Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals - Essay Example

Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is believed to be the first contribution of Immanuel Kant to moral philosophy. It analyses the motivation for human for his actions. Kant’s moral philosophy is based on the concepts of categorical imperatives which are introduced in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. The categorical imperative proposed by Immanuel Kant places the standard for moral good in actions rather than traditions or beliefs. Kant argued that the actions of people should be judged as moral or immoral based on their personhood and dignity. The actions of a person should be treated as the right or wrong for that person only. In other words, morality is a principle originating inside a person's mind which compels that person to act in a particular way. We usually label a parson’s activity as good or evil based on our traditional beliefs and customs rather than the significance of that activity to that person. Family, society and the religion influence us very much in the formulation of our attitudes, thoughts, views etc. There is a tension between Kant’s conception of morality as rooted in universal reason and the manner in which most of us received our moral education. Moral education usually proceeds through following moral examples. We learn what it means to be good by observing the character and actions of those we believe to be good (family, friends, and religious figures). Kant challenges the underlying premise of this ordinary conception of moral education. How can I know that the character and actions of any given individual are good unless I have an independent conception of moral goodness? Kant even extends this argument to such an exemplary figure as Jesus. Write a paper examining the cogency of Kant’s challenge to the idea that moral norms can be derived from examples. This paper addresses not only the cogency of Kant’s critique, but the further question of how moral education is possible in Kantian terms also. Morality is often been defined by us with respect to traditions and customs. It is a fact that most of the religions are giving moral education to their communities based on their beliefs and customs. For example, Christians believe in Jesus Christ and they give moral education to their communities based on the teachings of Jesus. On the other hand, Muslims give moral education based on the teachings of Islam. Christians strongly argue against the killing of all the human beings whereas some of the fundamental Muslim groups believe that killing of enemies of Islam as a sacred act rather than a sin. Muslim fundamentalists justify the killing of innocent people citing examples like the massacres of America and Israel against the Muslim community. Muslim fundamentalists developed their moral laws or moral education based on the bitter experiences faced by the Muslim community at some parts of the world. According to Kant, an action can never be considered moral, if it is motivated by certain examples rather than the consciousness and wisdom of the individual. In other words, even if we face some bad experiences from some other people we have no moral right to take revenge for that. It is a fact that American soldiers are killing many of the Muslim fundamentalists in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of war on terror. America is citing the examples of 9/11 incident for the moral justification of their actions. However, according to Kantian moral principles, neither the killing of Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the killing of innocent people in other parts of the word by Bin Laden or terrorists, can be justified We normally assess our actions and other’s actions based on the observation of the character and actions of those we believe to be good (family, friends, and religious figures). For example, Christians put the actions of Jesus as a base in assessing the actions of others. Jesus taught his disciples to love their neighbors just like they love themselves. So, Christians consider loving of others as a moral act. However, Kant has different ideas. Kant argued that loving of neighbors or other people is the right action only for Jesus. In his opinion, Jesus does not have the right to lead even his disciples in a particular way. In other words, the actions and teachings of Jesus are right only for Jesus. It is not necessary that the rights of Jesus would be the rights of others. Since Jesus failed to collect support for his actions from all the people in the world, Kant opposed the idea of labeling all the actions of Jesus as moral. According to Kant, an action became moral only when it is accepted as moral by all the people in the world. For example, Jesus taught his followers to have one wife only. In his opinion, even the thought of a person about having sex with another person’s wife or girls other than his wife, is a sin. Having more than one wife is an immoral act as per the teachings of Jesus. On the other hand, Muslims can keep more than one wife and it is a morally accepted action for them. In other words, Christians and Muslims differ in their views about the number of wives one person can keep. According to Kantian philosophy, neither the keeping of one wife, nor the keeping of more than one wife, can be considered as a moral action, since these actions lacks universal acceptances. These actions are based on the teachings of the religion and cannot be considered as a morally bright action. Kant challenges these types of moral education and argued that a person cannot label the character and actions of any given individual as good unless he has an independent conception of moral goodness. From the above arguments, one may develop doubts about how moral education is possible in Kantian terms. Suppose, a Christian has only one wife and she happens to be sexually impotent. According to Christian moral principles, he cannot marry another girl or divorce his present wife. On the other hand, same person could have married another girl if he was a Muslim. Here the religion plays an important role in determining the morality of an action. Kant argued that instead of religious beliefs, individual wisdom should be used in such cases in determining the morality. In other words, Kant believed that even a Christian can marry and keep more than one wife if the individual wisdom and the circumstances demand that. In some cases, the outcomes of some wrong actions may appear as good. Suppose a restaurant owner reduced the price of some food items on a particular day. The customers may treat this action as a morally right action since they are getting food items on cheaper rates from this food outlet, at least for a day. When all other restaurant owners nearby, charge more to the same food, the activities of the first restaurant owner could be treated as a moral acts by the customers. On the other hand, suppose that the restaurant owner reduced the price, not because of his mercy towards the customers, but for selling out the rotten food. In this case, the motives of the restaurant owner are not to help the customers, but to avoid or reduce his losses. Such acts cannot be considered as morally right even though the customers are getting cheaper food. China is accused of selling consumer products for cheaper price in international markets. China’s intention is to increase the profits by selling more volumes of items. In this case also China’s tactics cannot be morally justified according to Kant’s moral philosophy. In short, the motives determine whether an action is right or wrong rather than the outcomes of the action. To conclude, Kant’s moral education principles were based on the interests of the entire humans in this world rather than the interests of a particular individual or group of people. According to Kant, an action would be moral if the person would be able to place the interests of others above his self interests while performing that action. Read More