Nov 30, 2012

PHILOSOPHY OF MORAL_By Marsigit






PHILOSOPHY OF MORAL
By Marsigit, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia

In the Critique of Practical Reason,  Kant  proposed a Table of the Categories of Freedom in Relation to the Concepts of Good and Evil,  using the familiar logical distinctions as the basis for a catalog of synthetic a priori judgments that have bearing on the evaluation of human action. Kant used ordinary moral notions as the foundation for a derivation of this moral law in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Kemerling 1997-2002). Wallis (2004) elaborated that most of Kant's work on ethics is presented in two works, The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) that is about Kant's search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality; and in The Critique of Practical Reason (1787) in which Kant attempted to unify his account of practical reason with his work in the Critique of Pure Reason.

Kant viewed that the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action; the categorical imperative is Kant's famous statement of this duty, stated that an act only according to that maxim by which we can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Kemerling, 1997-2002, noted Kant’s claimed that the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances; therefore, the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality. Kant insisted that only rational beings do so consciously, in obedience to the objective principles determined by practical reason; human agents  have subjective impulses that they act in a particular way that is  imperative[1] that may occur in either hypothetical or categorical.

The Conception of Practical Reason[2]

Wallis, 2004 noted that Kant insisted that humans are between the two worlds that are both sensible and intellectual; we are neither wholly determined to act by natural impulse, nor are we free of non-rational impulse, hence we need rules of conduct and need a principle to declares how we ought to act when it is in our power to choose. He noted Kant’s claim that we find ourselves in the situation of possessing reason, being able to act according to our own conception of rules, there is a special burden on us; while other creatures are acted upon by the world, but having the ability to choose the principle to guide our actions makes us actors, therefore we must exercise our will and our reason to act. According to him, Kant concluded that will is the capacity to act according to the principles provided by reason; reason assumes freedom and conceives of principles of action in order to function. As Wallis, 2004, noted that Kant perceived that humans are not wholly rational beings, so they are liable to succumb to their non-rational impulses; and even when they exercise their reason fully, they often cannot know which action is the best. According to Kant, moral actions are actions where reason leads, rather than follows, and actions where we must take other beings that act according to their own conception of the law, into account.

According to Kant, the metaphysical facts about the ultimate nature of things in themselves must remain a mystery to us because of the spatiotemporal constraints on sensibility; when we think about the nature of things in themselves or the ultimate ground of the empirical world we are still constrained to think through the categories, we cannot think otherwise, but we can have no knowledge because sensation provides our concepts with no content; hence, reason is put at odds with itself because it is constrained by the limits of its transcendental structure, but it seeks to have complete knowledge that would take it beyond those limits (Wallis, 2004). Next, he elaborated that freedom plays a central role in Kant's ethics because the possibility of moral judgments presupposes it; freedom is an idea of reason that serves an indispensable practical function and without the assumption of freedom, reason cannot act. Accordingly, if we think of ourselves as completely causally determined, and not as uncaused causes ourselves, then any attempt to conceive of a rule that prescribes the means by which some end can be achieved is pointless.

According to Kant, we cannot both think of ourselves as entirely subject to causal law and as being able to act according to the conception of a principle that gives guidance to my will; we cannot also help but think of our actions as the result of an uncaused cause if we are to act at all and employ reason to accomplish ends and understand the world. Kant insisted that reason has an unavoidable interest in thinking of itself as free that is, theoretical reason cannot demonstrate freedom, but practical reason must assume for the purpose of action. He said that reason creates for itself the idea of a spontaneity that can, on its own, start to act without needing to be preceded by another cause by means of which it is determined to action in turn, according to the law of causal connection; in its intellectual domain, reason must think of itself as free and it is dissatisfying that we cannot demonstrate freedom, nevertheless, it comes as no surprise that we must think of ourselves as free (Wallis, 2004).

Good Will[3]

Wallis, 2004, exposed that Kant perceived that when we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our actions is often beyond our control, the morality of our actions does not depend upon their outcome; what we can control, however, is the will behind the action that is, we can will to act according to one law rather than another. He further noted Kant’s claim that the morality of an action, therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it. According to him, Kant said that goodness cannot arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination, even if impulse coincides with duty; it can only arise from conceiving of one's actions in a certain way. Kant argued that all intended effects could be brought about through other causes and would not require the will of a rational being, while the highest and unconditional good can be found only in such a will; it is the possession of a rationally guided will that adds a moral dimension to one's acts and so it is the recognition and appreciation of duty itself that must drive our actions. 

Sayre, G. & McCord, 2000, elaborated that Kant distinguished between "good without qualification" and “good under certain conditions”; the former is a good will that is the only thing we can even imagine is good without qualification, the second related to everything else being at best good only with qualification. Kant maintained that good will itself serves as a condition of the value of everything else that is something can be good only if it is compatible with a good will; therefore, a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness and if a good will is unconditionally good then its value cannot depend upon its having good effects, furthermore if its value did depend on its having good effects it would be valuable only on the condition that it had those effects.

They reminded that Kant recognized that the idea that the role of reason is to make possible a good will rather than to help us satisfy our inclinations or make ourselves happy may seem high minded none sense; therefore, if nature's purpose in giving us reason was to help us satisfy our inclinations or desires or preferences or to make us happy, it would have made a big mistake. Accordingly, a person is not exercising a good will when she does what she knows is wrong; however even when she is doing what she knows to be right she will be exercising a good will only if she does what she does because it is right and not because she expects some reward or happens to want to do it; therefore a person exercises a good will when that person acts is governed by whether so acting is compatible with her duty. It can be summed up that good will related to only thing that can be called good without qualification and it can be perceived as good intentions and as an a priori concept; while will it self as the faculty of choosing from what comes before consequences deduced from principles that are assumed deductive reasoning from what is already known. Good will is good in itself, regardless of effects or consequences whether absolutely or with qualification that consisted of talents of mind e.g. intelligence, wit, judgment; qualities of temperament e.g. courage, perseverance; and gifts of fortune e.g. power, wealth, honor.

