The Kantianism & The Holocaust & Moral Philosophy
The Kantianism & The Holocaust & Moral Philosophy
PART A – “The Holocaust and Moral Philosophy” Please respond to the following: Debate It: Take a position for or against this statement: The moral philosophy of the Holocaust suggests that morals are relative, not absolute. Provide reasons and examples to support your view.
PLEASE RESPOND TO CLASSMATE DISCUSSION WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT & A DETAILED WHY: I do not agree with the statement that the moral philosophy of the Holocaust suggests that morals are relative, not absolute. I think it is absolute. To me, good and evil are two things that will forever be absolute. You cannot change those two concepts. The insensitivity to human life by one man was nothing but evil. You cannot look at it any other way. I am one of these people that firmly believe evilness is wrong regardless of culture or situation. What Hitler put the Jewish people through in his reign or terror was nothing but absolute evil. We are talking about human life here, and I feel that there is one universal moral code which is ultimate and applies equally to all people and that changing conditions or changing opinions make no difference whatsoever when someone’s life is involved. Everyone has a right to life, but Hitler chose to ignore that basic right. What person would think human life has no value, one that only thinks with evilness in his heart.
PART B – “A Critique of the Kantianism” Please respond to the following: Discuss your level of agreement or disagreement with Kant’s “categorical Imperative” and respond to this question: Can people determine in every circumstance what “the right thing to do” would be? Provide reasons and examples to support your view.
PLEASE RESPOND TO CLASSMATE DISCUSSION WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT & A DETAILED WHY: No, I do not think that people can determine what is right in every situation. It is a struggle at times when people need to make an ethical decision. Decisions about right and wrong permeate our daily life. Sure, we have a framework but sometimes the situation does not fit within that framework, and that is where the difficulties lie. Is it always wrong to lie? I do not think so because it depends on the situation. For instance, an ill patient asks their doctor is there any possibility their illness will improve. The doctor has a feeling if he tells the patient the truth about their condition the patient may give up and stop fighting for their life. So, the doctor lies and says they have a chance of recovery to keep the patient hopes from dimming. The doctor made an ethical decision to lie because he felt it was for a good cause. Was it a wrong or right decision to get the patients hopes up? It depends how one chooses to at it. Or what about this example to kill. I am being attacked, and no one is witnessing the attack to come to my rescue. I am about to be raped, so I pick up a heavy object and hit my attacker across the head, and the blow kills the attacker. I know it is wrong to kill, but at the moment I was not thinking about that and was only focusing on protecting myself. If it meant killing my attacker to save myself, I needed to do what I could, and I decided to kill. Was I wrong for killing the person to save myself from harm? Again, we make decisions sometimes based in the moment, or sometimes we follow our conscience and do what we think would provide the best outcome. The decisions could turn out bad or good but either way, we have no way of knowing what it would be beforehand.
