Libertarian

Main Library, Meeting Room 2B Join us for a welcoming evening of reflection, gentle music, and meaningful conversation. We’ll begin with a short grounding moment, followed by a brief reading from spiritual or philosophical traditions, and an open reflection circle where participants can share (or simply listen). Libera Animae is an interfaith community focused on inner growth, creativity, and authentic connection. All backgrounds are welcome.

When judging morality, should we prioritize **intentions/duty** or **outcomes/results**? It introduces two influential philosophers as representatives of these approaches. * **Immanuel Kant (deontology):** An action is moral when it is done from **duty** and follows rational, universal principles (the **categorical imperative**). Certain acts—like lying—are wrong regardless of the consequences; you can’t do a wrong thing for a right reason. * **John Stuart Mill (utilitarian consequentialism):** The morality of an action is determined by its **effects**, specifically how much **happiness/well-being** it produces. Mill argues that some pleasures are “higher” than others, and that good intentions don’t redeem harmful outcomes. ## Discussion Questions 1. **The lying dilemma:** A murderer comes to your door and asks if your friend is hiding inside. Kant would say you must not lie. 2. **Can good intentions rescue a bad outcome?** 3. **The organ harvest problem:** A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient in for a checkup. Killing the one to harvest organs would save five lives, and the math works out for the utilitarian. Why does this feel so deeply wrong? Is that feeling a point in Kant's favor, or just a bias we should overcome? 4. **Do rules need exceptions?** Kant insists moral rules must be universal, with no exceptions. But most of us can imagine extreme scenarios where any rule seems like it should bend. Does the need for exceptions fatally undermine deontology, or is the strength of the system precisely that it refuses to bend? 5. **Who gets to calculate the consequences?** Utilitarianism asks us to maximize good outcomes, but we're notoriously bad at predicting consequences. If we can't reliably know the results of our actions, is it practical to base our entire moral system on outcomes? Does this uncertainty push us back toward rules and principles? 6. **Everyday morality:** Think about a real moral decision you've made recently, even a small one. Did you reason more like a Kantian (what's the right thing to do in principle?) or more like a utilitarian (what will produce the best result?)? Do most people naturally lean one way? 7. **Justice vs. the greater good:** A town can prevent a deadly plague by sacrificing one innocent person. The greater good is clearly served. But is it just? Can an action be morally right and deeply unjust at the same time? 8. **The big synthesis question:** Are these two systems actually opposed, or do they often arrive at the same answers by different paths? Is it possible that we need both: rules to guide us in the moment and consequences to evaluate systems and policies over time?

Sleep in on Sundays. When you've had your fill of pajama-time, roll out and have some tasty brunch with your fellow Humanists!

Join us for 2 loops of the 1.1 mile trail surrounding Civic Park In Reynoldsburg this Thursday (5/7) at 6:30 pm. This is a fully paved trail so no worries about mud after a rainy week. Just come and get some exercise while connecting with others.

Ciao a tutt\*! Let's meet Monday at 6.30pm at the Upper Arlington Library (Tremont Branch) in **Meeting Room A** to speak in Italian for 1 hour.