The Mechanistic Laws of Materialism - Essay Example

Kantian View on Materialism and Dualism al Affiliation) Introduction One of Kant’s most important contributions to philosophy was his argument concerning moral philosophy. As such, he argued that a defined standard of rationality that could be referred to as “Categorical Imperative” forms a basis for moral requirements1. In this case, Kant posits that immorality is irrational since it violates the Categorical Imperative. Other philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke were in support of the same idea that rationality standards form a foundation for moral requirements. Nevertheless, such standards were either rational intuitions that were based on sui generis or rationality instrumental principles based on desire2. Kant was in agreement with most of his predecessors who claimed that through analyzing practical reason, one would only deduce the need for any rational agents to adhere to instrumental principles. On the other hand, he also maintained that adherence to the Categorical Imperative, which is a non-instrumental principle, together with the moral requirements, is vital to rational agents. It is for his view that there has to be autonomy in rational will, or freedom in terms of writing its binding law. As such, morality’s basic principle is mainly the freedom that comes with it in terms of autonomous will. According to Kant’s thoughts, the occurrence of self-governing reason among individuals provided effective grounds for holding each one as of equal respect and equal worth. The autonomy of will as expressed by Kant in his description of the groundwork of morality thus questions the impact of materialism in terms of the mechanistic laws that have been developed to govern society, forcing individuals to conform to the already predetermined thought and consequences. As such, Kant believes that such laws inhibit freedom; hence, morality since individuals need to be free to choose to assume accountability. Analysis of Kant’s View of Materialism and Dualism To have a clear understanding of Kant’s view concerning materialism and dualism, it is important to review his thought on moral law and duty. Kant observed that duty respects lawfulness, an aspect that formed its singular motivation. It is important to note that laws or rules establish duties. For instance, the bylaws established by a certain club would spell out the duties that are to be carried out by each of its officers. On the other hand, the state or city laws define the duties that are to be carried out by its citizens. As such, if one engages in something because it is their duty in their capacity, or their civic duty, or as good citizens, then their motivation remains the respect they hold for the code that defines such as their duty. The belief that one is bound by duty is a sign of respect for the laws that pertain to them3. Nevertheless, Kant’s meaning goes beyond such a description. It is important to note that in some cases, the laws that define the duties to which individuals are subject may be in despicable in terms of their morality. As such, respecting such laws would generally be invaluable. Thus, conformation of one’s actions to the civic laws or any other societal laws is not unconditional respect. Such individuals have a role to play in upholding social and civil order in line with loss of standing or punishment, and reputation upon violation of these laws, and other consequences that result from lawful behavior4. Case in point, individuals only respect certain laws to the extent that they uphold the principles, values, and laws that they deem to be more precious to them. Contrary to this view, Kant believes that when conforming to duty, most individuals are not motivated by the potential outcome of the action or any other extrinsic features. Instead, most individuals receive their motivation from their will to law. Kant maintains that morality’s fundamental principle is categorical imperative. In this case, it is imperative since it commands individuals to exercise their will in certain ways, and not to carry out certain actions. In addition, its unconditional nature makes it categorical, since it applies to individuals because they have rational will and does not refer them to any ends that they may or may not have5. On the other hand, Kant identifies motives that are distinct from the moral duties that individuals have based on the principle of hypothetical imperatives. In this case, hypothetical imperative refers to a command that applies to individuals in the same way as the categorical imperative in respect to their rational will, but with conditions6. Such commands do not apply to individuals in virtue of their willing ends, but rather in virtue of their wanting or desiring an end. As such, the hypothetical imperative applies to individuals under the condition that they have a will to a certain end. According to Kant, individuals must desire happiness as their prime non-moral end. It is important to note that rationality cannot issue any significance given that an end is indeterminate, in which case happiness is defined7. In this vein, the mechanistic laws of materialism form a rigid approach to rationality in the sense that they provide individuals with conditions concerning the wills that they should make by establishing ends8. As such, individuals are not given an opportunity to think on their own concerning the decisions that they should make in the society but rather they are held within a construct of ideas and steps that govern their thinking, limiting it to a certain frame of ends. Kant was keen to observe the link between morality and freedom in the sense that one ought not to be limited in making decisions to be judged as moral or immoral in respect to the standards of morality in the society. In line with Kant’s thoughts, an earlier observer, Rousseau noted that for one to be free it did not necessarily mean that no laws govern them9. Instead, it meant that laws that are of one’s making in certain ways govern individuals. Thus, it is important for individuals to understand Kant’s view on freedom and autonomy as not remaining free