. No one person is the center of the universe. If telling a lie can save an innocent person's life, then that person should make the "sacrafice" and lie. A vegetarian should eat a piece of meat on a bet if that means that 2 other people will agree not to eat meat for a month.

Of course, there is always the slippery slope problem. If i can justify lieing in this instance, someone else will be able to justify it in another circumstance. and so it goes. Before you know it, the "universal truth" that "lieing is wrong" will become withered away into nothing. And, as a general rule, i want to believe in universal truths and natural law. For years, i've WANTED to believe in kant but couldn't reconsile my desire to believe that the "right" thing to do would be to lie to the SS soldior.

Here's the best i can do: the fundamental flaw is that he generalizes too much to find his universal truths. Why is the litmus test truth vs lie? Why can't the ethical question simply be "protecting an innocent life". It's all about how you pose the question. If you ask the question this second way, then the natural law would be to protect your jewish friend. Kant steps too far back. Yes, generally, the truth is to be preferred over lies. However, the world is too complicated to have simplistic rules like that. One can argue that "killing is wrong", but if presented with a situation where you have to kill someone who is about to murder a little girl in order to protect her, the answer becomes less clear.

And thus i've come to the conclusion that Kant is not the great thinker that I once thought. (thinker and thought in the same sentence? i'm not happy with that). It's the equivelant of someone who bases all their decisions on whether or not it is legal. "sorry, can't do that, that's illegal, and illegal is wrong." He's removing himself and his own thoughts from the equation. He's refusing to examine anything on his own, instead relying on these general rules that he can't deviate from.

A good test of one's belief system is to crate ridiculous hypotheticals. Often, people dismiss such hypos as "oh that could never happen", but that's not the point. If you can eliminate the extremes, it gives you a better understanding of what you actually believe in. Ok, you say you believe that killing is wrong, but does that mean that you wouldn't kill someone who.... After you go through all the rules, and the exception to the rules, and the exceptions to the exceptions, THEN you are left with your own personal truths regarding morality. Whether or not there is then a "natural law" is left open to debate. But, while i still believe in natural law, i don't think the search for it is all that important. Man, is probably incapable of beign objective enough to find the natural law in terms of morality. but it doesn't matter whether or not we can ever "know" if all lieing is wrong.

uh, i suppose i need a concluding paragraph or something, but i'm drawing a blank. whatever, you know where i was going with this, so let's just end it.