Lockes and Kants Moral Theories in the Modern Society - Essay Example

Locke’s and Kant’s Moral Theories in the Modern Society One thing that makes human beings different from other creatures is the gift of reason. This enables people to have moral standards; a set of conducts that people can comply with, for a harmonious society. Humans are designed to build structures that will make things easier and more beneficial for in daily existence. But since all humans are distinctly different from one another, the preferences, opinions and needs are not always in unison. This led to the formulation of Moral Theories; frameworks aimed to evaluate specific moral issues in a reasonable way (“Nature”). The challenge of this ability to reason out and the existence of moral standards allure humans to continually search for what could be universally good. Many moral theories have been formulated by famous philosophers like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato during the time of ancient ethics. Today, drastic changes in society can be observed with regards to its moral standards. Two remarkable theories are to be discussed in this paper, namely John Locke’s Natural Rights Theory and Immanuel Kant’s Kantian Theory. The comparative analysis in terms of the applications and effects of these theories to all humans in modern setting is the key point of argumentation. John Locke is a 17th century Philosopher most famous in his contributions in political philosophy (Tuckness). He is the proponent of the Natural Rights Theory which is grounded in the concept of state of nature, political power and natural rights. In the book “Disputed Moral Issues” by Mark Timmons, he pointed out the state of nature as one with: an imagined or actual pre- political condition without government, a state of equality without hierarchy, and state of liberty without license all governed by the law of nature. Simply saying, our society is in a state of nature if without the involvement of political thought and governance. In this context Locke proposes to understand the nature of political power and the limits placed on it by natural rights. Before the emergence of Locke’s theory, the concept of natural law already existed expressing that whatever situation or agreement people have, there will be certain moral truths applicable to all humans. It gives significance to natural duties. In Locke’s perspective “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Timmons 55). With this, other prominent thinkers of philosophy claimed that Locke recognizes natural law duties only in situations non- conflicting to personal preservations of human beings. This puts the right to human beings preserve themselves to the pedestal; over any other duty one may have. On the other hand, natural rights give significance to privileges or claims entitled to an individual (Tuckness). Immanuel Kant is an 18th Century German philosopher best known for his deontological or duty-based moral theory. The Kantian Theory is grounded on foundations of good will, the categorical imperative, autonomy, respect & dignity for persons. The theory states that there is nothing in this world, or even out of it that can be considered good without qualification except good will (Timmons). A person with good will makes decisions that prove to be morally worthy (Johnson). The idea suggests that a person is good if he possesses a will that is in any way or another, based from the moral law. Humans are capable of having good will merely because only rational beings can assign their will to the moral law. Anything, decision, or task may be defined as morally worthy when it is acted out of duty, and not in conformity with duty. According to Kant, duties are created by rules or laws designed for betterment. It should be done in conformity to the duty; it must be done because it is a duty; and not because it is driven by fear or inclination. The Kantian theory tackles one universal principle. This principle is called the categorical imperative, simply put as an action that is good in itself. It is first formulated through the universality principle: “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The reciprocity principle on the other hand tells to ‘Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end, never as means only” (Johnson). Upon knowing the nature of the two theories being compared, let us now boil down to specific differences that point out which is better and more applicable to all humans in the modern day society. We will assess it in terms of the importance the theories give to humans, their rights and their duties. Kantian Theory holds that it is unacceptable for people to rebel against the existing government. This is a fixed principle, meaning there is no right to no matter how unjust the rulers themselves might be. It encourages people to obey all authority commands as long as it is not wrong in itself (Wood 8). In Kant’s theory, rules cannot be bent. Rigid adherence to the rules is prescribed. It would cause quite a moral dilemma to an individual because in real life, following a rule can have negative consequences. Kant’s theory does not deal with these exceptions. Autonomy is the core notion. A moral norm should be obeyed by any man because this is his duty. He should then, on his own, be able to determine through reasoning what is morally correct, because he is supposed to have “good will”. In Locke’s theory, he presented the idea of having negative rights or rights to non- interference which “obliges others not to interfere with your exercise of the right” (Hinman 16). The existence of negative rights supports Locke’s two further rights, “the right to punish transgressors of the law of nature (with death if necessary!)” and “the right to compensation for wrongs committed against the law of nature” (Timmons). The state of nature has no existing authority. This gives everyone an equal right to defend their own rights. This lack of authority may sound all fair to but there is an actual flaw to it. People are biased in terms of own judgment; therefore a civil government is needed to act as an impartial judge and enforcement mechanism. Every members of the society then have natural rights to limit the government’s power and avoid any form of abuse. (Timmons) Locke’s theory also gives importance of right to life, liberty, and property as the existence of duties toward other people. Examples of these duties are not to kill, to enslave, to steal, or anything that can harm or take advantage of other people. There is this general duty to assist with the preservation of mankind, including a duty of charity to those in need. Duties are also primarily important rights exist to insure that every person will be able to fulfill his or her own duties. Somehow rights and duties are equally fundamental because Locke believes in that rights protect our ability to make choices. As long as personal choices cannot go against natural law, they are not a mere means to fulfilling natural law either (Tuckness). The Natural Rights theory of John Locke is the better and more applicable theory in today’s society since it does not hold bars to the people of a society with different, subjective points of view and situation. As long as it does not harm the self and others, people can own up to their choices (out of rational thinking) in compliance with a government for regulation of practicing certain rights. The Kantian Theory of Immanuel Kant has its own distinct beliefs on the philosophy of morality and its application to humans, but it is not going to be in sync with today’s drastically changing world. It is ideal to have good will and to obey all duties set by authorities. But negligence to situations of people displays negligence on people’s emotion as well. The theory accords moral worth to actions done from duty, and places moral worth ahead of human happiness (Wood 3). If morality teaches us to follow codes of conduct put forward by a society, and to have amenability with accepted individual behavior, then it is only right to let each and every one cooperate with molding something to be morally acceptable. Rules are made to protect its people, not to jail them from all possibilities there is in life. Works Cited Administrator. “The Nature of Morality and Moral Theories.” Capilano University Open Course Ware. Web. 8 Aug, 2012. Tuckness, Alex. "Lockes Political Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).Web. 8 Aug, 2012. Timmons, Mark. “Disputed Moral Issues: A Reader (2010)". Oxford University Press (Second Edition). Print. Wood, Allen. “Kant’s ethical thought (1999)”. Cambridge University Press. United States of America. Print. Johnson, Robert. "Kants Moral Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web. 8 Aug, 2012. Hinman, Lawrenece. “Rule based approaches to morality”. Phil. 321: Social Ethics (Spring 2010.) University of San Diego. Web. 8 Aug, 2012 Read More