Practical Anthropology and Moral Philosophy Distinction - Essay Example

A distinction between practical anthropology and moral philosophy The works of Kant (1728-1804), a German philosopher, are mostly drawn from the observations and his own ideas on the nature of humans. The major emphasis of this philosopher is on the priori or pure part of the moral philosophy. He strongly believes that in the operation of moral philosophy, the major determinant is inherent in reason and is also revealed through it. The difference between Kant’s moral philosophy and the empirical moral philosophy is that the later is biased towards the posteriori principles or those that are garnered through the observations and experiences of human beings. Kant, using this distinction, referred to the empirical moral philosophy as moral anthropology. He claimed that while moral anthropology indicates to us the actions of people, it cannot indicate how they ought to act. The basis of finding the supreme moral principle should not be on the descriptive part but on the authoritative normative principle that is most fundamental in deciding human actions. Kant further claims that morality commands human beings to be natural using the priori principles but never through the posteriori ones. Moreover, the two principles must be kept separate and must be clearly distinguished in order to help determine what the conditional and the unconditional truths are as they may vary from species to species. What may be prudentially good to one person may not be so in another. The only way of justifying such a statement would be to analyze the moral philosophy and the empirical moral philosophy of the species concerned. In this discussion, the focus will be on understanding human beings in order to determine how the supreme moral philosophy can be applied to them. Kant asserts that, all moral theories prior to this fail to explain the categorical nature of moral obligation and to articulate a supreme moral principle that could capture the categorical nature of morality, because those previous moral theories had neither recognized moral agents as autonomous, nor recognized that the supreme moral principle must be self-legislated (SEP 6). The result of self legislation in the previous theories on moral philosophy could only lead to hypothetical imperatives whereas Kant’s theory, solely based on the autonomy of legislation, could leads to categorical imperatives. Kant claims that all other theories before his advocated for heteronomous legislation other than autonomous legislation since they did not recognize the supreme moral philosophy or the role played by moral agents. He further criticized the moral basis on which other theories categorized fear or hope that is associated with either divine wrath or reward and also sympathy and self love. Further, Kant asserts that people have the capacity to constraint their own selves due to the autonomous nature of legislation which makes them recognize the fundamentals of self love and all the others morals listed above but never through a heteronomous way as advocated by other theories. It is not possible to explain the nature of commitment to morality that self legislating agents possess as they consistently act in the right way simply by heteronomous ways. The consistency itself can only be achieved by having autonomy in actions. Kant strongly believes that the way that human agents derive their moral obligations is based on the categorical imperatives of morality. Simply put, the categorical imperatives are the basis on which the human agents then consider all other facts gathered from the world around them and then act in the fulfillment of moral duties. If one is an ardent follower of the supreme moral principle, then the moral law is not necessary. The major point of departure between moral philosophy and moral anthropology is that the latter does not have an absolute value. In fact, the moral anthropology is an imperative itself because it constraints and at the same time commands people to act in a certain way. However, the moral philosophy is an imperative that not only constrains and commands but also does it absolutely without any second thoughts. As such, it can only be considered as being categorical since it is not subject to influence by other preferences. Therefore, a moral philosophy is an absolute command that is the ultimate authority in the moral actions of human beings whereas, the moral anthropology is governed by reason and is therefore subject to the limitations that are set by the human agents. Human agents will only apply the moral anthropology only to the end of their limits. This therefore distinguishes the two principles as Kant did. The Formula of Universal Law (FUL) and the Formula of the End Itself are the most likely indicators of a categorical imperative. The former states that “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (SEP 8) while the latter states that “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (SEP 8) Moral anthropology follows the moral laws. This is solely based on the ends which human agents want to achieve. While achieving these ends, they are constrained by their resources, their temperaments, their talents or their situations. Moral duties are crafted in a way that the human agent achieves his/her own perfection while factoring in the happiness of others. The limitations of these duties that humans give themselves are in their own capacities and virtues. Moral meritoriousness is what Kant advices people in a bid to fulfilling their moral duties. Further, he asserts that the fulfillment of moral duties should be limited by the line between the violation of others respect and the perfection of the individual agent. Hume (1711-1776) uses what he refers to as a naturalistic approach to ethics which is empirical and based on experiments. His theories however go beyond explaining what human beings can decipher from the world around them but also what guides them to make moral judgments and the purpose of having belief in divinity. Hume’s experiments that aimed at understanding the human mind to determine human understanding were also what he applied in order to determine human morality. His work is more focused on morality as a natural phenomenon rather than in setting a theory on its normative nature. His foundation for research was based on the fact that everything about human beings can be determined using empirical investigations and experiments in their natural forms. Therefore, according to Hume, there is no priori principle which guides morality in human beings. Furthermore, Hume compared human beings with other animals by looking at the commonalities between the species. He draws a line between the supernatural which encompasses religion and the virtues that guide morality in human beings and refer to them as being independent of each other. The cause and effect of both the supernatural and the virtues of human beings can be explained in the same physical world and in the natural setting. Hume further states that the traits that human beings harbor in terms of either feelings, abilities or motives are the guides towards approval or disapproval of the actions of the human being him/herself or others. This is where the line between virtue and vice is drawn as the former elicits pleasure and approval while the latter is the expression of displeasure and disapproval. According to Hume, if human beings were to embrace the moral point of view, then they would share in their approvals and disapprovals and the only difference would be in their sentiments and sympathy. Although he concedes that nonhuman animals are incapable of expressing moral sentiments, they do however have the capacity to be sympathetic. This is the foundation on which he makes comparisons. In the discussions above, it is possible to see that Kant’s approach is two-pronged. First, he believes that there is a priori or pure principle that guides morals in human beings and there is the supreme moral principle that guides human agents. He claims that this principle is the ultimate in the fulfillment of human moral duties. In addition, he claims that in proving his theory, the supreme moral principle yields a categorical imperative while all other theories gotten through experiments can only yield a hypothetical imperative. This categorical imperative is said to command and constraint human agents in their actions and is self legislating meaning that it is autonomous. The other theories developed before his time, he claims are heteronomous are they are pegged on different preferences and influences. The autonomous, self legislating priori moral principles are what are encompassed in Kant’s moral philosophy. On the other hand, the heteronomous and posteriori principles that are subject to human agents’ limitations are what he referred to as practical moral anthropology. Hume on the other hand believes in the empirical, naturalistic and the experimental nature of morals. He disputes the priori principles of Kant. Therefore, in analyzing Hume through Kant, one can only focus on the moral anthropology. Here, between Kant’s moral anthropology and Hume’s principles of morals, there are similarities as both are subject to the human agents’ limitations that they conjure in order to reach a certain end. In this discussion, the most convincing perspective is that adopted by Kant. While acknowledging the theories of Hume under moral anthropology, he goes further to introduce a priori principle that acknowledges a part of human morals that is not affected by their limitations that include abilities, talents or preferences. Both philosophers do have strong points for consideration and both articulate their theories very precisely. However, the stronger case is certainly that of Kant otherwise human beings would not bother with the supernatural if every aspect of their morals is subject to their own limitations. Works cited Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). Kant and Hume on Morality. Palo Alto, California: Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 2008. Read More