Do you agree with Hooker that actions that cannot be general

Do you agree with Hooker that actions that cannot be generalized are morally suspect? Does Hooker convince you that his four ‘corollaries’ follow from the generalization test? Give reasons for your opinions.

Solution

As far as understand Hooker, he believes that if the reasons of an action are not logical/ consistent enough for the majority of the population, then they are morally suspect. I totally disagree with this idea because I believe that reasons for the actions as well as actions themselves should rather be examined on individual basis, and not generalized. It might be so that reasons which made a person act in a certain manner are more ethical and moral then the society would actually want to present them. As an example I could give a plot of one of recently watched movies, “Heist”. The daughter of the central character is ill, and for saving her life he needs an enormous amount of money, which he of course doesn’t have. The insurance rejected on payments, so he goes to his employers, who is an old friend at the same time, to borrow the money. And again receives a rejection. The hero sees the only way – to steal the money from the employer, and undergoes the chance. Here, the society would scream – No, stealing is unethical and Hooker would say that reason failed the generalization test. But from father’s point of view – would it be ethical or moral to leave the situation as it is and not give to his child a chance for life? I believe that under the given circumstances and conditions the central hero undertook the only right actions.

Concerning the corollaries – they are the outcomes, the sequence of the generalization test. And since I do not agree with Hooker’s generalization rule the outcomes of the last are not convincing for me as well.