It is
3:00 a.m., and your college roommate asks you why you are up late pondering
moral dilemmas involving runaway trolleys.
“To
write a good paper in Ethics 101,” you reply.
“But why
write a good paper?” your roommate asks.
“To get
a good grade.”
“But why
care about grades?”
“To get
a job in investment banking.”
“But why
get a job in investment banking?”
“To become
a hedge fund manager someday.”
“But why
be a hedge fund manager?”
“To make
a lot of money.”
“But why
make a lot of money?”
“To eat
lobster often, which I like. I am, after all, a sentient creature. That’s why I’m
up late thinking about runaway trolleys!”
This is
an example of what Kant would call heteronomous determination – doing something
for the sake of something else, for the sake of something else, and so on. When
we act heterogeneously, we act for the sake of ends given outside us. We are
instruments, not authors, of the purpose we pursue.
Kant’s
notion of autonomy stands in stark contrast to this. When we act autonomously,
according to a law we give ourselves, we do something for its own sake, an end
in itself. We cease to be instruments of purposes given outside us. This
capacity to act autonomously is what gives human life its special dignity. It
marks out the difference between persons and things….
Sandel,
J. Michael (2009) Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
沒有留言:
張貼留言