Área Oftalmológica Avanzada Dr. Vergés . C/Dalmases 42, 08017 Barcelona     |     93 551 33 00     |     info@cverges.com
 
CATALA | CASTELLANO | ENGLISH    
Youtube Facebook Blog Pacientes Blog Profesionales Twitter  LinkedIn RSS News
 
AA

The categorical imperative to a minimum ethical

We live in an age where one every other day also featured a new case of corruption, deceit and prevarication and as I said a few days ago with some friends, we have settled into a point where nothing surprises us, we take it as a fact "normal "yes, we still outraging the lack of responsibilities.

The conversation was progressing and we conclude what if there was something that surprised us and the impunity of the speech, see how those corrupt, these people were able to argue a defense of his actions that went beyond the cynicism and hypocrisy , they were arguments result of internal reflection in which they had come to believe their own lies and from there to act the way they had done. Even appeared as "good people" who had done what was expected of them and they did not understand the reaction of people were surprised the rejection of their actions.

One of the fellow members commented that this situation reminded him of the writings of Hannah Arendt when analyzing the statements of the Nazis after World War II, is surprised to see people supposedly very bad, argued that they had done the right thing, eliminating a people, the Jews, who posed a threat to their families and the rest of the world and, yes, it had been necessary to use means that could be described as a certain cruelty. Statements were who does not feel guilty and do not understand the accusation of others who should be grateful. The same is happening now with our politicians (few differences), they feel they are doing the right thing and that majority at the polls legitimizes its modus operandi, although the level of unemployment will rise.

In this reaction so surprising to those who attended astonished such incidents, would think to see what happens, it is questionable whether this is a political group without values ​​or perhaps a moral wrong.

In this special reflection that depart expresses moral value judgments and that unlike other trials, are tax rate, are not intended to describe things, not tell us how they are, tell us what things should be. Value judgments depart from the individuality and project to the universality, that of, "what I want or do not want to me, is what I wish for others." Following this line one might ask what I want for myself and for others. In a survey sure the answer would win: desire that makes us happy and reject the pain and suffering. The question now would be, how do I get and this is when they enter the different types of morality, from which follow the categorical imperative, formal ethics and ethical and which are the hypothetical imperative, materials and teleological ethics. Consider the differences.

With the hypothetical imperative looking for the best way to achieve what we have set out, if I want to be happy, seek the welfare of yourself or others. Here the value does not give the action itself but the purpose, objective, achieve happiness. However, in the categorical imperative opposite occurs, the value is in the action itself, an action that arises from the duty, not an act according to duty. The intention of doing good is what counts so, if I pay my taxes just because finances required me, I'm within the law but not in morality.

The resulting hypothetical imperative materials and teleological ethics. It is based on two arguments, the first, "if you want to be happy, you should do this or that", tell us how to live, so they are material and the second, "everything is good to provide us happiness" a finalist argument, teleological. Based on what we have to do to be happy, we eudaemonism character or ethics, or ethical hedonism and utilitarianism pleasure or ethical action.

The categorical imperative leads to formal ethics and professional conduct, where the value of the stock does not give the good it brings but the fact of duty, act in accordance with the principles of my conscience, morality in me. The formal ethics also seek happiness and it resides in acting doing what we do, morality arises from assessing the action itself and not as a means to achieve happiness. From the perspective of formal ethics, ethics materials would not be ethical.

In eudaemonism proposed by Aristotle, happiness is to achieve the satisfaction it gives me reaching the highest excellence in myself, to fully develop my potential. Virtue is the best way to do one thing and moral virtues arise here, knowing what I do and I know how to live, something that will be acquired throughout life, with the experience, reflection and learning from other individuals virtuous. It is an ethic that "ordered" my private life, so we speak of a character ethic.

Hedonism, proposed by Epicurus, is an ethics based on the pleasure principle, but not in the pleasure of physical excesses but a pleasure controlled by reason, seek the pleasure of the necessary and natural: I have thirst and drink water not the pleasure of the unnecessary and unnatural: I enjoy torturing people. When I get to control the pleasure I'm in a sustainable welfare state (ataraxia), in which I have what I need and do not depend on anything that is difficult to achieve, is the ethics of pleasure.

Utilitarianism, proposed by Bentham and Stuart Mill, proposes to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, depending on the circumstances. Stuart Mill points out that the greatest pleasure is that which is achieved with the effort, with reflection of wanting to look that good, to be aware of that pleasure, for it speaks of the "duty to have a happiness project and fight for it" by Hence the importance of education to mold the character of the people, to change, "I want what I want to, I want what I want" is the ethics of the action.

With this description of the different types of ethics, in view of what is happening around us, we could say that we have gone from a hard sense ethics, the categorical imperative, an ethical sense light, minimums, using the hypothetical imperative, even devaluing. We've been discovering that morality in me, we proposed Kant, to go by my principles shaping the needs and convenience I often develop. Regardless of the debate itself all born with moral principles to distinguish right and wrong, it is true that we face the judgment of our consciousness, the problem is how we gain awareness of what is good and what is bad, obviously something closely related to education.

If we seek the origins of morality, the Latin moralis, we see that refers to the customs, ie the customs of our environment is what made the good work, the "principles" of action, such as burying the dead or feed the hungry, a guide that was transformed into duty, moral law. Every culture has some customs that make coexistence principles, morals, always aiming to seek one's own good and that of others. The problem is when these customs are being altered, when deriving towards acting as convenience or benefit of a few, arguing that this is the most desirable well, misinterpreting the proposal of Bentham and Stuart Mill, and this is where I wanted to get .

Our corrupt politicians and some (not lump them in the same bag thrushes), take refuge in this fact, as do a morality, minimum and confuse the search for a virtuous life, where the pleasure it gives control of my weaknesses and where moral judgment is still the "must do's" in a process of reflection,-as they send all ethics that we have just seen, in which an ideology forged by way of moral principles, which leads them to act ethically ie according to that ideology. An ideology that does not take into account the action itself but the consequences is teleological, look for the good of the majority and of course, sometimes that leads me to make decisions that may not be correct but it is what I had to do and what they expect from me, that is, is right.

These undesirable people, follow a process of argument that validate any action, getting closer to that that "the end justifies the means" yes, always for the sake of what is best for others and therefore, for me, falls who fall and even if it takes some money to a tax haven. We have gone from an ethics of the categorical imperative of a sloppy ethics, "take the money and run", as Woody Allen, even something that just make us laugh makes us mourn.

back