Quote:
|
This strikes me as a sort of high horse mentality where one refuses to compromise one's ideals regardless of the consequences.
|
While I understand the reasoning behind your statements, it strikes me that compromising one's principles depending on circumstances is basically equivalent to having no principles at all. Bending the ideals under pressure is an admission that the ideals being bent are not really worth upholding in the first place, but instead are there because they are personally and momentarily convenient. What stops a person from taking that kind of mentality and taking it to the extreme - saying something like "because it is ok to kill one individual to save the lives of five others, then it is now ok to go out killing many for the sake of my own advancement"?
Quote:
I'll pull out an old Kantian example to illustrate the problem with taking the "principled" stand in situations like this:
Suppose that you are asleep in your bedroom when your sleep is disturbed by a madman with an axe. The madman asks you where your children are sleeping. Now, if you don't give him an answer, you are confident that he will search around your house for your children and inevitably find them. Furthermore, you are absolutely morally opposed to lying: you think that intentionally lying is a terrible moral offense and have avoided telling a lie for your entire adult life up to this point.
|
An interesting example, but the presentation is flawed. While we may assume that some reactions by the madman are likely, in truth the person being woken up in the middle of the night has no idea what the madman will do regardless of the answer given, and thus you cannot present cause-effect scenarios as options to pick from. For example, the person might tell the truth as to where the children are, and the madman may respond with "Good. I'll be sure to avoid that room later," and never actually enter it.