Duty[4]
 
According to Kant, the value of the action a person performs finds its value or worth not in the purpose that is to be attained by it but in the maxim according to which the action is determined that was at least compatible with duty. However, if the value of an action done from duty is found not in the consequences it produces but in the respect for duty it expresses then one's duty must be to express that respect rather than to produce any particular effects. He stressed that doing one's duty because it is one's duty must then be a matter not of trying to achieve some effect but of conforming one's will to a principle of duty that commands respect. According to Kant, moral value is non derivative from nor dependent upon non moral value[5], and the morality is intrinsic to moral agency; while moral laws are “laws of freedom”; they are constraints that arise through the moral agent's own autonomous self-regulation.

Kant maintained that the very idea of moral duty already contains the idea of a law to which all rational agents are subject, and that we will agree that this is so when we reflect on what we ourselves think. Moreover, Kant argues that, because the idea of moral duty includes this idea of a law or necessity to which all rational agents are subject, it cannot be grounded empirically; there can be no adequate justification for such an idea simply through our sensory or felt experience; the idea is a priori . (Darwall, 1997).  He noted that Kant claimed that everything in nature works in accordance with laws; only a rational being has the power to act in accordance with his idea of laws that is in accordance with principles and only so far has he a will; since reason is required in order to derive actions from laws, the will is nothing but practical reason. Since the universalized maxim is contradictory in and of itself, no one could will it to be law, and Kant concluded that we have a perfect duty [6](to which there can never be any exceptions whatsoever) not to act in this manner.

 Kant stated that duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for moral law and the only motive that counts to do an action strictly out of respect for moral law therefore we should seek for our inclination and duty to correspond, but if it doesn't duty should/ ought prevail and determining duty is a matter of reason (reason determines the form of the moral law). Related to argument for an un-qualifiedly good will, he claimed that biological organisms are the fittest and best adapted for the purpose they serve; humans are rational creatures[7](i.e., humans possess reason); reason produces pain as well as happiness; happiness must not be the real end of nature for a being possessed of reason and will; reason is meant to have influence on the will ; and therefore, reason’s proper function must be to produce a will good in itself[8]  (as an end, not as a means). He then outlined that action consists of actions that contrary to duty, actions that in accordance with duty but with no immediate inclination [9](remote), actions in accordance with duty but with immediate inclination, and actions in accordance with duty but contrary to some immediate inclination; therefore, duties composes of not to lie, preserve one's life, be of help to fellow human beings, and develop our skills and talents.

Propositions of Morality and Moral Imperative


Kant outlined that to have moral worth, an action must be done from duty and duty should always be on top of inclinations for action if the actions is to have moral worth; hence, the moral worth of an action done from duty lies not in the purpose to be achieved but in the maxim by which it is determined in which moral worth does not depend upon the outcome. He perceived motive as an inclination, maxim as a rule or principle one follows in which moral worth depends upon this, and purpose as the ends to be achieved; while duty is the necessity of an action done of respect for law and that deserving respect is excellent as well as that deserving unqualified respect is that which is morally excellent. He noted that common reason doesn't' think of morality so abstractly in its universal form, but the categorical imperative is the standard for our judgments and ordinary reason has as much hope of getting the right moral answer as any philosopher so philosophy is necessary because common reason can more readily be led astray and needed to provide a ground for morality.

Kemerling, 1997-2002, elaborated that although everything naturally acts in accordance with law, Kant supposed that only rational beings do so consciously, in obedience to the objective principles determined by practical reason; and human agents have subjective impulses that are desires and inclinations that may contradict the dictates of reason. Therefore, we experience the claim of reason as an obligation, a command that we act in a particular way, or an imperative that may occur in either of two distinct forms, hypothetical or categorical. He noted that, according to Kant, a hypothetical imperative conditionally demands performance of an action for the sake of some other end or purpose in the form "Do A in order to achieve X."; while a categorical imperative unconditionally demands performance of an action for its own sake in the form "Do A. It can be concluded that hypothetical imperatives means to some end; good for some purpose and categorical imperatives means objectively necessary, without regard to any other end and no reference to purpose.

Darwall, 1997, explained that, according to Kant, moral imperatives are categorical imperatives, grounded in what he calls the Categorical Imperative; any free rational agent is committed to the Categorical Imperative by the logic of deliberative thought and   if anything is morally right or wrong, then it is by virtue of (moral) norms that bind all rational agents. Kant claimed that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. Kant then concluded that a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes that is because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end; therefore, it is good through its willing alone that is, good in itself; and because its goodness is entirely intrinsic, and unconditioned by context, it is good without qualification. Kant claimed that the goodness of moral character is intrinsic and unqualified; the only motives available to an agent are those provided by momentary inclinations and those that arise through practical reason. 

Kant concluded that Categorical Imperative, that is strips morality of everything but form, never act in such a way that we could not will our maxim[10] should be universal law and if a maxim cannot be willed into universal law, it must be discarded. He stressed that maxim is a subjective principle of volition and it can be less than universal that is for the individual alone or universal that is maxims that can have full universality in everyone's life; all maxims have a form of consisting in universality; a matter that is namely, an end, and here the formula says that the rational being, as it is an end by its own nature and therefore an end in itself, must in every maxim serve as the condition limiting all merely relative and arbitrary ends; and a complete characterization of all maxims by means of that formula, namely, that all maxims ought by their own legislation to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends as with a kingdom of nature. According to Kant, the formulation of the Categorical Imperative can be Universal Law, End-in-Itself or Autonomy. He insisted that in the Universal Law, act is perceived as though the maxim of our action were by our will to become a universal law of nature; in End-in-Itself, act is perceived as such thing that we treat humanity whether in our own person or that of another in which it always as an end and never as a means; and of Autonomy, it is about the will of every rational being legislates universal law.

