Usefulness of Kants example of the promise in Contemporary Society - Essay Example

? Usefulness of Kant’s example of the ‘promise’ in contemporary society In the current world, there are things that nothing can be used to prove their existence by providing any explanation about how they came to be and how they operate. These things are the way they are and any attempt to explain them leads to no meaningful end because they cannot be explained in any way by any wisdom or philosophy (Ripstein, 2008, p23). This is the bases on which Immanuel Kant lays his theory of categorical imperative, which argues that all the people need to put into consideration that a person has the understanding of what it means to say “I must” as a promise. Through this theory, people are able to make proper distinctions between the different things, which happen in the world because of their understanding of their responsibilities towards each other. Kant argues that the categorical imperative requires a person to know their specific duties in a situation and follow them to accomplish their promises they made (Jennifer, 2006, p265). In this respect, he exemplifies all the demands of making promises, which require the person who give them to bear all the responsibilities of fulfilling them according to what they said. In using the categorical imperative, Kant explains how a person can promise to fulfil a promise, which they know they will not fulfil because the basic maxim of a promise is that everyone who promises has to fulfil his or her duty. Arguing like this, it explains why people will not predict that a person is lying to them in making a promise they are not committed to fulfil but which other people think they will honour (Byrd and Hruschka, 2006, p46). This philosophy of Kant was relevant in the past and remains relevant in the contemporary world where people have different engagement to assure others that they will fulfil something and end up not doing it. According to Kant, the issues people have in their minds and which they do normally, form an important part of their explanations to different other things because they get some experience in them. Through these experiences of the mind, individuals form special expectations, which are the outcomes of different things they do in their lives and which other people exploit for their good or for their bad. In this respect, people are caught up in ethical issues, which require them to determine the various things according to the expectations of the society, deviation from which causes a person to be rendered immoral. The things that a person is expected to do in specific situation can be his or her duty and he or she is bound to fulfil it within the stipulated time according to the predetermined social requirement. According to some critics of the theory, there is no clear definition of whether the duty to keep a promise in a situation will be categorized as an ethical, in which a person can do it because they are convinced that it is the best thing to do or legal, where he or she fulfil the promises they have made in fear of the outcome of failure (Byrd and Hruschka, 2006, p49-50). According to Kant, a person bears a duty to talk the truth at the time of making a promise to other people and failure to fulfil them pre-exposes them to lying, which is unethical. This means that according to him, talking the truth in the context of making a promise is ethical and on the other hand, lying in the same context makes a person unethical. He argues that lying violates the duty one has on himself or herself and therefore, ethical and can only be termed legal if it violates the right of another person who is affected by the lying of the people. For this reason, people who violate the duty of keeping a promise are termed unethical and lacking in moral values, which are unspoken rules that a person holds on himself or herself. Kant discredits lying as a legal duty arguing that all the people have their freedom to say whatever they can say regardless of the different implications they have on the other people in the context and it is not prohibited in the laws. This implies that the issues surrounding keeping of promises are ethical because failure to honour them it is not illegalised and the freedom people have, allows them to do things according to what they think is right (Byrd and Hruschka, 2006, p57). According to the context of promise and its fulfilment in the right time, Kant argues that the issue does not imply a simple situation where a person can make a promise and circumstance cause him to fail to honour his or her word. Instead, Kant argues that the mind of the person who promises to do something is what can be used to explain the ethical stand of the person who commits himself or herself to do something. For example, he argues that what a person believe he or she will do before the due date of a fulfilment of a promise dictates the duty they have and is the only thing that can explain the kind of a person the one who promises is. He says that if a person is unable to fulfil a promise he made but was willing to do so is considered ethical as opposed to a person who makes a false promise which he or she knows that he will not fulfil (Pasquerella and Killiea, 2005, p267). In explaining the things that a person is supposed to do in a situation, Kant proposes that all the people should treat others as the end themselves rather than a means to an end. This means that the fulfilment of personal obligation should be done willingly not under any coercion to fulfil what they are expected to do in specific issues in their life. In order to ensure that people are not condemned in their behaviour, they ought to do the things they have promised and which are according to the expectations the society places on different individuals in the society. In this context, the motivation to behave in a particular way in the society should not be driven by the requirement of the law but rather by the desire to fulfil the ethical expectations a person has upon himself or herself (Kerstein, 2002, p 127-135). In the contemporary society, Kant argues that all the decisions that a person take in any context are expected not to come from empirical justification of the circumstances. If a person is to decide the course of action they take from an empirical perspective, they are likely to make a decision that is good and not necessarily right. On the contrary, Kant argues that all the decisions that are taken from a pure practical reason are the ones that imply the right decision to take in a situation. Right decision in any context represent morality of an individual who takes them and they are the ones which all the people should have in order to maintain their moral standards (Byrd and Hruschka, 2012, p67-73). Making the right decision in the contemporary world will mean that a person is not out to exploit the privileges they have in a situation to benefit themselves at the cost of the other people who are in the society. Kant argues that in pursuit of good, people are likely to make judgements that are likely to justify their exploitative action which are likely to leave other members of the society hurt. In the argument of Kant, the people ought to understand that the obligation to conduct themselves in a particular way does not come from the set out rules i.e. is not legal, but it is based on the experience of the mind of a person about what is right and what should be done. The aspect of conformity to the expectation of the society or a particular group does not come from the impact the empirical things one has nor are they dependent on the ruling that are done in different institution. To understand the different things that are ethical, there is need to consider the different situations and the benefit an action produces to all the parties involved so that it may not benefit one at the cost of the other (Marshall, 2010, p373). Kant theory of category imperative where he used the example of a promise in determining the ethics refers to the different perspectives with which a person should look at the issues for the benefits of both parties. In this respect, Kant argues that people know the different expectations that the society places on them and from which they should not deviate and therefore, they are their duties. However, Kant still argues that the duty cannot be categorised according to the legal requirements if they are from an ethical because, the motivation to conduct oneself according to the legal requirement means that without the law, they would not be ethical. According to him, the conviction that it is his or her duty to fulfil a promise a person made, prior to the due date shows that they have consciousness to do the right and therefore, empirical perspective cannot be used to measure morality of person. References Byrd, B.S., & Hruschka, J. (2006). Kant on "why must I keep my Promise?". Chicago-kent Law Review, 81, 1, 47-74. Byrd, B. S., & Hruschka, J. (2012). Kant's Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jennifer, R. (2006). Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?. Journal of Documentation, 62, 2, 251-270. Kerstein, S. J. (2002). Kant's search for the supreme principle of morality. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press. Marshall, D. (2010). The Origin and Character of Hannah Arendt's Theory of Judgment. Political Theory, 38, 3, 367-393. Pasquerella, L. & Killiea, A., (2005). The Ethics of Lying in the Public Interest: Reflections on the “Just Lie”. Public Integrity, 7, 3, 261-273. Ripstein, A. (2008). Immanuel Kant. Aldershot: Ashgate. Walker, M. T. (2012). Kant, Schopenhauer and morality: Recovering the categorical imperative. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More