Kantian Ethics Essay

Immanuel Kant’s moral theory has become the heart of deontological ethics. It differentiates itself by looking at morality as an extension of man’s reason. Unlike other ethical theories, the individual is seen as the primary actor of all moral decisions. His autonomy, his will is seen as the locust of ethical judgment. For Kant in order for an act to be considered morally worthy it has to be done out of duty. From my understanding of Kant, when we talk of duty it is something which our reason recognizes as a manifestation of a universal law, one which he/she cannot deny. Doing the right thing is not about whether or not the outcome might be gauged to be positive, or that because an individual â€Å"feels† that he/she must perform a particular act rather she â€Å"knows† that it is his/her duty. In order to be ethically praiseworthy, the person must ask himself, â€Å"Am â€Å"I† the one who is deciding and acting? † The morality of Kant builds on the want of the philosopher to describe and order an ethical life that is centered on the rational faculty of man, his reason. It is the case that in a lot of cases people tend to look at the possible consequences of an action in judging whether or not what they’re about to do is moral or not. At times we act out of good intentions, helping others, sharing, et al. because we feel that it’s the good thing to do. Unfortunately, Kant won’t agree with our ways. In fact, he would even say that such actions have no moral worth. For Kant, the important thing is our obligation to do something, feelings, intentions, and consequences may gain the approval of others but they are too whimsical. There is for him an a priori (before reason) law which tells us what ought to be done. As rational beings we are dignified with our ability to discern this law, much more, we are capable of making it (Kremling, n. d. ). To act contrary to what our reason dictates, is choosing to act in heteronomy, a big no-no for Immanuel Kant because it belittles the individual, the latter produces as a result, acts that are empty. If Kantian Morality sounds a bit of feel-good emotions, intentions, and happy thoughts, then I think we’re on the right track. Ethics in terms of Kant is not about making another person smile; it’s not about calculating how many people you could help out by doing something. At the end of the day, acting on such things are all half-chances, there is no guarantee that by helping someone out would be good, there’s no assurance that if you think of the number of people who would benefit, it means you won’t harm others. Autonomy plays a central role in the moral theory of Kant, in such a way that a man must in his own volition choose to legislate a universal law and act in accordance to it. How does one determine which acts are in accordance with good will per se and is thus uninversalizable? For Kant all actions can be stated as a maxim, a person as an autonomous person creates the maxim but at the same time has to make sure that it is a principle that every rational being can agree to with no exceptions. This is the categorical imperative, contrary to the hypothetical imperative which is stated as an If-then. I. e. If I want to pass this class then I have to study; the Categorical Imperative claims a universal statement that is true at all times (. When a person acts out of duty the latter is presumed to have passed the categorical maxim put forward to state the action: In layman’s terms we could state the maxim as a question first, i. e. can I will to cheat on an exam, in such a way that others would as a whole can will to do so? There are categorical imperatives that have been formulated by Kant as the most basic of ethical requirements, like for example, Lying is an act that for him will never become morally justifiable, we must always follow the imperative to never use a person but always as an end (Hillar, 2003). We again see here the theme of dignity and respect, man and his reason is central in the ethical works of Kant. Even if for example in doing an act we would do so for the good of the majority, it would still not be valid if a minority would be sacrificed along the way. We do something because it ought to be done as determined by our reason and verified through the maxim which we test and attempt to put as a categorical imperative; the latter could be thought of as the fixed rules that govern how we as rational agents act. The main criticisms to be raised with regards to other ethical theories are founded on the assumptions of Kant regarding the fulfillment of moral obligation for the sake of good in itself. Utilitarianism takes as a central part of its tenets, the concept of summum bonum (greatest good for the greatest number). If we look at this ethical formulation we shall see that it would contradict with the notion of Kant that Human Being should always be considered ends never as a means, not even for the greatest number. Problem may also arise in the altruistic claims of utilitarian moralizing. One ought not to pursue something out of happiness or other virtues like Aristotle’s notion of the good man as the man of mean and virtues. This would not qualify for Kant as enough grounds to pursue good, because as he had mentioned in the groundings, prior to the good is the good will with which there is no qualification (Johnson, 2004). If one is an individualist, he might more likely be pleased with the ethical prescriptions of Kant. I personally find strength in his moral philosophy in finding support for the need to protect certain inalienable rights. In focusing on a moral law, his theory is not vulnerable to the attacks of situational morality but rather focuses on the man as a rational being and a moral agent, whose will is in a sense the will of all (Baron, 1995). There is stability and consistency in Kant’s moral philosophy by centering on the autonomy of all individuals under the precept that when it all boils down to it, man shares a common reason and will that would allow them to determine what is right from wrong. On the other hand I think that there are certain things in life wherein following the rules set through categorical imperatives would not suffice. There are moral dilemmas wherein human lives are hanged in the balance. Although reason can help us in making our decisions, the moral duties of Kant can only go so far. I am left to wonder how a person could be satisfied with himself in pointing the whereabouts of innocent African-Americans to deranged members of the Ku Klux Clan who are vowing to kill them; on the basis of fulfilling his moral duty of always telling the truth. Take note, in Kant’s philosophy, there is no hierarchy of duties, one has to fulfill them all, regardless of the outcome. References: Baron, Marcia, 1995, Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology Cornell: Cornell U. P. Hillar, Marian, 2003, Kant’s Moral Axioms, Retrieved August 3, 2007 from Socinian. org: http://www. socinian. org/kant. html Johnson, Robert, 2004, Kant’s Moral Philosophy, Retrieved August 4, 2007 from Stanford http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/