Morality and ethics by Kant - Essay Example

Morality and ethics by Kant Morality and ethics are hard subjects to deal with. With the varying beliefs systems being followed by different societies, coming up with a universal answer is practically impossible.                 Kant tried to answer these moral nuances. For him, man follows a certain code of conduct. That, however, will depend on his imperative and own will. He states, “the representation of an objective principle so far as it necessitates the will is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative” (Kant, 24). Imperative is an ought; it is the voice in our heads that pushes us to do good. Simply put, there are two things that subject man to a moral law – his own imperative and his own will. However, the interaction between the human will and the inherent imperative is full of complexities. An imperative is a directive to act, to do good. However, the act itself will come from the will. Not because an imperative presents something good to do, the human will does it. So how does moral law apply? Kant tackles this by identifying two distinct imperatives – hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperative demands an action for some particular purpose. It’s doing Plan A, to get winnings X. In paper, the hypothetical imperative seems logical. Most of the time, that is how humans operate. You study in order to get good grades; you start up a business to gain money; you watch movies, attend parties and socialize to gain the feeling of belongingness or acceptance. Basically, you act because it will benefit you, or it will be for the greater good. However, the application of hypothetical imperative could also be troubling. Would you rob a bank because your loved one is dying and you don’t have money to pay for it? Would you lie for a friend, whom you found out is cheating on his wife, to avoid getting his wife hurt and ruining his family? There are a lot of subjective inclinations that clutter the hypothetical imperative. Thus, for Kant the moral law forms around the categorical imperative. It’s the unconditional demand to act for good itself. It’s just “do plan A”. Period. It’s an absolute moral demand that isn’t blurred by subjectivism. It is a moral code that could be applied universally. The overall moral code or value resides in the rationality of the good will and expressed through moral duty. To explain it further, Kant formulated three maxims. For his first maxim, Kant states, “that one should act only on that maxim that can at the same time be willed to become a universal law” (vi). The maxim he is referring to is our duties to do good. He divided these duties into two: perfect and imperfect duties. These are actions that can be willed into universal law, and thus, are moral. In dividing the duties, there is an inherent assumption of a universal maxim such as ‘it’s immoral to steal and to commit murder’. The perfect duty is the act of ensuring that your actions are not in contradiction to the universalized maxim. Perfect duties consist of actions that one must constantly do throughout their lives because it is morally good. One example of a perfect duty is not telling lies. Kant believes that lying is self-defeating. When people lie all the time, it would become a universal reality that people lie and that it’s okay to lie. Despite of this, lying cannot be simply willed to become a universal law. Thus, for Kant, lying under any circumstances is wrong. Lying contradicts the categorical imperative, which is to do good for good alone. Though it would seem good on paper, in reality, applying Kant’s belief poses a lot of circumstantial situations. Telling the truth, of course, is almost always a good thing. However, I believe that there are some things that should not be let out in the public, especially if it’s for someone’s safety. This is not to say that it is okay to hide a thief. But what if that theif is your friend, who happens to tell you that he was framed up? What if those looking for him, would kill him when they find him? Would you tell these people where your friend is if they happen to ask you? Of course, this is an extreme example. However, it is not far from reality and it could likely happen. Will telling the truth bring the good? This is essentially where I disagree with Kant. There are various circumstances in human realities that can’t be defined as black or white. Human experiences can’t be put into a box and pinpoint the good and the bad, the immoral and moral. I do agree that there are universal maxims that almost everyone abides to such as no to murder and no to stealing. However, our reactions or response to these acts are defined by society, our culture. I believe, that if an action is for the common good and is not defying any legal laws, it is okay. On the other hand, imperfect duties are acts that are not required all the time. However, if it is performed, it deserves admiration. One example of a imperfect duty is to enhance ones talents. Enhancing or enriching ones talents leads to good, not everyone has the gift of talent or the opportunity to enhance it; thus, it is an imperfect duty. Another example is giving to charity. Donating to charity can be seen as a moral act. However, not everyone has the capability or opportunity to give to charity; thus, it is an imperfect duty. The second maxim of Kant tackles the end justifying the means. According to Kant, “moral law states that one should always act in such a way that humanity either in oneself or in others is always treated as an end itself and never merely as a means” (vii). Essentially, Kant is saying that man must do the right thing in all circumstances because it is the right thing to do. Man must ensure that his acts are not in anyway using humanity as a means. Following Kant’s thinking, any act that uses man in anyway is immoral. One such example is making false promises to alleviate a situation. This act is leveraging on a person’s trust to gain something out of the situation. Though the end point may be good, the means of getting that to that point of goodness is immoral. Combining it with the first maxim, we have the perfect duty to not use humanity as merely a means to an end. And I do agree with Kant here. False promises are using the trust of a person in order to gain something. This promotes distrust and hatred among persons. Moreover, not only could it create so much drama, it could also potentially ruin relationships. In the end, it doesn’t really do much good to anyone. I also agree that man as a whole is being that must not be used. We are not things that could be just used and abused. We have dignity. And it is part of our perfect duty to uphold our own and everyone else’s. Having the discussed the 1st and 2nd maxim, the 3rd maxim then takes all these concepts and sums it up. According to Kant, "therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends” (43). This means that it is our moral duty to uphold the moral laws which we are all bonded in order to bring forth the harmonization of the ‘Kingdom of Ends”. The concept of ‘kingdom of ends’ is a state of existence where all rational human beings are abiding by the moral code. This is simply put the universal ultimate goal of a society, were moral acts are rewarded for eternal happiness. References: Kant, Immanuel. Groundinf for the Metaphysics of Morals: On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns. Trans. Ellington, James W. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc, 1993. Print.     Read More