Defining Reason and Morality in Kant - Essay Example

? Defining Reason and Morality in Kant Introduction The concepts of Kant are based on defining morality and the ethical considerations which one should take before making a decision in any situation. The main attributes of Kant are based on the ideology that humanity should be treated in a specific way when making decisions or reacting to a specific situation. The ideology which Kant states is that an individual should always act as an end is never a reason to react with the given situation. Instead, the ethical attributes, no matter what the consequences, should be displayed in any given situation. While this argument has some feasible points, it doesn’t consider situations and circumstances which require an individual to act in a different manner. Investigating the validity of this point then moves into reliance on both the morality which Kant sees as true as well as how other circumstances would change the decisions made by an individual. Kant’s Theory of Rational Morality The main principle which Kant has created is based on the ideology that each individual should be treated with equal respect. The ethical consideration is based on a sense of reason that each individual should have. Kant states that reason is what requires one to act in a humanitarian way, specifically which requires looking at circumstances instead of the end means in a given situation. The ideology is to use morality with the understanding that humanity is the most important aspect of practicing morals, whereas, the individual beliefs and life of an individual is not as important as the whole. More important, Kant’s belief sates that when one is able to create equal respect toward individuals, then there is the ability of building a formula which stops the disrespect and other forms of unethical values which are often created (Hill, 1980: p. 84). The idea of respect is one that is then further defined with the concept of morality, value and what the end result will be if these ideologies are withheld in any given situation. The theory behind this is based on altering the foundational principles for justice and humanitarian acts toward others in society. The concept which Kant creates is one which he leaves as a basis of being logical in terms of creating responses within the way in which an individual treats another. The requirement which Kant states is one based on three approaches which are linked to the logic of this discussion. The first is based on the preservation of rational will, which states that each individual should have the capacity to decide and rationalize how to treat another individual. The second principle is respect for human dignity and integrity. Even if there is a situation in which one is unable to justify the end result, the ability to keep integrity and dignity as a main association becomes more important. The third which Kant states is based on the end which eventually takes place. When applying reason to a given situation, it is known that each individual has the capacity to overcome the situation. If justice and forms of overcoming a specific situation remain intact, then the means eventually justify the ends with the right end decisions being made (Green, 2001: p. 247). From several perspectives, the ideologies of Kant are able to show logical solutions to given circumstances and environmental needs. For instance, in the ethics of business, there is the ability to apply this specific concept to change the circumstances of a situation. When a manager or leader is able to use reason and actions based on humanitarian ideologies then it helps to offer better advancement within the company. This attribute is often referred to as a form of transformational leadership. When the right and reasonable decision is made with the manager, than others will begin to transform and follow the same approach and perspective. This creates a sense of attraction to doing the right action in any given circumstance while building a sense of moral principles that are followed by others within a given environment (Sendjaya, 2005: p. 75). Each of these components is combined with the duties which one believes they have and which is referred to by Kant. The duties are based on preserving one’s life, not only because it is expected, but also because one desires to do so. The duty which Kant refers to is then based on what one desires to do in given situations, as opposed to what one is expected to do. The will which one has in terms of morality combines with the duties which one is obligated to as well as changes the actions which take place. However, for each of these to take place there is a requirement to have a sense of law, such as ethical standards that are within the governmental system or a given environment. This reminds one of their duties and provides motivation so one can understand their duties. The concepts which Kant has with these principles then combine rationality with duties and laws expected in society as well as to ingrained actions which take place within a given system (Kant, 9). Strengths of Kant’s Theory The ideology which Kant has referred to is one which works effectively in several ways. The first is basing rationality as the basis of morality, specifically so the ethics don’t pertain to one individual or culture. In the past, there was a basis in morality being religious or connected to a supernatural power. However, Kant is able to show how the concept of morality is one which is based on basic human respect and decency and carries attributes which one is able to build in terms of relating to others. The basic aspects which are able to apply to legalities, duties and the actions which one decides to make then creates a sense of cultural moral consciousness, as opposed to only relating to the belief that wrong and right is based on the religious implications or individual beliefs of an individual. Ethical duties relating to the rights of human beings then become a strong attribute with the argument that Kant sets forward (Guyer, 2001: p. 166). Another strength which is identified with the theory set by Kant is based on the ideology of the means and the end that is set in itself. The implications of this are known as deontological, meaning that moral principles are based on becoming enlightened and understanding that each individual holds the same moral principles The end becomes the main motivation, as opposed to trying to break moral imperatives for one’s selfish condition or abilities to work from a different perspective. The idea of creating value with a relative end and an unconditional end then becomes the main ideology in which one is able to measure their own moral standards and existence to create a stronger sense of value. One is then able to think about the potential consequences of actions as well as how to respond to these in a way which is rational and which creates a better ending to the given situation. The value conceptions that are combined with this become a way in which one can logically build morality and values while becoming self – sufficient on creating the right actions in any situation (Guyer, 2001: p. 171). These specific components of Kant’s theory are defined by a utilitarian approach which he takes in terms of identifying the needs of humanity and the logic which is required for moral actions. The standards