Immanuel Kant and Unwanted Pregnancy - Essay Example

? Immanuel Kant and Unwanted Pregnancy Teacher               Immanuel Kant and Unwanted Pregnancy The Life-Changing Decision A few years back, one of my neighbors, whom I would just call Michelle, had an unwanted pregnancy. It was something that resulted from her relationship with her boyfriend of only a few months. Michelle was grief-stricken when he broke up with her not only because she told me she loved him but also because she was pregnant with his baby. They broke up because of some misunderstanding but I thought it was because of their constant fights although they were in public. I heard from other neighbors that she was so confused whether to have the baby aborted or not, for she was still in university at that time. Michelle’s father was just an ordinary office worker and her mother was a plain housewife and a mother of four small children. I did not know exactly how she struggled with her decision to save the baby and to take care of him. Nevertheless, she told me one day that although having to take care of the baby was something that dramatically affected the family financial situation in a negative way, she just felt that it was not the right thing to do if she had decided to have it aborted. The Nature of the Belief and the Beliefs and Values behind Such Decision Michelle’s family is a Catholic family and perhaps it is because of this that made her decide not to have the baby aborted. Catholics are Christians and thus believe in the sanctity of life and its greater value than money or other circumstances. According to Michelle, although her family knew that with the baby the financial situation will just grow from bad to worse, they helped her make a decision by telling her that regardless of the circumstances, the baby had to live for life was sacred. Her family believed this without any reason or any explanation. They simply just believed it. Immanuel Kant’s Theory According to 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, “The moral law commands as a law of freedom through motives wholly independent of nature and of its harmony with our faculty of desire” (Chaffee, 2011). This means that morality is not something that is natural or innate in someone, and that it is not synonymous to instinct. Therefore, no one is by nature a moral person and that no one is morally good if only he acts according to his nature and his instincts. The idea is that, as a law of freedom, the law of morality is a system by which morality is determined through one’s freedom to make a decision. In short, morality is only determined by one’s motives. Moreover, “Not being nature’s cause, [one’s] will cannot by its own strength bring nature” (Chaffee, 2011). This means that when one makes a decision or exercises his own will, then he cannot possibly express his nature at the same time. Nature and will are therefore not synonymous. But in this concept of morality, where does the idea of happiness come in? According to Kant, “The ‘highest good’ entails the idea of people being happy in direct proportion to their moral goodness” (Chaffee, 2011). This means that when one is moral or when one willfully makes a moral decision, then he must necessarily be happy. Kant, however, does not say whether it is moral goodness that brings about happiness, or vice versa. All he says is that the happiness of people being happy is in “direct proportion” to their moral goodness (Chaffee, 2011). This therefore means that any morally good person must necessarily be happy, and any happy person must necessarily be morally good. In short, there is an exclusive and mutual interdependence between happiness and moral goodness, and that Kant seems to be saying that the existence of each one depends on each other. However, according to Kant, “Because a direct correlation between happiness and moral goodness does not occur in this life, reason demands that we assume that this correlation will occur in the next life” (Chaffee, 2011). This means that Kant himself does not believe that his theory on moral goodness is realizable on earth or in one’s human life. He perhaps believes that as long as one is human, his nature may at times be so much more powerful than his decision to do what is morally good. Moreover, according to Kant, as morality has its basis in the will, we must will the highest good for only through this can one attain the highest happiness. Moreover, since one seeks the highest good, then it is possible that the cause of one’s nature is also the cause of happiness and morality. According to Kant, this “supreme cause” of nature is the basis not only of moral actions but also with the morality of the motives of such actions (Chaffee, 2011). This means that the supreme cause of nature is nothing but a causality that corresponds to “moral intention,” and this supreme cause is known as God (Chaffee, 2011). Based on these preceding statements of Kant’s concept of morality, attainment of the greatest happiness is only possible through the attainment of the highest good through one’s will. This means that no one can ever be that happy unless he willfully does a moral thing. Kant also says that the supreme cause of this desire to be happy must be a causality that is synonymous to moral intention and this supreme cause must be God. Lastly, Kant states that “it was our duty to promote the highest good” (Chaffee, 2011). This means that as human beings