A Unique and Meaningful Life Essay -- Philosophy Essays

A Unique and Meaningful Life A unique and meaningful life is compatible with the concept of a moral agent’s deliberative frame. In defense of this assertion, I will argue in favour of Barbara Herman’s Kantian discussion of moral obligation, which suggests that moral conflict occurs in the agent’s grounds of obligation. Grounds of obligation are facts recognized and considered by the agent during moral deliberation; they are â€Å"facts of a certain sort. They have moral significance because they are defining features of our (human) rational natures that limit what we can rationally will (as defined by the CI procedure)† (318).[1] The grounds are not reasons for acting but are guides for deliberation; the facts considered in a given situation are founded in one’s deliberative frame, namely matters of importance to the moral agent.[2] Similar to Herman’s defense of Kant, I will argue that moral conflict may occur among the grounds of obligation in the agentâ₠¬â„¢s deliberative frame, but never in one’s duty because the CI will always determine only one moral obligation. I will then anticipate two criticisms to counter Herman’s defense of Kant. The first criticism proposes that the individual field of deliberation - that contains â€Å"not only [the agent’s] interest and private projects but also the interests of others as possible sources of claims on [the agent’s] actions and resources† (331) - can lead to conflicting assumptions about duties in the members of society as a whole. And the second criticism arises from Herman’s rejection of the feeling of guilt in the Kantian model, in situations of moral conflict.[3] The critics I present accept that the moral agent has a life of her own following from the concept... ... 1990. Notes: [1] Throughout my paper, I will be using â€Å"CI† as short form for Kant’s Categorical Imperative [2] I will be using both female and male subjects when referring to the moral agent [3] A â€Å"field of deliberation† is another way of defining the â€Å"deliberative frame† (as described above); both contain grounds of obligation when referring to the considerations taken by the moral agent during her deliberation [4] Basically there are only two options since given the opportunity, she must save one. [5] Restitution and Remainder are terms that need not be defined since my anticipated critics will focus on the notion of guilt. [6] It may seem that the feeling of guilt is irrelevant to the discussion of an agent’s deliberative frame; however, the second critic hopes that finding a flaw in Herman’s argument will lead to a rejection of the concept. A Unique and Meaningful Life Essay -- Philosophy Essays A Unique and Meaningful Life A unique and meaningful life is compatible with the concept of a moral agent’s deliberative frame. In defense of this assertion, I will argue in favour of Barbara Herman’s Kantian discussion of moral obligation, which suggests that moral conflict occurs in the agent’s grounds of obligation. Grounds of obligation are facts recognized and considered by the agent during moral deliberation; they are â€Å"facts of a certain sort. They have moral significance because they are defining features of our (human) rational natures that limit what we can rationally will (as defined by the CI procedure)† (318).[1] The grounds are not reasons for acting but are guides for deliberation; the facts considered in a given situation are founded in one’s deliberative frame, namely matters of importance to the moral agent.[2] Similar to Herman’s defense of Kant, I will argue that moral conflict may occur among the grounds of obligation in the agentâ₠¬â„¢s deliberative frame, but never in one’s duty because the CI will always determine only one moral obligation. I will then anticipate two criticisms to counter Herman’s defense of Kant. The first criticism proposes that the individual field of deliberation - that contains â€Å"not only [the agent’s] interest and private projects but also the interests of others as possible sources of claims on [the agent’s] actions and resources† (331) - can lead to conflicting assumptions about duties in the members of society as a whole. And the second criticism arises from Herman’s rejection of the feeling of guilt in the Kantian model, in situations of moral conflict.[3] The critics I present accept that the moral agent has a life of her own following from the concept... ... 1990. Notes: [1] Throughout my paper, I will be using â€Å"CI† as short form for Kant’s Categorical Imperative [2] I will be using both female and male subjects when referring to the moral agent [3] A â€Å"field of deliberation† is another way of defining the â€Å"deliberative frame† (as described above); both contain grounds of obligation when referring to the considerations taken by the moral agent during her deliberation [4] Basically there are only two options since given the opportunity, she must save one. [5] Restitution and Remainder are terms that need not be defined since my anticipated critics will focus on the notion of guilt. [6] It may seem that the feeling of guilt is irrelevant to the discussion of an agent’s deliberative frame; however, the second critic hopes that finding a flaw in Herman’s argument will lead to a rejection of the concept.