TOD 11.14.07

Immanuel Kant believed that ethics was about following certain rules and that the results were irrelevant. John Stuart Mill believed that the only rule was to get the best results. And most of the disputes in ethics can be reduced to an argument between these two views.

For instance, some say war is always wrong on principle, but others say it’s necessary because of the reality of evil. Some say that taxation is wrong because it’s theft, but others say it’s necessary to provide safety and security. Some say that corporal discipline is wrong because it teaches violence, but others say that you can’t reason with a two-year-old. This same tension is bothering pro-lifers struggling with the idea of candidate Giuliani.

Kant’s approach focuses on being a morally pure agent. Mill’s approach emphasizes accomplishing good in the world. And, as the other cases show, sometimes wisdom requires us to sacrifice our own feeling of principled purity for something more important than moral pride. That’s a virtue another famous philosopher called prudence.