Question

One objection to Kant's claim that morality is based on absolute moral rules is that

1. there are real life situations in which moral rules conflict with one another.

2. such rules have no force on people who do not have relevant desires or goals.

3. actions based on such rules may not maximize the happiness of those affected by these actions.

4. most people act in their self-interest, regardless of general rules of conduct.

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) 1. There are real-life situations in which moral rules conflict with one another.

Kant believed that the moral value of an action does not depend on the consequence but rather on the fulfillment of duty. For instance, if John Does is paid to cut down trees, he might have to do it because he is paid and it is now his duty. However, the consequences of his actions are terrible for the environment. According to Kantian theory of morals, John’s actions are moralistic because he is doing his duty. That is why the absolute moral rules proposed by Kant in the categorical imperative is flawed because real-life situations and moral rules conflict each other.

(Also, the answer could also be all of the above. This is because, in the illustration above, John also has no relevant desire to save the environment, his actions that are based on the rules are not really increasing his own satisfaction or the happiness of others and he is also acting in his own self-interest of getting paid for a job. I have chosen option 1 for the main answer because it is based on Mill’s criticism which is the most popular one.)