Immanuel Kant Moral Theory - Essay Example

Lecturer’s Immanuel Kant Moral Theory INTRODUCTION The action can only be termed as praiseworthy if it is done out of respect for the moral law that is guided by practical reason. According to Kant, emotions vary and should, therefore, not be used as a guide for a reason. Actions should thus be based on the sense of duty instead of emotional feelings. This imperative argues that respect is different from other feelings such as fear and desire. This particular study will analyze this necessary by scrutinizing the rationale behind it and looking at its applicability in the contemporary world. Although deontological theories were in existence long before the Kant was born, he emerged as the most celebrated proponent of the theory. It is founded on the basis that human beings are rational and should, therefore, act in accordance with their moral duty. Emotions and desires should not hinder one from doing what is morally right. Such a stand raises several questions that Kant failed to state clearly. By emphasizing the superiority of reason, Kant seems to underrate the influence of emotions in decision making (Haidt 93). In some instances, it is difficult to separate emotions from reasoning. To understand this, other critics use an example of a situation where Kants ambiguous claim is shown. The example goes that if one was to find their mother and another complete stranger drowning, Kants moral duty theory fails to explain why one would choose to save their mother first. The theory is also not in a position to provide insight as to why that would not be the proper thing to do. Kant’s claim leads to another question. Which between emotion and reason is superior? Plato was of the opinion that the reason was the greater of the two, claiming that the reason was the king of the soul and the controller of passions (Haidt 189). Other philosophers and psychologists however differ with Plato. David Hume claimed that the reason was the slave of passions whose sole role was to serve continually and obey them (Hume 173-196). Reasoning was just rationalization whereas the ego was the servant of the id. More researchers took to investigate the matter with differing results and findings. According to (Kagan 304), there existed a set of states in a society that formed the basis for various moral categories in which moral judgment and reasoning is embedded. This further supported Freud findings of reasoning being just a rationalization. Most researchers are, therefore, in agreement on emotions being superior to reasoning that in the extension shows a flaw in Kants argument. Kant’s apparent disregard for emotion calls for one to look at the argument from another angle. Since human beings are rational, would they love something then go ahead and act irrationally? It is important to note that human beings are structured in a way that the first instinct to reaction is always geared towards self-interest. However, emotions such as love towards family play an important part in shaping the final decision to action. Kant fails to understand that the two can be integrated with decision making to produce a more informed decision that is not biased towards either. Emotions are an integral part in the formation of an individual’s identity (Haidt 190). They are deeply entrenched into a person and it, therefore, raises questions when Kant urges for people to abandon their emotions when carrying out their duties. Psychological behavioral studies show that human beings are highly social, and this is hugely contributed by the fact that they can connect emotionally with other people. According to Kant, compromising reasoning for emotions in the carrying out of duties amounts to going against the morality code. Due to this, telling of a lie is wrong. But is this really always the case in all situations? An example is used to illustrate the paradox of Kent’s argument if pursued to its logical end. In this illustration, Nazis knock at the door and after answering the door, they report they are looking for your friend who happens to be innocent. Being a Kantilist, you answer that he is your room. But isn’t it a moral responsibility for people to protect the people they love and care about? Such a scenario showcases the fact that Kant’s moral theory is not applicable as it does not make sense in such a case. The theory exhibits a great level of rigidity by arguing against practices that might be vital in various circumstances. Kant should have considered making more dynamic models that are flexible enough to accommodate some level of variance. According to Kants theory of reason, everything in a persons mind that is conditioned is part of a series of conditions. The nature of reasoning is thus finding something that is unconditioned as a beginning of the series. Schopenhauer on the other hand critics this view by arguing that the need for unconditioned things is a natural extension seeking the completeness of the preceding cause or to service the next one. This is further evidence of the fact that Kant missed the point while making several critical relationships between variables. It is, therefore, likely that he may have done the same when conducting studies on the moral theory. According to Kant, It is the wish of every rational human being to get rid of all their emotional inclinations. The question that emanates from this argument is the viability of the elimination of emotions. Would this also mean that psychopaths are also rational beings? If humans were to lose feelings, would that increase their levels of reasoning? Lack of feelings would only bring out the negative side of people as they would lose their ability to connect psychologically with others (Haidt 203). It would certainly be a wonder to have societies thriving with people who lack emotions and are only called into action by reason. This is an issue that needs deeper research so that conclusive findings can be made. After conducting an analysis of Kants imperative on reasoning and call to duty, several questions have emerged undermine the argument. The practicability of the theory is the first major challenge as extensive study has shown the impact of reasoning and emotion in decision making. The second challenge is the sustainability of the model. The theories advocate rigid and conservative ways of thinking. The current world is hugely dynamic, and interdependence among people from diverse cultures is on the rise. This, therefore, calls for dynamic ways of thinking and doing things so as to cope with the changing times. Nevertheless, it’s important to note that the ethical and moral theories advocated by Kant are primarily concerned with upholding what is right and just. The theories are however not suitable for adoption as they are regressive in nature. Progressive moral principles are the most efficient as they appreciate the diversity in behaviors exhibited by human beings. Works Cited Freud, S. The interpretation of dreams. (J. Strachey, Trans.) New York: 1973. Norton. (Original work published 1900). Haidt, J. The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2003.Print (pp. 852-870). Hume, D. A treatise on human nature. Trans.) London: Penguin.1969. Print. (Original work published 1739 & 1740). The World as Will and Representation, Arthur Schopenhauer, New York: Dover Press, Volume I, Appendix, "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy, http://davidsztybel.info/93.html Read More