I enjoyed
reading the excerpt within the chapter about Kant that talked about the young
student who was participating in a spelling bee in Washington D.C. years ago.
The boy misspelled a word, but the judge thought he heard him spell it
correctly. After the boy learned of this mistake the next day, he alerted
judges on his own to tell them that he had unknowingly misspelled the word and
they did not catch the error. The boy was eliminated from the spelling bee for
turning himself in and when immediately dubbed the ‘spelling bee hero’ for his
honesty and for doing the correct moral thing. In an interview, the boy
admittedly said he did not want to “feel like slime” by not telling the judges
that he spelled the word incorrectly.
The
questions that come to mind are: did this boy turn himself in because it was
his duty and the morally correct thing to do (as Kant’s theory states); or, did
he turn himself in because he was worried how others would judge him (from his
slime statement). In my opinion, I feel it is OK if he had both inclinations
because, at the end of the day, he still did the correct thing. As the semester
has progressed, we learn that this can be called Kant’s altruist. As Michael
Sandal states:
“If he comes to the aid of other people simply for the
pleasure it gives him, then his action lacks moral worth. But if he recognizes
a duty to help one’s fellow human beings and acts out of that duty, then the
plea sure he derives from it is not morally disqualifying.”
I appreciate Kant’s viewpoint and think a person can be
morally honest but also proud of their decision to do so, as was the case of
the spelling bee hero. He also did not want people to think poorly of him (had
he not turned himself in) which contributed to his motive and supports Kant’s
altruist point of view.
I actually see this scenario in a different light. Unless the spelling bee was videotaped or televised where it could be referenced at a later time, the boy could have kept the error to himself and no one would have thought poorly of him. He would have been the only one who knew the mistake.
ReplyDeleteI think he was very mature for bringing the situation to light, but also somewhat self-serving. The personal guilt he felt or anticipated for the future if he accepted the prize could have fueled his confession also.He didn’t want to live with that guilt, therefore easing his own suffering.
The fact the child was "awarded" with praise for his confession says something about our faith in people to do the right thing, don't you think?