Morality and Law

Darwall, 1997, elaborated Kant’s exposition that when we act for reasons we commit ourselves to beliefs about what any  person would have a reason to do that is we commit ourselves to universal norms or principles applying to all rational agents. Accordingly, only a rational being can act in accordance with his idea of laws.  Based on Kant, he lectured that the root idea is that the same features that make human beings subject to the moral law at the same time entitle them to respect as beings with their own wills and own reasons for acting.  According to Kant, the moral law itself requires a respect for that very capacity and we must respect it in ourselves and in others; he then argued that moral imperatives are categorical imperatives; any imperative that is conditional on some end is merely hypothetical; the possibility of a categorical imperative depends on there being some end which is essential to practical reason; the only possible such end is rational nature itself; there can be categorical imperatives only if rational nature is an end in it-self; and there can be moral imperatives only if rational nature is an end in itself, therefore  there is a moral law only if it requires that persons respect rational nature as such.

Kant distinguishes two kinds of law produced by reason to elaborate what is the duty that is motivating our actions and giving them moral value. According to Kant, giving some end to achieve, our reason can provide a hypothetical imperative, or rule of action for achieving that end. A hypothetical imperative says that if we wish to achieve the end we must determine what sort of conditional goal and conceiving of a means to achieve some desired end is by far the most common employment of reason; however, the acceptable conception of the moral law cannot be merely hypothetical due to the fact that our actions cannot be moral on the ground of some conditional purpose or goal, therefore morality requires an unconditional statement of one's duty (Wallis, 2004). Kant argued that reason produces an absolute statement of moral action and the moral imperative is unconditional; reason dictates a categorical imperative for moral action.

According to Kant, there are at least three formulations of the Categorical Imperative that are: act only according to that maxim by which we can at the same time will that it should become a universal law; act as though the maxim of our action were by our will to become a universal law of nature; and act so that we treat humanity, whether in our own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. Kant argued that moral law has an aspect of acting according to the concept of law that is all nature works according to laws, however only humans can act according to the conception of laws that is acting according to principles. He insisted that the will is a faculty of choice in which a good will always chooses what the moral law commands; while imperative was perceived as a command and they are always expressed by 'ought'. For Kant, of God, the 'ought' is an 'is' and for humans God always chooses to do the right thing; therefore, of God, imperatives apply only to subjectively imperfect human will.

The Worth of Moral Beings

Kant insisted that morality alone is the condition which makes a rational being an end-in-itself in which morality and humanity alone have dignity[11]; the worth of moral beings have its relative value of price that can be replaced by equivalent and dignity that is intrinsic value which cannot be replaced by anything while each individual human being has also absolute value. Darwall, 1997, elaborated from Kant that, in moral common sense, persons are not mere things or instruments; they have a dignity hat is worthy of respect..  Accordingly, they cannot be treated as objects to manipulate or use for one's own ends; they must always be treated with respect for their nature as rational and moral agents. He noted that it is wrong simply to use people; rather one must respect their dignity as persons.  He noted that, according to Kant, the sublimity and intrinsic dignity of the command in duty are so much the more evident, the less the subjective impulses favor it and the more they oppose it, without being able in the slightest degree to weaken the obligation of the law or to diminish its validity.   

According to Kant, in the kingdom of ends everything has either value or dignity and whatever has a value can be replaced by something else which is equivalent; whatever has reference to the general inclinations and wants of mankind has a market value; whatever corresponds to a certain taste that is to a satisfaction in the mere purposeless play of our faculties which constitutes the condition under which alone anything can be an end in itself that is dignity. Kant insisted that morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in him-self, since by this alone is it possible that he should be a legislating member in the kingdom of ends; therefore morality and humanity as capable of it, is that which alone has dignity.

Due to the fact that nothing has any worth except what the law assigns it, the legislation itself which assigns the worth of everything must for that very reason possess dignity that is an unconditional incomparable worth and the word respect alone supplies a becoming expression for the esteem which a rational being must have for it. Darwall, 1997, from Kant, insisted that neither fear nor inclination is the spring which can give actions a moral worth; if our own will act only under the condition that its maxims are potentially universal laws, this ideal will which is possible to us is the proper object of respect; and the dignity of humanity consists just in this capacity of being universally legislative, though with the condition that it is itself subject to this same legislation.

Morality and Religion[12]

In the Critic of Practical Judgment, Kant stated that the man that is actually in a state of fear, finding in himself good reason to be so, because he is conscious of offending with his evil disposition against a might directed by a will at once irresistible and just, is far from being in the frame of mind for admiring divine greatness, for which a temper of calm reflection and a quite free judgment are required. Furthermore, Kant stated that:

Only when he becomes conscious of having a disposition that is upright and acceptable to God, do those operations of might serve, to stir within him the idea of the sublimity of this Being, so far as he recognizes the existence in himself of a sublimity of disposition consonant with His will, and is thus raised above the dread of such operations of nature, in which he no longer sees God pouring forth the vials of the wrath. Even humility,  taking the form of an uncompromising judgment upon his shortcomings, which, with consciousness of good intentions, might readily be glossed over on the ground of the frailty of human nature, is a sublime temper of the mind voluntarily to undergo the pain of remorse as a means of more and more effectually eradicating its cause. In this way religion is intrinsically distinguished from superstition, which latter rears in the mind, not reverence for the sublime, but dread and apprehension of the all-powerful Being to whose will terror-stricken man sees himself subjected, yet without according Him due honor. From this nothing can arise but grace-begging and vain adulation, instead of a religion consisting in a good life.[13]

Kant further claimed that sublimity[14], therefore, does not reside in any of the things of nature, but only in our own mind, in so far as we may become conscious of our superiority over nature within, and thus also over nature without us; everything that provokes this feeling in us, including the might of nature which challenges our strength, is then, though improperly, called sublime, and it is only under presupposition of this idea within us, and in relation to it, that we are capable of attaining to the idea of the sublimity of that being which inspires deep respect in us, not by the mere display of its might in nature, but more by the faculty which is planted in us of estimating that might without fear, and of regarding our estate as exalted above it. Kant insisted that the proper mental mood for a feeling of the sublime postulates the mind's susceptibility for ideas; without the development of moral ideas, we merely strike the untutored man as terrifying.

