Ethics

We often admire people who are true to their convictions, even when we believe that those convictions are actually wrong. Is there anything morally valuable or praiseworthy in simply acting in accordance with what you think is right (regardless of whether it is, in fact, right), or does the moral significance of a particular action have to do only with whether it accords with objective moral standards?

Comments

Kant's ethics gives us a convenient way of thinking aboutthis question. He distinguishes between the moral law (categorical imperative)and a 'maxim'. By the latter he means the rule we actually follow in ourdecisions. It is, he argues, a uniquely human characteristic that we canformulate maxims for ourselves and then follow them. But whether the maximOUGHT to be followed can be decided only by testing it with the moral law. So,someone true to his or her convictions (maxim) is displaying the essentiallyhuman quality that is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of morality.

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Ethics