According to Immanuel Kant, for a person to be morally worthy, it is imperative that their actions be based on duty. Acting solely on feelings is a selfish endeavor and is not morally acceptable; in other words, merely saving Anne Frank family’s life to feel good is being selfish to perhaps the greater good of humanity. The satisfaction accrued from saving her life should only come out of an act of duty; this is to mean that even if I did not enjoy the act of saving their lives, I would do it because it is my duty. However, saving their lives would imply that I would have to lie to the SS officers; this presents another dilemma according to Kant’s ethics. On Kant’s perspective, the first formulation from the Categorical Imperative urges us only to do actions in which we would also will that they become natural laws.
What does it mean to will that lying becomes a natural law and if everyone was to lie in the same situation, and it is morally acceptable would people lose trust in one another knowing clearly that the lie is saving lives? Such cases bring about moral exceptions. They are rare situations that break from the strict following of moral duties and obligations. The lie is acceptable because it based on reason. In Kantian ethics actions which are based on reason are considered to be morally worthy and acceptable. Hence reason should guide my action to save them. The motivation behind saving their lives justifies me as being morally worthy, and the consequences that follow do not matter. If by bad luck we are caught or by chance we survive my actions will vindicate me. Hence it is possible for exceptions to exist while still trying to fulfil moral obligations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