Note:


1.       Sayre, G. & McCord, 2000, Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals A Very brief selective summary of sections I and II,http://www.google.com/search , summed up from Kant that one's judgments that one ought to act in one way or another fall into two different categories; sometimes the grounds one has for judging one ought so to act depend upon certain conditions being satisfied, so that the imperatives are hypothetical or conditional  that is their practical force or their implications for action depends upon the conditions in fact being satisfied. Other times, the grounds one has for judging one ought so to act depend on nothing contingent, so that the imperatives are categorical that is their practical force or their implications for action is unconditional and so not dependent on the hypothesis that certain conditions are satisfied.
2.       Ibid. Practical reason is the faculty of choice (the Will)
3.       Darwall, 1997, Philosophy 361: Ethics: Kant Ii, Text Analysis Project Assignment For 10/22:  Kant, Groundwork, Chapter 1: first three         paragraphs and bottom p. 64 through p. 66, http://www.google.com/search, noted from Kant the  contrast between good will, which he also refers to as a good of character, and, respectively, talents, temperament, and gifts of fortune.  On what grounds are these, and their value, distinguished? First, the contrast seems to be between what the agent directly controls (his intention and effort to realize them) versus what is part of the choice context that confronts him.  We are free to be good--not just what we do, but also, what principles we act on is up to us; second, the distinction in value that are the latter are not always good, and whether they are good depends on other things, importantly on whether they are accompanied by a good will and the value of the good will is not qualified by its relation to anything outside of it.  Its value is independent of context and entirely unconditional.
4.       Immanuel Kant, 1785, Fundamental Principles of The Metaphysic Of Morals, Second Section: Transition From Popular Moral Philosophy To The Metaphysic Of Morals translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, indicated that we have thus established at least this much, that if duty is a conception which is to have any import and real legislative authority for our actions, it can only be expressed in categorical and not at all in hypothetical imperatives.
5.       Garth Kemerling, 1997-2002, Kant: The Moral Order, noted Kant argument that the moral value of the action can only reside in a formal principle or "maxim," the general commitment to act in this way because it is one's duty. Kant concluded that "duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law."
6.       Kant: perfect duty that is to which there can never be any exceptions whatsoever not to act in this manner.
7.       Rational creatures  that is  humans possess reason
8.       Good in itself that is as an end, not as a means
9.       Immediate inclination means remote
10.    Sayre, G. & McCord, 2000, Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals A  Very brief selective summary of sections I and II, http://www.google.com/search, noted Kant that a maxim might fail by not being universalizable that is  by being such that the very conception of it as being a law governing all is inconsistent and therefore we have, as Kant would put it, a perfect duty to refrain from acting on such maxims or a maxim that might be universalizable might fail the requirements of the categorical imperative by being such that a person could not consistently will that the maxim be a universal law. According to Kant, the failure of the maxim is a failure of consistency in an important sense; there is no question that an immoral maxim can itself be perfectly consistent, after all people actually act on them. What is inconsistent is either (i) the conception of that maxim as a universal law or (ii) willing that the maxim serve as a universal law. Thus in testing a maxim (and so evaluating an action that might be performed on its basis) we can look for two kinds of inconsistency -- inconsistency in conception and inconsistency in willing.
11.    Immanuel Kant, 1785, Fundamental Principles of The Metaphysic Of Morals,translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, insisted that whatever has reference to the general inclinations and wants of mankind has a market value; whatever, without presupposing a want, corresponds to a certain taste, that is to a satisfaction in the mere purposeless play of our faculties, has a fancy value; but that which constitutes the condition under which alone anything can be an end in itself, this has not merely a relative worth, i.e., value,but an intrinsic worth, that is, dignity.
12.    Darwall, 1997, Philosophy 361: Ethics: Kant I, Text Analysis Project             Assignment For 10/22:  Kant, Groundwork, Chapter 1: first three       paragraphs            and bottom p. 64 through p. 66, http://www.google.com/search, cited from "Life, the Universe and Everything," in the memorable formula of Douglas Adams, elaborated that morality and religion have a far more limited rational content, returning to many of the same issues over and over again, but such issues happen to include, not just the questions about how to live, but the ultimate questions about the meaning of life and existence.
13.    The Critic of Pure Judgment
14.    Theodore Gracyk, 2004, in Philosophy Of Art, Hume And Kant:
Summary and Comparison, noted that Kant gives equal attention to beauty and sublimity. Another difference between Kant and Hume is that Kant emphasizes nature as an important object of taste. Finally, Kant does not share Hume's optimism that their common assumptions, associating beauty and sublimity with specific feelings, offer any basis for constructing a standard of taste. Recognition of sublimity has an explicitly moral dimension; section 42 of the Critic of Pure Reason, identifies a superiority of natural beauty over that of art on the grounds that the former indicates an interest in moral goodness; when we cannot postulate real purposes, nature's beauty interests those with a good moral attitude by suggesting that our moral ideas are similarly compatible with nature.

30 comments:

  1. MUTIARA KUSUMAWATI
    16701251007
    PEP S2 B

    Moral merupakan pengetahuan yang menyangkut budi pekerti manusia yang beradab. Moral juga berarti aturan kesusilaan, yang meliputi semua norma kelakuan, perbuatan tingkah laku yang baik dan buruk. Moral sama dengan etika, yaitu nilai-nilai dan norma-norma yang menjadi pegangan seseorang atau suatu kelompok dalam mengatur tingkah lakunya. Nilai-nilai dan norma-norma moral yang menjadi pegangan bagi seseorang atau suatu kelompok dalam mengatur tingkah lakunya. Secara ringkas, pengertian tadi bisa disebut sebagai sistem nilai. Sistem nilai itu bisa berfungsi dalam hidup manusia perorangan maupun pada taraf sosial. Etika (Filsafat Moral) Objek material etika adalah perbuatan atau perilaku manusia secara sadar dan bebas. Etika merupakan cabang filsafat yang mempelajari pandangan-pandangan dan persoalan-persoalan yang berhubungan dengan masalah kesusilaan, dan kadang-kadang orang memakai filsafat etika, filsafat moral atau filsafat susila., tetapi petunjuk-petunjuk untuk kehidupan sopan santun

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aprisal
    16709251019
    PPs S2 Pendidikan Matematika Kelas A 2016

