While discussing Kant in
class, we talked about how Kant dictates that if you are motivated by the
benefit of an action, then that action is not a morally good action. We must
act based upon duty alone, and these actions are morally good actions. Kant dictates that stealing is a moral wrong. Stealing,
as defined by thefreedictionary.com, is "to take the property of another
without right or permission."
Moral laws are universal,
which means that the laws are not conditional upon anything. There are no
circumstances that will ever make stealing morally right.
In class, we discussed
the idea of a rational person “stealing” a banana from the hands of a
monkey. Dr. J argued that we cannot “steal”
from a monkey but I believe that we can. The human is a rational being. It
knows right from wrong, and that taking things that are not his is stealing and
that stealing is a moral wrong.
Dr. J said that she
could see taking/stealing the banana from the monkey as a moral wrong if the
monkey were starving and if that were its last banana. But circumstances aren’t
supposed to affect the morality of the act. It is still wrong to steal the
banana for yourself from the hands of another sentient being that did not offer
it to you. A moral wrong is universally applicable, with no exceptions. I
believe that it includes moral wrongs that affect all sentient beings, whether
they are considered to be “rational beings” or not because the person who is
stealing the banana knows that taking something that is not yours from another
being is wrong. Babies are not considered rational beings according to Kant, but
I believe it is possible to steal from a baby and it is still morally wrong to do
so.
One issue that arises in
determining whether the human is “taking” or stealing” the banana is whether or
not the monkey knows that the banana is his property, whether a monkey has a sense of personal property. I argue that
monkeys do have a sense of personal property.
Monkeys are very territorial, and they constantly fight amongst themselves
because of this. Dr. J argued that we
cannot know if monkeys have a sense of property unless they tell us they do,
and that therefore we cannot make assumptions on this, even based on research
of their behavior. Therefore, Dr. J argued that we cannot include animals in
this moral law that stealing is wrong.
What do you think? Do
you believe that the moral wrong of stealing should be applicable to sentient
beings in general or only human beings? Do you believe that it is possible to “steal”
a banana from a monkey?
I would have to agree with you Blair. If we're going to go off of Kant's perception of morality, then we have to know that morality is one sided. Our morals depend solely on our actions, and not the affects that may or may not happen as a result of them. Therefore, when we go back to the argument about whether you can really call it "stealing" when you take a monkey's banana, there shouldn't even be an argument. Whether the monkey knows it or not, you have taken something that belonged to the monkey. It's stealing, not because the victim (in this case, the monkey) was aware that you had taken something that didn't belong to you, but because you were aware tha you had taken something that belonged to you. The only circumstance in which stealing wouldn't have to be considered stealing would be in a situation where the perpetrator honestly didn't know that he was stealing. So, to answer your question, the moral wrong of stealing should be applicable in all cases in which the person doing the actual stealing is aware of what he is doing.
ReplyDelete- Jessica Ealy
If you are using Kant's definition of morality, then I completely agree with you (sorry Dr. J). However, I believe Mill was on the right track, and if we use Mill's definition of morality, the issue of stealing becomes much more clouded. Mill is a utilitarian, and sets his moral compass in the direction that brings greatest happiness to the greatest amount of people. To use your example, if a monkey was starving and this was his last banana, Mill would say that to take that banana would be stealing and therefore morally wrong. However, if this monkey had one hundred bananas and you were starving, it would not be a moral wrong to take the banana. It becomes complicated if both you and the monkey were starving. Although he of course he does not specifically address this situation, I think that Mill would argue that taking the banana would give the human a greater happiness than the monkey, because that human would then survive and be able to attain the "higher pleasures" while the monkey would only be able to eat more bananas.
ReplyDeleteActually Mill does, in a way, address this situation. In Chapter II, Mill states: "the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation." Thus utilitarianism could be interpreted as being based on the consequences of actions on all sentient beings, animals included. I do agree however that Mill may place more value on human life, since he places human pleasures above animal pleasures.
ReplyDeleteI think you CAN steal from a monkey. And I also believe that Kant would agree with this. Kant's moral philosophy does not depend on consequences, and therefore does not depend on how the action effects someone or the rest of the world as a whole. But I also believe that this includes what the action effects. I do not believe that it matters whether you are stealing from a human or a monkey, it is still stealing if you are coming into possession of something that you did not rightly acquire. This is because morality is strictly determined by the compatibility of an individuals motives and "good will", not the situation of the action. To Kant, stealing is always stealing just like lying is always lying. It is never morally permissible, but might occur out of necessity due to a situation. Kant is not telling us how to act, but what actions are in line with the Categorical Imperative, and stealing from a monkey is not one of them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Blaire, stealing is wrong and any rational person with a conscious knows it is wrong. It doesn’t matter who or what the rational being is stealing from, it is still stealing. I believe Kant would agree with me because theft contradicts perfect duty. There is no categorical imperative to steal even if it would save your life or someone else’s life (assuming maybe you are stealing the banana from the monkey because it is the last banana). Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she could not possibly consent is a violation of perfect duty. If a thief were to steal a banana from a monkey, without the consent from the monkey it would mean that the transfer was theft which is contradicting perfect duty. -Morgan
ReplyDeleteI also think stealing from a monkey would be a moral transgression, not because of the monkey's sentience, but because of your own. Whether or not a monkey can steal from you is another point entirely. If we cannot apply a code of ethics to a rational being acting upon an irrational being, a line becomes blurred in the sand. Is it not stealing to take candy from a baby, and lending myself to hyperbole: is it not a breach of morals to kill a baby with no ability to reason? On the flip side, if a monkey fires a gun and kills someone, there is a large probability the monkey was not trying to act out in aggression; rather he pulled a trigger in confusion. Morals can be applied in scenarios involving irrational beings, once you say you can not you are able to find loop holes around rational behavior, something that goes very against Kant's consistency bound and based philosophy.
ReplyDelete