You are on page 1of 2

Susan Friesen

UNST 230A

Module 1 - Argumentation Paper


Immanuel Kant, founder of Kantianism - an ethics theory that follows deontological

rules, wrote of a rule akin to Christianitys Golden Rule. Kants Do not impose on others what

you do not wish for yourself moral code would not support an argument for a registry to avoid

acts of terrorism. Trump and his cabinets proposals for a Muslim registry would call for

surveillance and something akin to a watchlist for either all Muslims in the US, or Muslims

immigrating in, or some other array of Muslims related to the United States. This is

discriminatory and racist since it has only been proposed in regards to Muslims. If this were

applied to any other race or religion, each of those would be in protest as well. Therefore it does

not stand under the criticism of Kants form of the Golden Rule. It is not ethically sound.

At the core of Kantianism is another code, that one should treat humanity not as a means

to an end, but always at the same time as an end. This is due to the fact that Kant held human life

in the highest regard, as sacred, and that it would be unethical to kill one to save the lives of

millions. This is essentially what a Muslim registry and surveillance would be doing. It would be

putting thousands, or millions, of people into a horrific situation, whether that be a watchlist,

banning from the country, or something similar to an internment camp, in an attempt to weed out

the few that might actually be a risk to national security. This program would be using the lives

of countless innocent Muslims to hopefully reach the goal of eliminating all risks from what is in

reality, a very minute number of extremists, that again, in reality, are not even all Muslim

extremists. Therefore this program would be using humanity as a means to an end, and would be

deontologically unethical in Kants eyes.


Susan Friesen

UNST 230A

Module 1 - Argumentation Paper


Deontological ethics are built upon ethics of duty. What Kant argued was that in order to

act morally purely from duty, each act would have to be intrinsically good, and good without

qualification. To be good without qualification, there would have to be no possibility of that act

causing any harm or making any situation worse, ethically. While the registry and surveillance of

all Muslims is being proposed with good intentions for the majority of Americans, it is not in any

way well-intentioned for Muslims. It is built to make being a Muslim difficult and wrong. There

is nothing good that can come out of it for Muslims, as it is discriminatory and racist, and very

well could cause not only social and mental damage to individuals, but could potentially lead to

physical harm if things got out of hand. This is not only on an individual level either, but a mass

population of people in this country and this world are being targeted. Therefore this is

definitively not good without qualification, or in any way at all.

You might also like