In chapter 9 of James Rachels and Stuart Rachels The Elements of Moral Philosophy, the authors elaborate on the philosophical question, whether there are absolute moral rules. In order to illustrate the philosophical moral question, Rachels uses President Harry Truman’s dilemma on the use of atomic bombs to end World War II and in the process comes in contact with Elizabeth Anscombe, a 20th century foremost philosophical champion of the doctrine that moral rules are absolute, the theory of categorical imperative, Kant’s arguments on lying to make the case on moral judgments. First, the Rachels’ use President Harry Truman’s encounter with Elizabeth Anscombe, a 20th century foremost philosophical champion of the doctrine that
…show more content…
In her pamphlet, she denounced Truman as a murderer for ordering the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki believing that some actions should not be taken, no matter what regardless of what great good could come out of it. Furthermore, Rachels identifies two kinds of imperatives or commands, namely, hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. Hypothetical imperative is a rule that specifies what we ought to do if we want to reach some end, satisfy some desire, or accomplish some goal. For instance, if you want an A grade on the exam, you ought to study is a hypothetical imperative. Hypothetical imperative is applicable to those with the desire, end or goal they want to achieve. And so, if I don’t desire to get an A on the exam or maybe I am satisfied with a C grade, the hypothetical imperative if you want an A on the exam, you ought to study does not apply to me. On the other hand, a categorical imperative is a rule or moral directive from reason that is binding without condition; a command that applies to all rational beings, no matter what. Actions done in accordance with these rules are morally good or morally …show more content…
Rachels claims that President Harry Truman said that “he slept like a baby" after signing the final order (127). A man who was on record as condemning attacks on civilian populations during the Second World War would order the use of atomic bombs on cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan knowing full well that civilians including women and children would be killed. For that Elizabeth Anscombe in her pamphlet describes Truman as a murderer, and opposed the idea of awarding him honorary degree at Oxford University. In addition, Rachels writes that Anscombe was quoted as say that “some things may not be done, no matter what" (128). Another quotation I find very interesting is by Kant. He said that “lying under any circumstances is the obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being” (Rachels 131). In defense of his position, Kant offers two arguments for an absolute rule against lying. He relies on the categorical imperative theory. He claims that we could not will a universal law that permits lying, because such a law would be self-defeating and everyone would lie to each other and as a result, they would lack trust on each other. Therefore, he concludes that lying cannot be permitted. In his second argument, Kant is tempted to create exceptions to the rule against lying because in some instances, the consequences of not lying will be bad and the
In her pamphlet, she denounced Truman as a murderer for ordering the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki believing that some actions should not be taken, no matter what regardless of what great good could come out of it. Furthermore, Rachels identifies two kinds of imperatives or commands, namely, hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. Hypothetical imperative is a rule that specifies what we ought to do if we want to reach some end, satisfy some desire, or accomplish some goal. For instance, if you want an A grade on the exam, you ought to study is a hypothetical imperative. Hypothetical imperative is applicable to those with the desire, end or goal they want to achieve. And so, if I don’t desire to get an A on the exam or maybe I am satisfied with a C grade, the hypothetical imperative if you want an A on the exam, you ought to study does not apply to me. On the other hand, a categorical imperative is a rule or moral directive from reason that is binding without condition; a command that applies to all rational beings, no matter what. Actions done in accordance with these rules are morally good or morally …show more content…
Rachels claims that President Harry Truman said that “he slept like a baby" after signing the final order (127). A man who was on record as condemning attacks on civilian populations during the Second World War would order the use of atomic bombs on cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan knowing full well that civilians including women and children would be killed. For that Elizabeth Anscombe in her pamphlet describes Truman as a murderer, and opposed the idea of awarding him honorary degree at Oxford University. In addition, Rachels writes that Anscombe was quoted as say that “some things may not be done, no matter what" (128). Another quotation I find very interesting is by Kant. He said that “lying under any circumstances is the obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being” (Rachels 131). In defense of his position, Kant offers two arguments for an absolute rule against lying. He relies on the categorical imperative theory. He claims that we could not will a universal law that permits lying, because such a law would be self-defeating and everyone would lie to each other and as a result, they would lack trust on each other. Therefore, he concludes that lying cannot be permitted. In his second argument, Kant is tempted to create exceptions to the rule against lying because in some instances, the consequences of not lying will be bad and the