which Kant sets with this particular philosophy are able to create a defined set of components with those who are interested in the ethics while building a different and reasonable standard with the ethics. From the viewpoint of creating and defining ethics, responding to these in a logical manner and building a sense of wrong and right that moves beyond religious beliefs then creates strengths in the main argument which Kant creates. Oppositions to Kant’s Theory The several reasons and logic which Kant provides in terms of actions and morality are combined with the expectations of following through with one’s duties and having the motivation to move forward with specific actions. However, there are also several problems with the argument that Kant creates as well as the theory which is established. While the philosophy works well and provides the judicial system and other institutions with a basis for functioning, there are also specific concepts which are missing from the main argument as well as the beliefs which Kant has. These are based on situational concepts which may create scenarios that have to be re-examined and evaluated for better consideration by those who are trying to make decisions in terms of morality and ethics. The concept of duty is the first aspect which works only theoretically and with standards which are expected to be maintained within institutions. However, the moral theory also has problems in individual situations and decisions which are made. From one perspective, Kant identifies this theory as a way to treat others and humanity. However, there is not a consideration of psychological responses, counterintuitive responses and alternative treatments which may occur. For instance, if one is torturing animals, it can be said to be an ethical obligation so a human doesn’t get injured from that animal. However, the morality of hurting an animal and the inhumanity that occurs in response is one which moves outside of logic to show it as a cruel act. The logic becomes counterintuitive, specifically because the approach and the success is dependent only on understanding duties not only to humanity but also to others that are within society and how this may cause negative reactions from a different perspective (Skidmore, 2001: p. 541). This particular argument not only relates to problems in terms of duties as well as the need to care for humanity with only the end result in mind. There is also a sense of equality which is expected in all situations but which is not relevant. Situations, actions and the morality of different values are not equal, as Kant creates as an appearance. While all may follow logic and reason, the concept of equality among different individuals varies according to individual decisions and actions by others. The functional values of humans differ, as well as the association which is taken to specific actions and reactions. From this perspective, the fulfilling of moral duty may have a different association with one’s reactions and values. If this occurs, then the end may change, as well as the means. More important, the concept of reason no longer works effectively, specifically because of diverse perspectives and understanding toward a given situation. Understanding functional differences is an important attribute in defining how moral obligations between individuals may change and develop while the ethical belief patterns may differ in situations or in accordance to an individual (Persson, 1995: p. 130). When looking at actions, beliefs and systems of others, the idea of morality as reason is unable to keep the same ideologies. Kant has also created a viewpoint which shows this contradiction and how some instances don’t have rationality in terms of creating a sense of morality. There are states in which the pragmatic decision is one which is not always one which fulfills moral duties; however, it preserves the dignity and the integrity of another individual. At other times, the morality may cause a negative effect, such as causing an individual to be unhappy or with an illogical outcome which occurs. In these instances, pragmatism is not the best association with morality and creates difficulties in the moral laws and understanding that is a part of the natural environment. The duties of irrational nature then become as important because of the ways in which the specific theory of Kant can become illogical or move against the logic which is established (Wood, O’Neill, 1998: p. 189). Each of the layers of opposition that are a part of Kant’s theory is based on the perspectives which are not considered. While the perspective works in terms of building a reasonable and logical basis, there is also a set of misunderstandings with the alternative perspectives and diverse responses which may occur. From this viewpoint, there isn’t the ability to understand and create a deeper sense of what ethics should or shouldn’t be used. Circumstances which depict different outcomes may have less moral obligation than what Kant considers. However, these may be ignored specifically because the logic and the relationship which is created naturally does not match with the ethical standards which Kant states. The result is that Kant only works with creating a set of categories over what morals and ethics should include, without thinking about the circumstances, diversity and other situations which would change the end result. Conclusion The concepts which Kant approaches are based on the ideology of building rationality in terms of logic and reason. This is one which is able to define the end as the main value of treating a specific situation with standards. This is furthered by Kant’s definitions of value and duty as well as how morality and ethics is defined specifically by the actions one takes in relation to the moral implications. Kant’s argument is based on having reason as a basis, as opposed to creating morality from other forms of ethics. While Kant is able to create a strong theoretical perspective of the logic and reason of ethics, this is limited to the theoretical viewpoint and the standards of law in a given institution. Alternative experiences, diverse thoughts and other situations may call for different formats and actions, specifically which Kant doesn’t look at or imply in his theory. The irrational situations which create a response from different actions and standards then have to be reconsidered with the definitions and logic which Kant presents. References Green, S. (2001). “What Does It Mean to Use Someone as a Means Only?: Rereading Kant.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11 (3). Guyer, Paul. (2001). Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays. UK: Bowman and Littlefield. Hill, Thomas. (1980). “Humanity as an End in Itself.” Ethics 91 (1). Kant, E. (2001). Early Modern Texts: Kant. Routledge: New York. Persson, I. (1999). “Equality and Selection for Existence.” Journal of Medical Ethics (25). Sendjaya, Sen. (2005). “Morality and Leadership: Examining the Ethics of Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Academic Ethics 3 (1). Skidmore, J. (2001). “Duties to Animals: The Failure of Kant’s Moral Theory.” The Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (4). Wood, Allen, Onora O’Neill. (1998). “Kant on Duties Regarding Nonrational Nature.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (72). Read More