    Assalamu Alaikum Wr.Wb

    Moral berasal dari kata bahasa latin mores yang berarti adat kebiasaan. Kata mores ini mempunyai sinonim; mos, moris, manner mores atau manners, morals (Poespoprodjo,1986: 2). Dalam bahasa Indonesia kata moral berarti akhlak atau kesusilaan yang mengandung makna tata tertib batin atau tata tertib hati nurani yang menjadi pembimbing tingkah laku batin dalam hidup. Kaelan (2001: 180), mengatakan moral adalah suatu ajaran wejangan-wejangan, patokan-patokan, kumpulan peraturan baik lisan maupun tertulis tentang bagaimana manusia harus hidup dan bertindak agar menjadi manusia yang baik. Sedangkan Kohlberg (Reimer,1995: 17), Moralitas bukanlah suatu koleksi dari aturan-aturan, norma-norma atau kelakuan-kelakuan tertentu tetapi merupakan perspektif atau cara pandang tertentu. Moral adalah ajaran atau pedoman yang dijadikan landasan untuk bertingkah laku dalam kehidupan agar menjadi manusia yang baik atau berakhlak. Perilaku moral yang ideal dalam kacamata Immanuel Kant adalah perilaku moral yang lahir dan muncul dari desakan kehendak diri manusia sebagai makhluk yang berakal dan berbudi, sehingga setiap perilaku moral yang dilakukannya benar-benar lahir dari dirinya sendiri bukan dari luar dirinya. Menurutnya bahwa yang baik adalah kehendak baik itu sendiri. suatu kehendak menjadi baik sebab bertindak karena kewajiban. Bertindak sesuai dengan kewajiban disebut legalitas. dalam konteks filsafat moral juga disebut dengan etika (filsafat moral), yaitu cabang filsafat yang berbicara tentang tindakan manusia, etika tidak mempersoaalkan keadaan manusia, tetapi mempersoalkan bagaimana manusia harus bertindak. Tindakan manusia ini ditentukan oleh bermacam-macam norma, di antaranya norma hukum, norma moral, norma agama, dan perundang-undangan, norma agama berasal dari agama, norma moral berasal dari suara hati dan norma sopan santun berasal dari kehidupan sehari-hari.Standar moral manusia banyak di tentukan oleh tingkat perkembangan sosialnnya, intelegensinya, dan ilmu pengetahuan yang berkembang. Moralitas tumbuh dan berkembang dalam kehidupan manusia sebagai pembuka bagi kehidupan yang lebih maju kea rah kehidupan yang membahagiakan dan penuh makna. Oleh karena itu problem moral bukan sekedar maslah moral itu sendiri, melainkan menyangkut persoalan sosial, ekonomi, dan politik. Para pemikir moral banyak memberikan jwaban atas pertanyaan di atas, seperti yang tegabung dalam aliran deontologist, objektif dan non-naturalistik

    Waalaikum salam wr.wb.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Erlinda Rahma Dewi
    16709251006
    S2 PPs Pendidikan Matematika A 2016

    Wallis (2004), membeberkan bahwa Kant merasakan bahwa ketika kita bertindak, atau tidak kita mencapai apa yang kita ingin kita sering berada di luar kendali kita, moralitas tindakan kita tidak tergantung pada hasil; apa yang bisa kita kontrol, bagaimanapun, adalah kehendak di balik tindakan kita sesuai dengan salah satu hukum daripada yang lain. Dia lebih jauh mencatat klaim Kant bahwa moralitas dari suatu tindakan, oleh karena itu, harus dinilai dalam hal motivasi di balik itu.

    ReplyDelete
  4. SUPIANTO
    16701261001
    S3 PEP KELAS A 2016

    bagi Kant, moralitas bukan tentang baik dan buruk, tetapi baik itu sendiri yang tanpa batasan. moralitas yang digagas oleh Kant berbeda dengan moralitas para pemikir sebelumnya. menurut kant, moralitas merupakan suatu kewajiban yang tidak menuntuk adanya kebahagian atas kewajiban tersebut. dan kewajiban yang sesungguhnya itu berasal dari kehendak diri tanpa adanya paksaan dari faktor eksternal

    ReplyDelete
  5. Asri Fauzi
    16709251009
    Pend. Matematika S2 Kelas A 2016
    Moralitas dalam agama juga dipandang sebagai sesuatu yang mutlak, divine, dan suci. Dalam pandangan yang demikian, moralitas adalah sesuatu yang “ditempelkan” ke dalam kehidupan manusia melalui wahyu agama, dan bukan sesuatu yang bersifat naluriah. Ini selaras dengan gagasan moral Kant. Bahwa manusia, dalam pandangan ini, tidak memiliki “kehendak bebas” untuk memiliki penilaian atas suatu perbuatan. Segala pengalaman empirik, juga adat-tradisi pun tak bisa menjadi landasan dalam menentukan baik atau buruk. Semua mengacu pada suatu “nilai mutlak”, yaitu wahyu Tuhan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Konstantinus Denny Pareira Meke
    NIM. 16709251020
    PPs S2 Pendidikan Matematika Kelas A 2016

    Moralitas merupakan suatu fenomena manusiawi yang universal, menjadi ciri yang membedakan manusia dari binatang. Pada binatang tidak ada kesadaran tentang baik dan buruk, yang boleh dan yang dilarang, tentang yang harus dan tidak pantas dilakukan. Keharusan memunyai dua macam arti: keharusan alamiah (terjadi dengan sendirinya sesuai hukum alam) dan keharusan moral (hukum yang mewajibkan manusia melakukan atau tidak melakukan sesuatu). Nilai-nilai dan norma-norma moral yang menjadi pegangan bagi seseorang atau suatu kelompok dalam mengatur tingkah lakunya. Secara ringkas, pengertian tadi bisa disebut sebagai sistem nilai. Sistem nilai itu bisa berfungsi dalam hidup manusia perorangan maupun pada taraf sosial. Dalam etika filosofis atau filsafat moral justru diusahakan untuk menggali alasan-alasan rasional untuk nilai-nilai dan norma-norma yang dipakai sebagai pegangan bagi perilaku moral.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rhomiy Handican
    16709251031
    PPs Pendidikan Matematika B 2016

