Factors That Determine Peoples Actions - Assignment Example

Question Kant’s theory is a deontological moral theory that was put forth by Immanuel Kant. The theory attempts to explain on the factors that determine people’s actions. According to Kant, everyone should act in a way that is in accordance to human goals and rights, and not just do anything that brings happiness to them without caring about the effects on others. In order to act rationally, one must be guided by a supreme law of morality which determines right or wrong in our moral duties. Kant referred to the rule as the Categorical Imperative, which means a command with no other option or alternative. Morality is based on this rule since it is a command that applies to every human being. He says that people should be treated as an end, and not as a means. A prohibited action should not be done even if the outcome of the action yields more happiness or satisfaction (Johnson). On the other hand, utilitarianism theories suggest that there is no rule that dictates what is good or bad. The state of affairs is what determines the action to be taken. They argue that an evaluation of the results of an action is more essential than the assessment of the action itself. This means that one is justified to do anything, whether morally rational or not, as far as the action generates more positive consequences than negative (Brown). In an effort to justify his claims for morality and Categorical Imperative, Kant put forward a critique against utilitarianism. He points out that utilitarianism ignores moral obligations and treats them as unnecessary. This can be described using an example. Giving false witness against a criminal would lead to his conviction by the law. If the criminal is jailed, this would mean a better life to the whole public and people will be happy. According to the consequentialists, such an action is justifiable and morally right. According to Kant, the act is morally wrong, even though it has been done to criminal. This shows that utilitarians render some of the moral duties irrelevant. The utilitarians act in a manner to maximize utility or happiness. This means that everybody is morally responsible for whatever they do and should hence act in a way that will increase happiness. According to Kant, this theory is so demanding. It will lead to people putting a lot of efforts just to achieve the end results, and this would mean sacrificing so much; to the extent of sacrificing own happiness in order to please the large number of people. This, in itself is devaluing the persons to whom it is supposed to be of assistance (McCormick). The fact that utilitarians are led by their desire for happiness and utility is a weakness in itself. When acting in the pursuit for pleasure, one may end up being subjective and work more towards achieving their own happiness rather than for the whole public. This now becomes selfishness and acting in this manner is irrational and morally unacceptable (McCormick). In determining choices, the mode of thinking of the utilitarians tends to make difficult things appear simple. This is so even in cases where the act under consideration is wrong. Kant also criticized the believe by the utilitarians that happiness is justifiably fine for everybody, despite whether they are good or bad. He stated that happiness would be of more value only to a morally good person (Brown). Kant’s critique can be termed as convincing since it plainly exposes the injustices that are covered by utilitarianism. Categorical Imperatives dictate that humans should act and treat other humans as ends and not as a means, which is treating others in the way one would wish to be treated. This theory promotes human rights and prevents any action against them. On the contrary, utilitarians’ theory can lead into injustices against human rights in its pursuit for pleasure and happiness. It makes immoral actions look moral and would sacrifice anything just for the end result. Kant’s rules are reliable, logical and dutiful and they respect human life. Question 2 According to Kant, intention is what determines whether an act is morally right or wrong, rather than the consequences. Intention in this context means the inner motivation or the reasons behind somebody’s action. This intention is the moral worth in a person, which is what leads a person into acting dutifully. This is well illustrated by the categorical imperatives, which talk about treating other people as an end and not as a means. Human beings or rather humanity should not be treated as mere instruments towards the achieving of certain goals. Humanity is what defines a human being. It is composed of those characters that make humans behave rationally. This means therefore that if all humans fully and freely exercise their rational capacities and potentials in doing things, and they willingly consent to our wills and desires, then using them as a means is permissible. This case is very different from the approach by the consequentialists (Johnson). In determining whether the action you want to undertake is right or wrong, Kant formulates a certain procedure. The procedure involves three