of any societal influences on one’s conduct. Kant was only advocating for the freedom that one should get in terms of rationally analyzing situations and making decisions that would allow them to be held accountable of their outcomes. In this case, the first and most important consideration is to ensure that the laws are established, and that such laws have authority over an individual. Autonomy in the sense of political freedom forms one way through which the basic idea brought forth by Kant can be grasped10. In most liberal theories, the legitimacy of political authority is defined by political freedom. For instance, a given state is considered free if the individuals living within it are governed by laws that are of their making in a certain sense, which could have been created and applied by elected representatives, or through voting. As such, the laws of a given state are an expression of the will of the individuals who are governed by such laws. The basic idea of freedom is that the political authority should originate from the internal and not external of the citizens, to be termed as legitimate. Since politics was involved in the creation and enacting of the laws that should govern the body, is bound by such laws. A state would be autonomous if the laws are in accordance with the will of the people living within that state, as opposed to people living outside the state. In the same sense, one can be said to be free if he or she is only bound by his or her will. Such freedom is compromised if one is bound by the will of other individuals, for instance as provided for by the mechanistic or causal laws, which define rigid courses of action that limit the response of an individual in terms of rationality. Through freedom, the actions of individuals would reflect their will allowing such individuals to be held accountable for their own actions. Individual autonomy thus ensures that the principles that bind such an individual derive their authority form his or her own will. A look at Kant’s view thus implies that the Categorical Imperative’s moral legitimacy lies within its being a reflection of the rational will of each person11. According to Kant’s argument, the rationality of a will involves operating in response to reasons12. Such a will ought not to be influenced by other factors beyond the reasons in terms of its operations. There is thus need to avoid forcing a will both psychologically and physically in terms of its operation to deem it free. In this case, any choices that an individual makes because of thought disorder or obsessions are not free. In addition, Kant maintained that any will whose operation is influenced by natural laws’ operations, including those of psychology and biology, is not operating in response to reason. Thus, there is high incompatibility between the materialistic natural laws that may determine will, and freedom. Kant postulates that rational will only acts under the perception of its freedom. To remove any chances of misunderstanding Kant’s take, it is important to note that he does not imply that an individual ought to believe that he or she is free to exercise rational will. Case in point, libertarians are as free as determinists according to Kant13. Kant also argued that the negatively free rational wills are autonomous. As such, Kant implies that since wills cause actions in different ways, they are implications of universal regularities. Case in point, if one thing cases another, there ought to be a law that is universally valid connecting the two things. Nevertheless, such law cannot be in form of natural law including physical, psychological, biological, or chemical law. The universal laws thought of by Kant also govern body movements, the brain’s workings, the working of the nervous system, and the environmental operation and thus affect one as a material being14. Thus, individual’s will operate in accordance with a universal law that has not been created by nature, by the individual bearing the will. Conclusion It is evident from Kant’s view that dualism materialism is a challenge to dualism in the sense that it inhibits the freedom of individuals. Kant believes that the mechanistic laws of materialism form a boundary of thought for individuals such that individuals are allowed to think in a predetermined sequence and thus are limited to decisions, an aspect that hinders the freedom that individuals ought to have in line with morality. It is clear that morality and freedom are intertwined and that the rational will of individuals is only free if such individuals are involved in the construction of the governing laws of such that form their authoritative principles. Individuals thus ought to be set freed in terms of their rational will to apply reason and respond to such reason when making decisions concerning different aspects relating to morality in the society, in order for such individuals to assume the accountability that comes with such decisions. It is only then that such individuals can be judged in terms of morality with respect to their actions and free will. Bibliography Betzler, Monika, ed. 2008. Kants Ethics of Virtue. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Buroker, Jill Vance. 2006. Kants Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denis, Lara. 2001. Moral Self-regard: Duties to Oneself in Kants Moral Theory. London: Taylor & Francis. Kant, Immanuel. 2014. The Critique of Practical Reason. Glendale, CA: Bibliotech Press. Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. 1998. Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, Immanuel, and Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. 2008. Kants Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Rockville, Maryland: Arc Manor LLC. Roff, Heather M. 2013. Global Justice, Kant and the Responsibility to Protect: A Provisional Duty. London: Routledge. Stratton-Lake, Philip. 2005. Kant, Duty and Moral Worth. London: Routledge. Sweet, Kristi E. 2013. Kant on Practical Life: From Duty to History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uleman, Jennifer K. 2010. An Introduction to Kants Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More