    Hubungan antara filsafat dan agama dalam sejarah kadang-kadang dekat dan baik, dan kadang-kadang jauh dan buruk. Ada kalanya para agamawan merintis perkembangan filsafat. Ada kalanya pula orang beragama merasa terancam oleh pemikiran para filosof yang kritis dan tajam. Para filosof sendiri kadang-kadang memberi kesan sombong, sok tahu, meremehkan wahyu dan iman sederhana umat. Kadang-kadang juga terjadi bentrokan, di mana filosof menjadi korban kepicikan dan kemunafikan orang-orang yang mengatasnamakan agama. Socrates dipaksa minum racun atas tuduhan atheisme padahal ia justru berusaha mengantar kaum muda kota Athena kepada penghayatan keagamaan yang lebih mendalam. Filsafat Ibn Rusyd dianggap menyeleweng dari ajaran-ajaran Islam, ia ditangkap, diasingkan dan meninggal dalam pembuangan. Abelard (1079-1142) yang mencoba mendamaikan iman dan pengetahuan mengalami pelbagai penganiayaan. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), filosof dan teolog terbesar Abad Pertengahan, dituduh kafir karena memakai pendekatan Aristoteles (yang diterima para filosof Abad Pertengahan dari Ibn Sina dan Ibn Rusyd). Giordano Bruno dibakar pada tahun 1600 di tengah kota Roma. Sedangkan di zaman moderen tidak jarang seluruh pemikiran filsafat sejak dari Auflklarung dikutuk sebagai anti agama dan atheis.

    ReplyDelete
  9. sebanarnya dialog antara filsafat dan agama justru akan membawa keuntungan bagi keduabelah pihak.Jadi, filsafat dapat menjadi alat untuk membebaskan ajaran agama dari unsur-unsur ideologis yang menuntut sesuatu yang sebenarnya tidak termuat dalam wahyu, melainkan hanya berdasarkan sebuah interpretasi subyektif. Maka filsafat membantu pembaharuan agama. Berhadapan dengan tantangan-tantangan zaman, agama tidak sekedar menyesuaikan dirinya, melainkan menggali jawabannya dengan berpaling kembali kepada apa yang sebenarnya diwahyukan oleh Allah.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Andina Nurul Wahidah
    16701251019
    PEP-S2 Kelas B

    Moral adalah suara hati, perasaan, menentukan sesuatu itu benar atau salah. Moral itu imperatif kategori, perintah tanpa syarat yang ada dalam kesadaran hati kita. Kata hati itu memerintah, perintah itu ialah perintah berbuat sesuai keinginan tapi dalam batas kewajaran.Hukum kewajiban bersifat universal.
    Sikap moral yang sebenarnya adalah sikap otonomi moral yang berarti manusia menaati kewajibannya karena sadar diri bukan karena terkekang, terbebani, tuntutan dsb.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Devi Anggriyani
    16701251023
    S2 PEP B 2016

    Berdasarkan artikel dengan tema filsafat moral ini, saya menyimpulkan bahwa filsafat moral adalah bidang filsafat yang bersangkutan dengan teori-teori etika, dengan bagaimana kita harus menjalani hidup kita. Hal ini dibagi menjadi tiga bidang: meta-etika, etika normatif, dan etika terapan. Yang pertama adalah meta-etika, yaitu daerah yang paling abstrak dari filsafat moral. Ini berkaitan dengan pertanyaan tentang sifat moralitas, tentang apa moralitas dan apa artinya bahasa moral. Bagian ini dari situs berisi materi tentang kognitivisme dan noncognitivism, dan relativisme moral. Yang kedua adalah Etika normatif, yaitu etika yang lebih peduli dengan menyediakan kerangka moral yang dapat digunakan untuk bekerja apa jenis tindakan yang baik dan buruk, benar dan salah. Ada tiga tradisi utama dalam etika normatif: etika moralitas, deontologi, dan konsekuensialisme. Yang ketiga adalah etika Terapan, yaitu yang paling bawah ke daerah bumi filsafat moral diterapkan etika. Ini berusaha untuk menerapkan teori-teori etika normatif untuk kasus-kasus tertentu untuk memberitahu kita apa yang benar dan apa yang salah. Pada bagian ini, berbagai masalah etika berduri dibahas: mis aborsi, hak-hak binatang, dan hukuman.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rospala Hanisah Yukti Sari
    16790251016
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika Kelas A Tahun 2016

    Assalamu’alaikum warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

    Moralitas adalah suatu hal yang telah ada dalam kehidupan manusia. Moral ini erat kaitannya dengan penilaian baik atau buruk. Manusia dalam kehidupan ini memiliki syariat (aturan) yang mengatur segala aspek kehidupan. Penilaian moral di sini tidak diletakkan kepada penilaian manusia, karena jika penilaian diserahkan kepada manusia, maka penilaiannya bersifat relatif. Sehingga, harus ada standar atau tolak ukur baik atau buruk yang di luar dari penilaian manusia. Penilaian itu bersifat mutlak dan tetap, penilaian tersebut tidak lain adalah penilaian yang didasarkan kepada hukum syara’ Allah SWT.

    Wassalamu’alaikum warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fatya Azizah
    16709251039
    Pendidikan Matematika B PPS UNY 2016

    Kant menyatakan bahwa tugas adalah kebutuhan sesuatu tindakan untuk dilakukan untuk menghormati hukum moral dan satu-satunya motif yang diperhitungkan untuk melakukan tindakan tersebut untuk menghormati hukum moral karena itu kita harus mencari kecenderungan dan tugas untuk disesuaikan, tetapi jika itu bukan tugas yang memang harus dilakukan itu adalah masalah alasan (alasan menentukan bentuk hukum moral). artinya tugas disini berarti kewajiban yang dibentuk oleh suatu hukm moral yang memang harus dilakukan, terlepas dari kita ingin atau tidak ingin melakukannya.

