Model for Morality: The Ethical Theory by Kant - Essay Example

? Model for Morality Instruction: Task: Model for Morality One of the most attractive aspects of Kantian morality is its simpli Considering its apparent complexity of moral reality, this becomes one of Kantian’s most repulsive aspects. However, such simplicity alone is weighed down by scary metric takes both an objective and philosophical approach. In that case, for the purposes of this response, I will weigh and analyze the Kantian approach to morality through the rubric of suitability for worldwide adaptation. It will also cover adaptation, rationality and present a list of positive and negative externalities that are necessary. The externalities will come in play if the approach is adopted universally. Regarding the issue of externalities, its relevance is vital to understand the consequences. Kant, for instance, would urge that the consequences of our actions go in hand with our moral qualities and actions. Consequently, as a function of approaching the issue from perspective, it is hoped the overall suitability of Kantian morality will be expounded (Robert et al, 2011, p. 118). Additionally, provision of a well balanced approach in determining inherent strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats will help explain the selected approach. In the Kantian approach to ethics and morality, the ultimate identifier of a ‘good action’ is one that is performed out of ‘duty’ with no other ulterior motive. This becomes a means of a means of rewarding or punishing the individual for performing the action. In this case, duty is the ulterior motive because it accords the individual the opportunity to adopt his own morality. Although Kant was not the first individual to support such an approach to morality and ethics, he was among the first to make such a move. He also passed it along as a moral code of ethics arguing it could be applied universally (Robert et al, 2011, p. 115). This universality of Kantian morality serves as the hallmarks of defining the forms of ethical and moral approaches that have been far been studied. This universality is born out of an understanding that the main guiding precept that defines goodness is duty. This is the duty of maintaining law in society and upholding virtues such as honesty, respect and obedience. Kant describes it as not necessarily born out of an imprint of Godliness upon the hearts of mankind but out of the universality of reason. This helps to develop moral and ethical approaches to the many situations that greet the individual within his/her daily life (Robert et al, 2011, p. 119). Additionally, Kantian morality and ethics take the approach that God is exhibited through reason and rationality hence presents within the human duties. It, therefore, ultimately leads an individual to perform a moral act for the sake of duty itself. As a means to further this moral approach, Kant argues that the ‘good of humanity’ in itself is sufficient enough a cause for encouraging the application of duty upon any given situation. Good humanity in this case means remarkable values and virtues that define the morality of individuals. Ultimately, this strike at the motivation for action, which itself Kant is able to trace back to a type of humanism that seeks to improve and reform the lives of others. It also encourages the good of humanity in general as a means of revealing a better and noble world full of duty. Similarly, the ultimate expression of goodness through the unconscious and conscious acts of duty influences the individual who aspires for such an approach. Conversely, the analysis of the theory demonstrates several levels of weaknesses that raise questions in the reader’s mind with regards to how effective such an approach would ultimately be in the universal practice (Robert et al, 2011, p. 123). This is effective in terms guiding the individual toward reforming his weaknesses and concentrating on his strengths for universal renewal. Although it is laudable to seek to divorce self-interest from moral actions for neutrality and integrity, it still remains a bit of a utopian response. This is because the complete divorce of self-interest from actions is something impossible. Alternatively, the individual’s behavior changes depending on social and political factors surrounding his daily acts. Moreover, the universality of Kantian ethics/morality presents a serious problem. Although when Kant first created the approach much of the world outside of Europe was either unknown or categorized as uncivilized and unworthy, same moral and ethical approaches still hold for Europeans. Kant’s theory, therefore, applies to both races that apply decision making and the upholding of morality. Consequently, the theory of universality does not engage or consider the multi-cultural world we currently live or the ways in which different approaches to the same issues might come into conflict. This is based upon prior existing cultural interpretations of a given problem. Different approaches in this case mean human integration and cooperation to find harmony. However, cultural differences affect behavior various communities of how they limit their vices and virtues. In other words, while some cultures respect honesty very much, others prefer obedience as form of straightforwardness in upholding the Kantian ethics. Similarly, lack of a relativist approach to morality and/or ethics helps explain the theory that defines totalitarianism in application. Universality is also convenient in helping relate a moral theory to an audience and the layer of issues (Robert et al, 2011, p. 117). This relation means the theory tramples upon some rather innate differences that exist throughout the world to bring a long term effect on the average ethics of man. Innate differences, on the other hand, imply the inner feelings that affect the rational actions of individuals toward acting against or toward helpful things in society. It, therefore, means there is no moral theory that can or should be appropriately applied universally to the innate differences of humanity. This is because they both exist between the broad spectrums of humanity on earth on those living in illusions. Conversely, Kant’s theory of good for is something that should be ultimately driven towards as an exemplification of humanism. On that account, it will determine how people should integrate their beliefs with their actions with responsibility and decorum. Kant, for the record, is an influential philosopher of ethics deserves recognition for his efforts in highlighting ethics fit for humanity. These include use of moral sense in making decisions without contravening the freedom of others in life (Robert et al, 2011, p. 111). Additionally, Kantian models also apply in defining cultural imperialism because humanity thrives on competition according to Kant. In other words, the universal law of man demands autonomy over morals to avoid a lapse toward condemned vices such as dishonesty that lead to destruction. Ethical theory by Kant also supports the impression of good will tempered with moderation to uphold moral intentions. However, breakdown of virtues lead to immoral ends, according to Kant’s ethical theory, hence it requires of parameters to create such imbalances. Bibliography Robert, S et al, 2011, Introducing Philosophy: a Text with Integrated Readings. 10 Edition. Oxford University Press, USA. Read More