we have a duty to do what is good for this is in fact our own nature, and that unless we exercise our will in order to do so, we can never experience happiness. Lastly, through Kant’s idea that “this correlation [between happiness and morality] will occur in the next life,” one is encouraged to believe in the idea of cosmic justice or in the idea that the good will always be rewarded whether it is physically or spiritually (Chaffee, 2011). This is sufficient enough for any one person to do good while he is still alive and to bask in the promise of a certain reward of happiness that will come his way because of the good thing that he has done. How Kant’s Theory Approaches the Decision and the Relevant Considerations When Michelle and her family decided to keep the baby, what they did was simply to unconsciously follow through Kant’s definition of moral law: “The moral law commands as a law of freedom through motives wholly independent of nature and of its harmony with our faculty of desire” (Chaffee, 2011). The animal nature of man is to avoid pain and suffering, and since the baby was somehow expected to bring financial suffering to Michelle’s household, it was “naturally” expected that they would not allow it to live and that they would opt for abortion. Nevertheless, as the moral law or the system of good and evil is independent of such natural avoidance of pain and suffering, Michelle and her family made a decision which was independent of their natural instinct to avoid financial suffering. Despite the threat of financial problems that the baby would bring, they still made the decision not to have it aborted and to allow it to live. In short, notwithstanding the circumstances, Michelle and her family considered as sacred the moral law of respecting life and not killing it. According to Kant, “The ‘highest good’ entails the idea of people being happy in direct proportion to their moral goodness” (Chaffee, 2011). Although Kant himself somehow does not believe that moral goodness and happiness would be able to exist at the same time in a human being, the German philosopher teaches that morality and happiness cannot exist without each other. In Michelle’s case, although she may not have realized it, perhaps she would not have been as happy as she is now if she had resorted to abortion. The happiness that the family experiences nowadays with Michelle’s young son is perhaps a small part of the reward of happiness that awaits all those who have done good. Kant also said, “Because a direct correlation between happiness and moral goodness does not occur in this life, reason demands that we assume that this correlation will occur in the next life” (Chaffee, 2011). Although there is no way to prove this, there must exist in Michelle and in her family as well as in almost all people with religions the hope that in one way or another or in this life or the next, their good deeds on earth will someday be rewarded. This innate belief in some kind of cosmic justice, which Kant himself theorized, may have been the true reason behind Michelle and her family’s decision to let the baby live. Moreover, according to Kant, as morality has its basis in the will, we must will the highest good for only through this can one attain the highest happiness (Chaffee, 2011). When Michelle and his family made the decision to let the child live, they were simply and unconsciously just perhaps willing the highest good, for deep down they knew the decision they would make would give them long lasting happiness. This long lasting happiness is a mental and emotional state which is free from guilt. Lastly, as Kant mentions that it is God that is the supreme cause of all moral actions and all morally good motives, it is very likely that Michelle and his family are simply only believers in God and they simply believe that the good things that they do are simply the things that would please God Himself. Without such belief in God and without such belief that God is pleased with man’s moral goodness, Michelle would not have decided to let the baby live. Nevertheless, God-fearing as she has always been, she may have realized that all evil acts would displease God and all good things would please Him. It is also possible that Michelle and her family act as vessels of God, where they carry out God’s goodness in their decisions in life. They may not actually realize this but the decision that they have made regarding the baby simply shows that they allowed themselves to be instrumental in carrying out the goodness of God or the moral goodness that God caused. Ultimate Conclusion The life-changing decision that Michelle did to save her baby and not to resort to abortion was a testament of the truth and practicability of Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy. For Kant, happiness accompanies all morally good acts, and this concept was clearly exemplified by the happiness that Michelle and her family experiences with her child. The family is still so-so in terms of financial status but the important is that they are happy and they live a guilt-free life. Their happiness is somehow a proof that there is indeed, as what Kant hinted, a kind of cosmic justice that governs us and a God that watches us and rejoices in our good deeds. References Chaffee, J. (2011). The Philosopher’s Way: A Text with Readings: Thinking Critically about Profound Ideas. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall. Read More