    ReplyDelete
  14. MARTIN/RWANDA
    PPS2016PEP B
    As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions "What is the best way for people to live?" and "What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?" In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual enquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fevi Rahmawati Suwanto
    16709251005
    PMat A / S2

    Filosofi moral Kant memiliki prinsip utama bahwa moralitas harus menjadi hukum moral sehingga mampu membimbing kita kepada tindakan yang tepat dalam penerapan di setiap keadaan yang tidak pernah terprediksi. Hal ini karena Kant merasa bahwa ketika bertindak, kita sering berada di luar kendali terhadap tercapai atau tidak tercapainya sebuah keinginan maka perlu moalitas dalam suatu tindakan. Maka filsafat ini pada dasarnya bertujuan untuk mencari prinsip dasar metafisikan dan membangun prinsip moral dasar sebagai permintaan akan rasional masing-masing orang.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nanang Ade Putra Yaman
    16709251025
    PPs PM B 2016

    Assalamualaikum
    Etika Kant secara hakiki merupakan etika kewajiban yang tidak menuntut adanya kebahagiaan atau faktor-faktor emosi lainnya dari luar. Kewajiban yang murni berasal dari kehendak kita untuk melakukannya tanpa adanya pemaksaan. Selain itu, etika Kant tidak mengharuskan adanya konsekuensi sebagaimana dalam utilitarianisme, justru Kant lebih mengutamakan adanya konsistensi. Sehingga Kant percaya bahwa moral tidak dapat di sandarkan kepada kebhagiaan. Kita tidak akan pernah tahu apa konsekuensi yang terjadi jika kita mengandalkan tindakan kita semata-mata hanya untuk kebahagiaan.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Siska Nur Rahmawati
    16701251028
    PEP-B 2016



    Kant menguraikan bahwa untuk memiliki nilai moral, tindakan harus dilakukan berdasarkan tugas dan kewajiban. Nilai moral tidak didasarkan pada hasinya melainkan pada proses belajarnya. Kant menganggap bahwa motif/ niat sebagai kecenderungan. Nilai moral dicapai untuk menghormati hukum yang berlaku. Moral disesuaikan dengan kebijakan hukum yang berlaku.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dalam Filsafat konsep moralitas adalah pada konsep diri dan dunia. bagaimana moralitas kita pada nilai sosial dan nilai-nilai terhadap alam semesta. Moralitas juga terkait dengan nilai-nilai agama/religi. Sejak manusia lahir nilai moralitas sudah ditanamkan, dalam perkembangannya akan dipengaruhi faktor lingkungan.

    Nur Tjahjono Suharto
    PEP S3 (A)
    16701261007

    ReplyDelete
  19. Achmad Rasyidinnur
    16701251032
    PEP S2 B

    Kant distinguishes two kinds of law produced by reason to elaborate what is the duty that is motivating our actions and giving them moral value. According to Kant, giving some end to achieve, our reason can provide a hypothetical imperative, or rule of action for achieving that end. Kant argued that reason produces an absolute statement of moral action and the moral imperative is unconditional; reason dictates a categorical imperative for moral action.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Achmad Rasyidinnur
    16701251032
    PEP S2 B

    Filsafat Etika sebagai refleksi filosofis tentang moral, atau merupakan wacana pertentangan antara yang baik dan yang buruk, yang di anggap sebagai nilai relatif. Etika ingin menjawab pertanyaan “Bagaimana hidup yang baik?” Jadi etika lebih dipandang sebagai seni hidup yang mengarah kepada kebahagiaan.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Achmad Rasyidinnur
    16701251032
    PEP S2 B

    Salah satu bagian yang merupakan penjelasan-penjelasan dalam filsafat yang membicarakan masalah predikat baik (good) dan buruk (bad) dalam arti susila (moral) dan asusila (immoral). Semua keadaan tersebut tercakup dalam penilaian etika kehidupan

    ReplyDelete
  22. Azwar Anwar
    16709251038
    Pendidikan Matematika S2 Kelas B 2016

    Filsafat moral, yaitu cabang filsafat yang berbicara tentang tindakan manusia, etika tidak mempersoaalkan keadaan manusia, tetapi mempersoalkan bagaimana manusia harus bertindak. Tindakan manusia ini ditentukan oleh bermacam-macam norma, di antaranya norma hukum, norma moral, norma agama, dan norma sopan santun. Kant menguraikan bahwa untuk memiliki nilai moral, tindakan harus dilakukan dari tugas dan kewajiban harus selalu berada di atas kecenderungan untuk tindakan jika tindakan adalah memiliki nilai moral. Di situ juga dibahas mengenai tentang moral dan hukum, moral dan agama, yang mana keduanya kita lakukan di dalam kehidupan. Karena hukum dan agama lah yang mempengaruhi moral setiap masing-masing orang.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fitri Ayu Ningtiyas
    16709251037
    S2 P.Mat B UNY 2016

    Kata moral berasal dari bahasa latin mores yang berarti adat kebiasaan atau suatu cara hidup. Moral pada dasarnya adalah suatu rangkaian nilai dari berbagai macam perilaku yang wajib dipatuhi. |Moral secara ekplisit merupakan berbagai hal yang memiliki hubungan dengan proses sosialisasi individu tanpa adanya moral manusia tidak akan bisa melakukan proses sosialisasi. Didalam moral terdapat perbuatan/tingkah laku/ucapan seseorang dalam menjalankan interaksi dengan manusia. Jika yang dilakukan seseorang itu sesuai dengan nilai rasa yang berlaku di masyarakat tersebut dan dapat diterima serta mampu menyenangkan lingkungan masyarakatnya, maka orang itu dapat dikatakan memiliki nilai mempunyai moral yang baik, begitu juga sebaliknya. Sedangkan menurut Immanuel Kant sendiri, moralitas adalah hal kenyakinan serta sikap batin dan bukan hanya hal sekedar penyesuaian dengan beberapa aturan dari luar, entah itu aturan berupa hukum negara, hukum agama atau hukum adat-istiadat. Selanjutnya dikatakan jika, kriteria mutu moral dari seseorang adalah hal kesetiaannya terhadap hatinya sendiri.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Arifta Nurjanah
    16709251030
    PPs P Mat B

    Menurut Kant meskipun seluruh ide dan konsep manusia bersifat apriori sehingga ada kebenaran apriori, ide dan konsep hanya dapat diaplikasikan apabila ada pengalaman. Tanpa pengalaman, seluruh ide dan konsep serta kebenaran tidak akan pernah dapat diaplikasikan. Oleh karena itu akal budi dan pengalaman inderawi, tidak dapat dianggap sebagai dasar menyatakan keberadaan Tuhan. Menurutnya, keberadaan Tuhan diperlukan sebagai postulat bagi kehidupan moralitas. Moralitas merupakan kehendak untuk mau melaksanakan kewajiban. Pengukuran moralitas tersebut bukan pada hasilnya karena perbuatan baik tidak membuktikan kehendak baik. Kant meyakini bahwa perbedaan antara benar dan salah adalah masalah akal, bukan perasaan.

