Inaction is action.
To your second point, that's a fair criticism, and it's one that is often cited, though I'm not totally convinced it adequately refutes Kantian ethics.
There are three dominant schools in ethical thought these days: Deontological, Consequentialism, and Virtue Ethics. I've already explained Deontology.
Consequentialism is pretty much what it sounds like -the ethics of something are determined by the consequences of it. So lying would be an ethical thing to do if it meant saving a Jew from a snooping Nazi.
Virtue Ethics describes the character of a moral agent as the driving force for ethical behavior, rather than rules (deontology), consequentialism (which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself rather than character), or social context (pragmatic ethics). A virtue ethicist would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. As such, lying would be made in a case-by-case basis that would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions.
You seem to be arguing for a more Virtue Ethics approach, which has made a big comeback since it was first put forward by Plato and Aristotle, as it's now one of the three leading schools of thought. The problem, of course, is that (for my interest anyway) I want to know if objective morality exists absent the existence of God. Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism are appealing because there's more gray area and context involved, but that also would mean there's no absolute morality. Only the Deontological approach explained by Kant's Categorical Imperative and explanation of good will being the only "good" there is without qualification works as an absolute morality.
This, however, may be unsatisfactory to some (or most), so the question is: does absolute, objective morality exist without the existence of God? You seem to be saying no, in which case we can't say that murdering an innocent person for no good reason is objectively bad, nor can we say that that holocaust was objectively bad. These things would be reduced to what we feel about them, and how they are not our preference, which, I imagine, people also find unsatisfactory.
So what the fuck?
Therefore, either there is absolute morality through the existence of God, or the holocaust wasn't objectively bad/wrong.
?????????????????????????????
I don't know.
|