steps, which include developing the maxim, generalizing the statement to conform to nature principles, and the third step is figuring out the effect the rule would have on the world if it was included in the worlds ruling laws. The maxim must hold universally as for it to be a law. This means that it must be guided by good will. It must have been as a result of a good intention and a moral duty. If the maxim was out of the desire for positive results (consequences), it might not end up being accepted as a universal rule, since the aim of the utilitarians is mainly the end result. Kant’s argument is true and I agree with him. He argues that our intentions should guide our actions rather than the intended results. This can be explained using the concepts of maxim and justice. We should do to other people what we would like to be done to us. In the analysis of justice, one can only be used as a mere means if they principally consent to be used as such, without being forced. A good example is that of a waitress in a café. If the waitress serves drinks and gets paid for that, requiring them to bring a drink to you is not using them as mere means. In this case there is no violation of rights. Using the maxim approach, nobody can consent to a maxim that will leave them undermined or oppressed. You cannot will to exercise a maxim that manipulates others since the same rule can be used against you. If you are the king, and you formulate a rule to kill any person who politically threatens your regime, and then this is generalized and added to other laws, it becomes acceptable that anyone may kill in order to protect their reigns. But the king himself cannot consent to the rule in case he was not the king. This is an example of a maxim that undermines ones autonomy. The maxim is motivated by the intended results and not good intentions. Action by intention will lead to freedom and rationality (Baron). Question 3 Kant, in his moral theory points out that persons are intrinsically valuable. The intrinsic value in human beings can be equated to human dignity. Dignity in this case is what brings in the difference between people and goods/commodities and hence the difference in how the two are treated. Humans are treated with respect because of their dignity. This relates back to the idea of people being treated as mere means or as ends in themselves. Treating a person as a mere means (as subjective ends) implies handling other people as objects. This is irrational. It is placing your moral worth higher than that of others (Resnik). An example of this is enslaving people. The action is going to bring some benefits but on the contrary, it is going to undermine other peoples’ rights by forcing them to act against their will. Autonomy is what guides towards rational choices. A rational choice is that which is sane, free from restriction, free from emotions and full of knowledge. Guided by his categorical imperative and his valuation for humanity, Kant has every reason to support his theory. According to him, there are two types of freedom, positive and negative freedom, and the freedoms dictate on the rationality in the behavior of people. Negative freedom coincides with perfect duties. These are external principles that rule out on doing certain things e.g. don’t murder. Positive freedom is similar to imperfect duties, and merges a person’s will with the moral obligations. This makes the two equitable. Practicing the two forms of freedom promotes rationality and hence the intrinsic value of all human beings. This contrasts with the utilitarian theories which sometimes give room for violation of human rights in order to maximize happiness ( Lewis Vaughn; Austin Dacey). Kanatian ethics are a strong theory which I tend to agree with. The theory systematically describes how a maxim can become a universal law and cautions on what cannot be laws. It emphasizes on human justice and how people should exercise their freedoms in a manner that enhances cohesion and which is free from personal interests or cultural bias. It is rational, and the basis for modern equality and justice. This however does not mean that the theory is perfect. It has its flaws. Kant says that a good will is the only thing that is good but in some cases, a good will, or good intentions may lead to bad results. Kant does not elaborate on this. Utilitarians theory should not be overshadowed by Kant’s ethics because, happiness and utility are also important in life. The end result should be a factor to consider in determining the action to take, and not just the intentions or the motivation. Works cited Lewis Vaughn; Austin Dacey. The case for humanism : an introduction. Lanham,: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Baron, Marcia. "Kantian Ethics." Three Methods of Ethics (n.d.): 11. Brown, Curtis. Utilitarianism. 20 Mar 2012. 5 Mar 2013 . Johnson, Robert. "Kants Moral Philosophy." 6 Apr 2008. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 5 Mar 2013 . McCormick, Matt. IEP. 30 June 2005. 5 Mar 2013 . Resnik, David B. Owning the genome : a moral analysis of DNA patenting. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004. Read More