    ReplyDelete
  25. ULFA LU'LUILMAKNUN
    16709251022
    S2 Pendidikan Matematika 2016 Kelas B

    Assalamualaikum Wr.Wb.

    Kant menunjukkan bahwa manusia bisa memahami realitas alam dan moral dengan menggunakan akal budinya. Pengetahuan tentang alam dan moralitas itu berpijak pada hukum-hukum yang bersifat apriori, yakni hukum-hukum yang sudah ada sebelum pengalaman inderawi. Pengetahuan teoritis tentang alam berasal dari hukum-hukum apriori yang digabungkan dengan hukum-hukum alam obyektif. Sementara pengetahuan moral diperoleh dari hukum moral yang sudah tertanam di dalam hati nurani manusia.

    Wassalamualaikum Wr.Wb.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nira Arsoetar
    16709251018
    PPS UNY Pendidikan Matematika
    Kelas A

    Immanuel Kant mengemukakan prinsip autonomi dan heteronomi dalam menentukan moralitas. Autonomi merupakan wujud otonomi kehendak. Seseorang melakukan perilaku moral berdasar atas kehendak yang telah menjadi ketetapan bagi dirinya untuk melakukan perilaku moral dan tidak ditentukan oleh kepentingan atau kecenderungan lain. Sedangkan heteronomy atau disebut juga prinsip heteronomi kehendak menyatakan bahwa seseorang berperilaku moral karena dipengaruhi oleh berbagai hal di luar kehendak manusia.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Menurut sy moral adalah tindakan manusia yang memiliki nilai positif. Moral itu sifat dasar yang harus dimiliki manusia, jika ia ingin dihormati oleh sesamanya, maka harus mempunyai sifat dasar yaitu moral. Jika perbuatan,tingkah laku, dan ucapan seseorang dalam ber interaksi dengan manusia baik, maka yang dilakukan seseorang itu sesuai dengan nilai rasa yang berlaku di masyarakat tersebut dan dapat diterima serta menyenangkan dilingkungan masyarakatnya, maka orang itu dinilai memiliki moral yang baik, begitu juga sebaliknya.

    M Saufi Rahman
    PEP Kelas A
    16701261024

    ReplyDelete
  28. 16701251016
    PEP B S2

    Moral yang berkembang adalah atas paradigma pemikiran. Keberlayakan suatu tindakan dalam pandangan pandang kehidupan sosial. Pandangan pemikiran manusia adalah berlandaskan pemikiran dan kepercayaan masing masing. Sehibgga realita moral yang sebenarnya adalah kompleks dan menuai keberagaman. Dari keberagaman namun menurut obyektifitasnya moral sendiri adalah berkeyakin dalam diri untuk bertindak yang sesuai dengan ruang dan waktu. Jika ditinjau dari sifat empiris, maka moral adalah bergaris lurus dengan penahan dan pendidikan seorang. Maka dikatakan orang yang tidak bermoral adalah bagaimana kaum tersebut kurang mendapatkan pengalaman pendidikan.
    Namun dari sisi historus, dahulu kala pendidikan tidak hanya berarti formal, dimanapun dan kapanpun kita dapat berlajar dengan segala fenomena alam, misalnya saja bagainana kehidupan batu sebagai benda mati yang hidup bermoral bagi dirinya sendiri untuk dikatakan hidup, menurut dirinya sendiri

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bismillah
    Ratih Kartika
    16701251005
    PPS PEP B 2016



    Assalamualaikumwarahmatulahiwabarrakatuh
    Moral adalah suatu keyakinan tentang benar salah, baik dan buruk, yang sesuai dengan kesepakatan sosial, yang mendasari tindakan ataupun pemikiran.
    Contoh : Masyarakat indonesia bisa hidup berdampingan dengan bermacam-macam suku, adat, ras, budaya dan agama tanpa saling melecehkan satu sama lain itu menunjukan bahwa masyarakat indonesia adalah masyarakat yang bermoral baik.

    Terimakasih.
    Wassalamualaikumwarahmatulahiwabarakatuh

    ReplyDelete
  30. RISKA AYU ARDANI
    16709251021
    PMAT KELAS B PPS UNY 2016

    Moral sesuai dengan pandangan Kant adalah kesesuaian antara tindakan yang dilakukan oleh individu terhadap dengan norma atau hukum yang berlaku. Manusia tidak dapat bertindak semaunya, karena manusia hidup didalam sebuah paradigma dan sebuah aturan. kemudian tanpa disadari manusia tersebut akan menilai apakah sikap yang ditunjukkan oleh dirinya memiliki makna baik atau buruk, benar atau salah.enurut para pengkritik Kant, konstruksi Kant melupakan aspek lain yang juga dapat mempengaruhi sikap dan perilaku seseorang dalam konteks konstruksi legalitas dan moralitas seperti sikap belas kasihan, iba hati, atau kepentingan diri. Kritikan tersebut mungkin ada benarnya, akan tetapi yang ditegaskan Kant dalam konstruksi legalitas dan moralitas bahwa kesungguhan sikap moral baru dapat dilihat ketika seseorang berbuat demi kewajiban itu sendiri.

    ReplyDelete

marsigitina@yahoo.com, marsigitina@gmail.com, marsigit@uny.ac.id