Kantian Philosophy Of Morality- Essay, Research Paper

Kantian Philosophy of Morality-

Kantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of the

Categorical Imperative as a method for determining morality of

actions. This formula is a two part test. First, one creates a maxim

and considers whether the maxim could be a universal law for all

rational beings. Second, one determines whether rational beings would

will it to be a universal law. Once it is clear that the maxim passes

both prongs of the test, there are no exceptions. As a paramedic faced

with a distraught widow who asks whether her late husband suffered in

his accidental death, you must decide which maxim to create and based

on the test which action to perform. The maxim “when answering a

widow’s inquiry as to the nature and duration of her late husbands

death, one should always tell the truth regarding the nature of her

late husband’s death” (M1) passes both parts of the Universal Law

Formation of the Categorical Imperative. Consequently, according to

Kant, M1 is a moral action. The initial stage of the Universal Law

Formation of the Categorical Imperative requires that a maxim be

universally applicable to all rational beings. M1 succeeds in passing

the first stage. We can easily imagine a world in which paramedics

always answer widows truthfully when queried. Therefore, this maxim is

logical and everyone can abide by it without causing a logical

impossibility. The next logical step is to apply the second stage of

the test. The second requirement is that a rational being would

will this maxim to become a universal law. In testing this part, you

must decide whether in every case, a rational being would believe that

the morally correct action is to tell the truth. First, it is clear

that the widow expects to know the truth. A lie would only serve to

spare her feelings if she believed it to be the truth. Therefore, even

people who would consider lying to her, must concede that the correct

and expected action is to tell the truth. By asking she has already

decided, good or bad, that she must know the truth. What if

telling the truth brings the widow to the point where she commits

suicide, however? Is telling her the truth then a moral action

although its consequence is this terrible response? If telling the

widow the truth drives her to commit suicide, it seems like no

rational being would will the maxim to become a universal law. The

suicide is, however, a consequence of your initial action. The suicide

has no bearing, at least for the Categorical Imperative, on whether

telling the truth is moral or not. Likewise it is impossible to judge

whether upon hearing the news, the widow would commit suicide. Granted

it is a possibility, but there are a multitude of alternative choices

that she could make and it is impossible to predict each one. To

decide whether rational being would will a maxim to become a law, the

maxim itself must be examined rationally and not its consequences.

Accordingly, the maxim passes the second test. Conversely, some

people might argue that in telling the widow a lie, you spare her

years of torment and suffering. These supporters of “white lies” feel

the maxim should read, “When facing a distraught widow, you should lie

in regards to the death of her late husband in order to spare her

feelings.” Applying the first part of the Universal Law Formation of

the Categorical Imperative, it appears that this maxim is a moral act.

Certainly, a universal law that prevents the feelings of people who

are already in pain from being hurt further seems like an excellent

universal law. Unfortunately for this line of objection, the only

reason a lie works is because the person being lied to believes it to

be the truth. In a situation where every widow is lied to in order to

spare her feelings, then they never get the truth. This leads to a

logical contradiction because no one will believe a lie if they know

it a lie and the maxim fails. Perhaps the die-hard liar can

regroup and test a narrower maxim. If it is narrow enough so that it

encompasses only a few people, then it passes the first test. For

example, the maxim could read, “When facing a distraught widow whose

late husband has driven off a bridge at night, and he struggled to get

out of the car but ended up drowning, and he was wearing a brown suit

and brown loafers, then you should tell the widow that he died

instantly in order to spare her feelings.” We can easily imagine a

world in which all paramedics lied to widows in this specific

situation. That does not necessarily mean that it will pass the

second test however. Even if it does pass the first test, narrowing

down maxim can create other problems. For instance circumstances may

change and the people who were originally included in the universal

law, may not be included anymore. Consequently you many not want to

will your maxim to be a universal law. Likewise, if one person can

make these maxims that include only a select group of people, so can

everyone else. If you create a maxim about lying to widows that is

specific enough to pass the first test, so can everyone else. One must

ask if rational beings would really will such a world in which there

would be many, many specific, but universal, laws. In order to answer

this question, one must use the rational “I” for the statement “I, as

a rational being would will such a world,” not the specific, embodied

“I” which represents you in your present condition. You must consider

that you could be the widow in the situation rather than the

paramedic, then decide whether you would will such a universal law.

I agree with the morality based on Kantian principles because

it is strict in its application of moral conduct. Consequently there

is no vacillating in individual cases to determine whether an action

is moral or not. An action is moral in itself not because of its

consequences but because any rational being wills it to be a universal

law and it does not contradict itself. Regardless of what the widow

does with the information, the act of telling her the truth, is a

moral one. No one would argue that telling the truth, if she asks for

it, is an immoral thing to do. Sometimes moral actions are difficult,

and perhaps in this situation it would be easier to lie to the widow,

but it would still be an immoral action that I would not want everyone

to do. This picture of morality resonates with my common sense view of

morality. If the widow subsequently commits suicide or commits any

other immoral act as a consequence, that has no bearing on the

morality of the original action in itself. Utilitarianism would

differ on this point. Utilitarianism outlines that an action is moral

if it increases the total happiness of society. Morality is based on

consequences. Telling a lie to the widow would increase her happiness

and consequently would, at least possibly, be a moral action.

Utilitarianism would also take into account the precedent set by

lying; however, the analysis still rests on predicted consequence

rather than on the action’s intrinsic moral value. The morality of

telling the lie is on a case by case basis. In some situations, it

might be better to tell the truth, and according to utilitarianism

that would then be the moral action. Unlike Kantian philosophy, one is

not bound by an immutable universal law. Instead one must judge in

each case which action will produce the most overall happiness. The

problem with this approach is that morality loses any value as a

universal or intrinsic quality. Every decision is made on an

individual basis in an individual and specific situation. In fact,

utilitarianism considers happiness to be the only intrinsically

valuable end. Defenders of utilitarianism claim that it maintains

universality by considering the greatest happiness of all beings,

rather than just individual happiness. Still, the morality is based on

constantly changing and often unpredictable consequences. The

requirement that one consider all of the consequences of an action and

determine the best possible action through such calculations makes me

reject utilitarianism as a method of determining morality.

Although utilitarianism often offers the easier solution to

perform because it produces immediate gratification and allows many

exceptions to common sense moral codes, the answers it gives are

unfilling and unrealistic. Furthermore, it is difficult, if not

impossible, to make all of the required calculations beforehand.

Kant’s solution, although as interpreted by Kant is sometimes overly

extreme, is much better than utilitarianism. It resonates with my

moral sensibilities to consider that actions are moral or immoral

regardless of their immediate consequences. I am willing to accept

that sometimes the moral action is harder to perform, but I am

unwilling to accept that morality rests within the specifics of a

situation and the possible consequences. Therefore, I consider Kant’s

Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative to be a better

test of morality than Mill’s Utilitarianism.