Kant On Ethics Essay, Research Paper

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system for reasoning. It is

based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. In

Kant?s eyes reason is directly correlated with morals and ideals. Actions of

any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by

reason, and no action performed for appropriateness or solely in obedience to

law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the

"right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong

reason is not moral you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty

code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our

reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is. Kant described

two types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which

dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical

imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of

its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality

and was stated by Kant in these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action

were to become through your will and general natural law." Therefore,

before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if

you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by

everyone all over. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be moral;

if you are not, then the act is morally impermissible. Kant believes that moral

rules have no exceptions. Therefore, it is wrong to kill in all situations, even

those of self-defense. This belief comes from the Universal Law theory. Since we

would never want murder to become a universal law, then it must be not moral in

all situations. Kant believes killing could never be universal, therefore it is

wrong in each and every situation. There are never any extenuating

circumstances, such as self-defense. The act is either wrong or right, based on

his universality law. For example, giving money to a beggar just to get him to

leave you alone would be judged not moral by Kant because it was done for the

wrong reason. With Kant?s belief in mind; if the consequence of immoral

behavior were dealt with in a legal structure, people would be prosecuted for

EVERYTHING since there are no extenuating circumstances. Kant’s categorical

imperative is a tri-dynamic statement of philosophical thought:(1) "So act

that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle

establishing universal law."(2) "Act so as to treat humanity, whether

in your own person in that of another, always as an end and never as a means

only.’(3) "Act according to the maxims if a universally legislative member

of a merely potential kingdom of ends." In other words, Kant argues that

particular action requires conscious thought of the rule governing the action.

Whether if everyone should follow that rule, and if the rule is acceptable for

universal action, it should be adopted. If the rule is unacceptable, then it

should be rejected. In order to understand whether or not an action follows

Kant’s "categorical imperative," we must prescribe those norms that we

wish to be universal laws. These norms are created through value judgments based

on issues of justice between persons or groups (nations, etc.) of persons.

Kant’s theories discuss the ethical questions that determine impartial

consideration of conflicting interest in issues of justice. Kant also states

that because we must believe that all things develop to their fullest capacity,

then we can theorize in summary, through cognitive processes we can create

communities, based on moral (ethical) action towards every person, thereby

creating universal ethics throughout the community or "republic". With

that in mind, it appears that Kant makes statements that assume all people

within like "republics" can achieve a level of cognition equal to one

another, for without that equanimity of cognition and judgment, then the

conflict issues cannot be rationalized through creation of universal law. The

statement that all people can achieve a similar level of cognition seems

preposterous in our modern world cognition in the sense of like thought. Because

we need the principles of Kant’s categorically designed thought and action to

have universal acceptance; we must be willing to accept the undesirable

psychological deviants within the "republic." If we can’t accept that

a person?s cognition is capable of universability, then we must dominate that

person by removing them from the republic. This in itself contradicts Kant’s

theory because in order to end domination, we must yield to and follow our

cognitive thought and this cannot be done because the deviant doesn’t achieve

the same level of cognition as the rest of the republic. This example seems to

point out a flaw in Kant?s reasoning and his belief of achieving similar or

same ethical norms to follow. We must make the judgment on whether or not

universal ethics is possible. I believe that a bit of universability exists in

certain social mores and norms throughout the world; don’t kill your neighbor,

be kind to animals, incest is wrong, etc. yet, individual perception of the

world by people prevents the possibility of an all-encompassing universal code

of ethics. Furthermore, we have no way, to prove that our principles based on

perception can be rationally applied. Because of this inability to prove

rational application of perception and thus moral principle based on that

perception, we are unable to demonstrate the rational justification of any

universal principle or ethic. Application of the principles is central to

creating universal ethics, yet it seems that we cannot prove rational

application of the principles and thus fall short of gaining universal consensus

on what those should be. To Kant, these principles can be made applicable

through his transcendental arguments, but there remains the fact that he agreed

sensory (and thus transcendental) experience couldn?t be accepted as empirical

givens. This leaves the sensory or transcendental experience open to

interpretation. Empirical evidence creates responses that can be repealed time

and again with identical or nearly identical results. Kant does make arguments

for empirical thought in his, "The Postulates of Empirical Thought"

Section of the book Critique of Pure Reason, but his questions of an event

"what became of that?" and "What brought that about?" fail

to argue concisely about real and logical possibilities. Because of his lack of

definite statement, Kant fails to prove through his empirical thought arguments

that empirical thought or action can be universal. Kant followed his book,

Critique of Pure Reason, with Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which

he argues at length on moral judgment, practical reasoning and the like. Without

having read the book in its entirety, it seems that Kant provides example upon

example on the possibility of universal ethics. People attempt to describe good

based on virtuous thought. Virtuous thought supposes that a virtuous person has

a fairly explicit conception of what is called happiness. Kant?s perception

skews the person’s thought because each person perceives an event (whatever the

event may be) differently. It is this difference in what people perceive that

creates opposing viewpoints on "good" whether virtuous or not. Any

attempt to provide a universal ethic to the community is impeded by the

community itself. Not only was it an impossible task in Kant’s time, but it is

still impossible today.

324