Moral Dilemmas, Kantian Ethics, and the Role of Emotions in Decision-Making

QUESTION

Imagine the two following scenarios for this discussion:

Your Brother (or a similarly close relative) has been killed intentionally.  His murderer stands trial for his crimes and is convicted.  They have left his punishment up to you.  Can you decide to have this murderer killed?  Why or why not?  (If you don’t decide one way or another – he will go free.)

Your Brother (or a similarly close relative) has killed a person intentionally and has received the death penalty for his crimes.  They have left his punishment up to you.  Can you conclude the same punishment for your brother as you did in the case above?

What would Kant say about your answers?  Would he conclude that you acted on a ‘universal maxim’?  If not, why not?  What role does emotions have in your decisions – and should they have any role?  What would Kant say about the role of your emotions in your decisions?

ANSWER

Moral Dilemmas, Kantian Ethics, and the Role of Emotions in Decision-Making

Introduction

In the realm of ethical decision-making, scenarios involving close relatives and intentional killings pose intricate moral dilemmas. Imbued with profound emotional weight, these scenarios call into question the extent to which emotions should influence our choices. Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics offers insights into the universal maxim and the role of emotions in decision-making. This essay examines the application of Kantian principles in two scenarios involving the intentional killing of a close relative, exploring the implications of emotions and their role in decision-making.

Scenario 1: Murderer of a Close Relative

In the first scenario, where a close relative has been intentionally killed, and the murderer stands trial, the decision to have the murderer killed poses a moral quandary. According to Kantian ethics, the categorical imperative mandates treating individuals as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end. Taking a life for the purpose of vengeance or retribution violates this principle. Kant would argue that deciding to have the murderer killed would be ethically impermissible, as it treats the murderer as a mere means to achieve personal satisfaction. Instead, Kantian ethics would advocate for the murderer to be punished in accordance with the law, ensuring justice is served.

Scenario 2: Close Relative Receives the Death Penalty

In the second scenario, if a close relative has intentionally killed someone and received the death penalty, the decision to conclude the same punishment for the relative presents a similar ethical dilemma. While emotions might tempt one to seek revenge, Kantian ethics would lead to a different conclusion. Kant’s principle of universality instructs individuals to act in a way that their actions could be rationally willed as a universal law. Applying this principle, concluding the same punishment for one’s close relative would undermine the consistency and universality of moral principles. Kant would argue that it is our duty to respect the legal system and the punishment it deems appropriate, irrespective of personal relationships or emotions.

The Role of Emotions in Decision-Making:

Emotions undoubtedly play a significant role in moral decision-making. However, according to Kant, emotions should not be the sole basis for ethical choices. He emphasizes the primacy of reason and rationality in moral judgments. While emotions may inform our initial reactions and shape our perspectives, Kant maintains that they should be subjected to rational scrutiny and evaluated in light of moral principles. Acting solely on emotions can lead to subjective and inconsistent decisions that lack universal applicability.

Kant’s Perspective on Emotions

Kant assigns a limited role to emotions in moral decision-making. He argues that emotions are subjective and contingent on personal experiences, thereby rendering them unreliable for determining moral duties. Kantian ethics prioritize the impartiality of rational principles over the fluctuating nature of emotions. Emotions, in Kant’s view, should not be the ultimate arbiters of ethical choices, but rather be subjected to reason and the universal moral law.

Conclusion

In the moral dilemmas presented, Kantian ethics provides valuable insights into decision-making processes. Kant would argue that deciding to have a murderer killed or concluding the same punishment for a close relative would be ethically impermissible. Emotions, though influential, should not dictate our moral choices. Instead, Kant emphasizes the importance of reason, universality, and the adherence to moral principles. By subjecting emotions to rational scrutiny, individuals can arrive at ethical decisions that align with the universal maxim, fostering a just and consistent moral framework.