Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, the Importance of Duty - Essay Example

Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, the importance of Duty One of the most influential philosophers that has profound effect onthe field of ethics is Immanuel Kant. His idea about normative ethics became a signpost to determine which course of action is moral and ethical in today’s modern world. In his book Metaphysics of Morals he discussed about the importance and differences categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives, the universal law formulation and humanity or end in itself formulation. All of which were important aspects in the moral determination of the will that would contrue an act as moral or ethical. Kant’s normative ethics posits that the best way to act morally is to act from duty with the consideration of the highest good. That is, acting through the moral determination of the will. Kant’s acting through the moral determination of will meant that the motivation of one’s action must be pursued with the good without condition which is intrinsically good by itself. He formulated his deontological ethics in a categorical imperative of doing good for the sake of good regardless of its consequence. The three propositions of moral determination of the will are as follows; Universal Law formulation which is to act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This means that if one is to act good, that will should not be subjected to any condition or any physical constraints. Humanity or End in Itself formulation which posits to act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. This meant the free will is a source of rational action. And that humanity, is not just a result of an action but also the motivation of such action and how the action is carried out. A logical free will should therefore be an end itself because an end is subjective that they needed to be pursued whereas, the rationale action is objective and therefore must be categorically pursued. Kingdom of Ends formulation is the integration of the first two laws that says all maxims as proceeding from our own [hypothetical] making of law ought to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends. This meant an autonomous will is not subject to anything but it must bind itself to the first two laws to make it applicable to everybody that people by themselves are both a means and an end. In sum, Kingdom of Ends formulation meant that the end and the means must be harmonized to be good and this is applicable to all circumstances without exemption. Kant explained the etymology of the expression of his deontological ethics. According to Kant, imperatives imply what they just meant which are commands such as “wake up early”. Often they are hypothetical imperative because they only serve a specific objective or purpose such as “wake up early so you will not be later for work”. This imperative or command becomes categorical when it is applied universally and that the actions and decisions of individuals are to be judged solely by their motivations and that the consequences do not matter morally (as in the case of hypothetical imperative) neither the intended consequences nor the actual consequences matter morally; only the principle or rule we follow if we do the action matters morally. In simpler terms, this meant doing what is good regardless of consequence and that by doing is an end by itself. Thus, actions themselves become an end and this action should be a rational result in the exercise of freewill. In the example stated, categorical imperative dictates to “wake up” early because it is good to wake up early even without considering one’s need not to be late for work. Consistent to this, Kant’s categorical imperative states that every person has the duty to use and exercise his goodness/humanity as a means to an end. The application of Kant’s second law of categorical imperative is best illustrated in slave ownership. A slave owner may assert his right to own a property which in this case is a slave. While ownership by itself is not immoral, slave ownership becomes unethical or immoral according to Kant’s categorical imperative because it deprives another person his free rational action and that persons can never be a mere means to an end. One distinct characteristic of Kant’s categorical imperative is that it is universal and inflexible that it applies to everyone without exception. For Kant, neither good nor bad luck affects in assessing the moral act of a person. His idea of “goodwill” did not become good because it serves an end or objective but because it intends to do “good” regardless of the consequence. The difference between these two kinds of imperatives is that hypothetical imperatives are those acts done just to meet or satisfy a certain objective such as in the example stated of waking up so that one will not be late for work. A certain act is done because of the consideration of a certain end which could be subjective. Categorical imperative on the other hand pursues a certain course of action or performs a duty for the sheer good of it without any condition or objective. According to Kant, it would be necessary to follow the categorical imperative for us to act morally. Indeed Kant’s deontology of ethics and his idea of categorical imperative is an ideal way to guide one’s thought and action except that it presents some question and dilemma to modern person. One may even ask if this idea is still applicable in today’s complexity of life. For example, I totally agree with Kant that the good must be pursued independent of the consequence but becomes questionable when applied in real life. If I may cite a case to underscore this contention, is to the case of a thief or robber who steals to pay the medical bills of his child that is beyond the reach of his or her regular means. In Kant’s philosophy of categorical imperative that the good must be pursued regardless of consequence, this is definitely considered as bad or far from the ideal because a person takes one from another that does not belong to him or her. This can be aggravated by the fact that somebody was deprived of something which may be needed severely by the person who was robbed. But if we add Kant’s philosophy of motive that a person’s actions become moral if it is done with a pure motive, the situation gets messed up. The person who stole from another may be doing it according to his or her own call of duty which is to provide and take care of his or her family which in this case, is to pay the medical bills of his or her hospitalized child and consistent to the proposition of Kant’s Humanity or End in Itself formulation which states that humanity is an end by itself and not just a means. That act of stealing which in itself is bad was prompted by the call of another duty of parenthood to take care of one’s child albeit the means is disagreeable to the aggrieved party and society in general but considered as humane to the child and standards of parenthood. If such act will not be done, that could mean the death of his or her child and stealing is the only the means available to be able to pay the bill that could save the child. In this regard, an individual’s duty conflicted with his or her duty to do good regardless of consequence (categorical imperative) and the performance of a parent’s duty to his or her child (Humanity or End in itself formulation). In this regard, doing good without the considering the consequence is tantamount to abandoning one’s responsibility to his or her child. Thus, this compounds the question on how can we reconcile these two duties because they seem to conflict with each other? Can they be resolved? Or does it mean that Kant’s philosophy is already passe in today’s time because it can no longer respond to the realities and moral questions of the day? I can only surmise in studying Kant that the performance of duty by itself as stated by categorical imperative is lacking to serve as a guide in electing a certain course of action. Duty must be carried out in accordance to a will or reason that is by itself good. In the case of the child, the categorical imperative is to look after the sick child and that that the motive must be the love of the child to make the dispensation of duty moral. Stealing is not consistent to taking care of a sick child whose duty is compelled by filial love but rather by expediency or an easy way out to dispense one’s duty and therefore not consistent with Kant’s categorical imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative also posits that goodness or humanity is by itself also an imperative means of achieving an end. It follows that it is not only the end that is important or in the case stated, to take care of the child, but also the means to achieve that end to make an act moral. Thus to be consistent with Kant’s deontology of categorical imperative, the means of taking care of the child must also involve goodness and this removes the acceptability of stealing as a means to ethically take care a child. This should be applied with no exemption in accordance to Kant’s Universal Law Formulation. Bad luck or circumstance such as the case of the poor parent does not exempt him or her from acting morally. Kant’s second law of categorical imperative mandates that while taking care of the child while sick is laudable, stealing from another is still immoral and does not make the act moral because the person who was robbed was deprived of material resources that he or she might also need. In plain language, doing wrong does not make a thing right no matter how it is justified. Read More