If the first question in ethics is whether there is justice or right written into all things out there, the second is how do we know what that is. So far Sandel has tried to show utilitarianism, libertarianism, and the free market are helpful as guidelines, but their advocates ultimately rely on other principles and assumptions.
He begins asking what these could be with Emmanuel Kant, who believed we can determine what is right using human reason alone. He thinks an examination of practical reason, that used for making moral decisions, comes up with two categorical imperatives:1) Any ethical act must be able to be applied universally and 2) must always treat persons as ends not means.
These fundamental principles lead to what seem to be absolute, universal natural laws that must be applied in all situations. They seem to be that on which all reasonable persons should be able to agree. We obey them, because they are right, not because they are helpful or useful. We judge an action to be moral by considering its motive and intention, not its consequence or the situation involved. That might mean you never lie, never kill, never steal, never torture, never abort, never use contraceptives. As we see in present public political debates, proponents of such absolute laws often feel any exceptions lead to a slippery slope.
Equality based on always treating persons as ends, not means, is based simply on each person having intrinsic value as an autonomous, rational being capable of freely acting and choosing. That means we should never take advantage of any other person.
Most modern people argue such absolute laws that admit no exceptions hardly address the real life situations in our pluralistic, technological global society. Our world and lives are far too ambiguous. Conflict between the needs of autonomous persons is constant. Who determines what is reasonable in this situation?
These critics point to the political gridlock in our government as an illustration that rigidly adhering to absolute positions leads to stalemate, not the good life. For instance, how do we determine the morality of abortion without taking into consideration the situation, the technology available, and the advantage to either the fetus or the mother. Situation makes a difference. Moral decisions can not avoid slippery slopes. Indeed, making moral decisions is all about managing the slippery slopes on which we continually find ourselves.
At the same time, we have to acknowledge the value of these categorical imperatives as guidelines. Being careful about making exceptions to moral principles and respecting the dignity of all persons certainly would go a long way in overcoming a host of our problems, such sexual relationships, marriage, immigration, race, and gender.
Christians have to ask if there is anything we regard as an absolute law allowing no exceptions. You might argue for the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; observing this goes beyond Kant, because it takes into consideration external factors. Or you might suggest the Great Commandment, “love others as you love yourself”, acknowledging this, too, goes beyond Kant’s respect and duty by bringing in love, compassion and trust. Can you come up with anything else you might regard as an absolute law?
Christians, also, have to question Kant’s refusal to include the relevance of the situation in moral decisions. Jesus certainly takes the situation into consideration when he explains the Great Commandment’s “love” with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Do you believe we can judge anything without taking into consideration the real life situation?
