Latest update April 18th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 26, 2017 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon
President Granger has submitted integrity as one of the requirements the prospective GECOM chairman must embody. Integrity is essentially intertwined with moral values. The question of what are moral values has preoccupied the minds of all the great philosophers throughout history with little or no agreement.
My discussion of integrity will take two forms. First, I will lay the philosophical foundations and in a follow-up column, look at the Guyanese situation to see if the Granger Cabinet has integrity. Part of this discussion was contained in a 2006 column on the subject.
One of the great debates in philosophy is the triangular disagreement on what is morally right and morally wrong – between Hume, on the one hand, Kant on the other, and a separate contribution from the utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham. It is definitely outside the scope of a newspaper column to discuss the philosophies of Hume, Kant and Bentham on morals. But very brief notes should suffice.
Most students who studied philosophy would know that all the past philosophers asked the same question – What is good? Hume broke with tradition by asking – What do we mean by good?
The first traditional question in philosophy centres on the search for norms – that is, for standards or principles of right and wrong. Hume’s question, in contrast, is the pursuit for facts about what moral judgements are – what sorts of things are deemed to be good. Hume argued that moral principles are neither divine edicts nor discoverable by reason.
Hume contended that moral values cannot come through reason. His position rests on his approach to epistemology, which has four assumptions; (1) – Thought consists of having ideas. (2) – Ideas are derived from impressions of senses. (3) – Every thought that something exists is a factual claim. (4) – Factual claim can only be established through observation.
What Hume is saying here is that when we arrive at moral principles, we came through the route of sense impression. He wrote, “Morality is more properly felt than judged of.” We accept moral rights and reject moral wrongs from our emotions, not through reason. Reason cannot settle moral question, just as how it cannot determine whether a portrait is beautiful or not. Kant disagreed, accepted that reason can lead us to moral judgement, and came up with a brilliant rebuttal, but to my mind he doesn’t demolish Hume.
Let’s summarize Kant. He takes two positions: (1) Scientific inquiry can never reveal to us its principles that we know hold without exception. For, example, science, based on experience, reveals to us physical laws that hold true, but science cannot tell us about these concerns in the future. (2) Moral principles, however, hold without exception. For example, if it is wrong to hurt babies, then it would be wrong for anyone, at any time to do so. The reader can see clearly here that Kant is saying that moral principles hold without exception; scientific investigations cannot reveal what hold without exception. Then Kant goes on to a brilliant proposition.
Moral principles are always expressed in the imperative – “do not steal” or “be kind to others.” Now since this moral imperative must hold without exception, it is different from a hypothetical imperative, which is really about something we ought to do if such and such an end is desired. This imperative is opposed to the moral imperative that holds unconditionally.
What all of this means is that human beings should do what they do because it is right, and not because of any other purpose say, because of happiness or because it pleases your friend. To do so is not to act morally.
Kant went on to argue that you should perform your moral obligation because it is your moral duty, not because it is asked of us. The fine part of his theory is when he said that it is not the effects or consequences of your moral act that determine whether it is good or bad. These are not within your control. What is in your control is the intent with which you act.
According to Kant, because a morally good intention is one that acts solely for the sake of doing what is right, it follows that there is no moral worth in say, helping others because you feel sorry for them. There is a moral worth in helping others because it is the right thing to do.
Finally, there is the moral philosophy of the English thinker, Jeremy Bentham. He argues that the morally best decision is one that produces, compared with all other possible alternative acts, the greatest amount of happiness with everyone considered. What this means is that moral judgement must bring the greatest happiness to the greatest numbers. Moral judgement of Guyana’s leaders has never done this.
JAGDEO ADDING MORE DANGER TO GUYANA AND THE REGION
Apr 18, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies captain Hayley Matthews has been named Wisden’s leading Twenty20 Cricketer for 2023, as she topped all and sundry, including her male counterparts. Alan Gardner looks...Kaieteur News – Compliments of the Ministry of Education, our secondary school children are being treated to a stage... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]