The Examination of Kants Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals - Essay Example

The analysis of Kant’s understanding of the metaphysics of morality  Kant’s philosophy s that there are various steps that can be taken by people in order for them to be recognized as moral human beings. Basically, the issue of morality refers to human behaviour that is concerned with distinguishing between something that is good from bad. Moral human beings often display acceptable behaviour that fit the societal values and norms. The concept of showing goodwill to other people is seen as a basic tenet of becoming a moral human being. As such, this paper discusses the difference between Hypothetical and Categorical Imperative morals. The discussion is based on the following examples; “Getting a job through misrepresentation of facts on a resume is immoral” and “Do not steal in order to avoid being arrested.” The examples given above help the individuals to be on the right side of the law. However, of notable concern is the element of how people get to such conclusions. Kant has tried to differentiate between the hypothetical and categorical imperatives by showing how one of them only is an imperative of morality. For instance, a hypothetical imperative gives us a command or direction to follow so as to be able to achieve the desired goal. On the other hand, it can be seen that a categorical imperative describes a necessary action without taking into account the goals that are not within the course of action. The main reason why hypothetical imperatives may be seen as conditional is that they only state good action that is necessary means to an end. This is just like achieving a particular goal. In life, people can set measurable goals or standards of life that help them to live well. For instance, avoiding stealing is a condition that will help an individual to stay out of trouble with the law enforcement agents. Of notable concern is the fact that since hypothetical imperatives are applicable only to people who want to achieve a certain goal, one can go on and steal if he does not mind being arrested. In some cases, one might be lucky to get away with it which causes people to commit certain crimes fully aware that their actions would be against the standard morals expected in their respective societies. According to Kant, morality should not be used in such a manner. Morality does not provide guidance about how to attain a specific goal especially like avoiding being arrested for stealing.In contrast with the hypothetical imperative, Kant states that the categorical imperative is the basis of morality since it informs us about how to act despite our desires. Kant aptly states that: "If now the action is good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical . . ." This implies that moral acts ought to be achieved in spite of any alternative motive such as praise or reward for doing something good. This kind of morality should be universal and binding as suggested by Kant. According to Dr. Ed L. Miller of the University of Colorado, there are other aspects that are related to morality as suggested by Kant. Only the unconditional ought is moral ought given that there are no conditions attached to it. Morality should be universal and it should be binding to all and sundry. The aspect of morality should never be color binding but universally applied to everyone. In fact, it should be regarded as a yardstick to measure the standard behaviour expected of all people in the society. If morality is described in terms of ought, then we should view it from the angle of either being conditional or unconditional when it is applied. In terms of conditional ought, one has to do something such that he may gain something afterwards. However, if something is unconditional, then action should just happen without expectations of praise or getting a reward. It seems Kant favors the view that morality should be in form of ‘unconditional ought.’ People should do good things without necessarily expecting to get rewards in return for performing that particular kind of action. Everyone has a duty to act responsibly so that their actions do not impact negatively on the welfare of other people. Individually or in groups, people should make it a policy that they act towards the betterment of their lives without necessarily expecting to be rewarded for doing good things to others. According to Kant, formulating Universal Law of the Categorical Imperative that is used to determine morality should be broken into two parts for the sake of easier understanding. A maxim should be created which determines if it is readily acceptable to become universal law to all reasonable individuals. Secondly, it is imperative to establish if people readily accept the maxim to become universal law that can bind their behaviour. Once the maxim has been approved in both cases, it becomes important to establish if there are likely chances of contradiction when it is applied. For the sake of interest, some people may want to test the maxim in order to see if there are any contradictions that may exist. Something that is seen as normal may not be seen in the same light by other people. This implies that each and every individual should take into consideration the consequences of what may happen if all the people perform the same action. A good example can be drawn from a scenario characterized by a financial crisis. You go and borrow money on the pretext that you will pay it back but without any intention of doing that. This maxim of such particular action would mean that it can be allowed to borrow money through false pretences when one is desperate in need for it. Making this maxim into universal law is likely to be resisted since this promotes corrupt tendencies that may disrupt peace and tranquility in the society. The practice of lending money should be on the understanding that the borrower will return it on the agreed period. Once this condition has been ignored universally, false promises would thrive in as far as borrowing money is concerned. Every individual might just borrow money promising to pay back but will never do that. This scenario could have made it very difficult for any person to lend money to anyone given that they would be scared of risking losing their money to people who are never interested in paying it back. Given the degree of contradiction of the maxim, it can be seen that there is no one who would ever like it to be a universal lawsince it means that anyone can be a victim. Kant suggests that everyone has a duty to act in goodwill to other people so that mutual understanding among the people about what ought to be done can be promoted. As such, all moral judgments must be a priori and they must be applied universally. Morality judgments should be totally free from dependent facts about how the world ought to be. Ideas about the world around us ought to be derived from pure reason. This explains why certain judgments must be of a particular kind. Some judgments are possible upon taking into consideration issues related to morality as well as philosophical world views that shape the perceptions of people towards different aspects of their lives.  Kant puts emphasis on the absolute duty of separating morality from all practical considerations. For Kant, morality must be a ‘priori’. This entails that morality must be "free from personal motives and interests.” If morality turns out to be present universally, then it means that all of us should share the same idea. This is basis upon which Kants ethical system has roots in form of the ‘priori’ theory.  While on the issue of misrepresenting facts on a resume to get a job, it is important to test it to see if it is indeed morally wrong to carry out such practice. Thus, the maxim would be “When writing a resume, its contents should always be true and free from lies.” This maxim is guaranteed to pass both parts of the Universal Law Formation which makes it a moral action that is good. It is easy to imagine that all people may be compelled to draft honest resumes to get employment which makes the application a universal law. However, there should be an objection to the maxim in order to make it a universal law that can be applied by different people in their lives.   In this case, a clear objection to such test can be used as abasis to see if this action can still be regarded as moral action. For instance, “Lying on your resume in order to get a job is morally right,” should go through both parts of the test so that it can be morally acceptable. The maxim of this action is that some lies are convenient in order to get a job. At times, there is no problem with lying in an honest way if the course of action is likely to yield benefits to the person involved. However, the next stage is a bit tricky when the Universal Law Formulation is applied.  It is important to establish if all people would believe that the course of action is morally correct when this test is applied. Honest and truthfulness are two important aspects that should always be taken into consideration when writing a resume. This will make the resume credible and leaves the employer with no doubt that the applicant has provided correct information about himself. If “honest lying” is accepted as universal law, this entails that the aspect of truthfulness may be severely compromised since people may choose to lie when writing their resumes in as far as the situation is convenient to them. Kant does not advocate any form of lying in his philosophy since he is particularly interested in matters that can be universally adopted into law that is used to govern the conduct of all human beings. If the element of lying when it is convenient was taken into law, then trust among the people would cease to exist. This would in fact lead to the creation of a barrier between the rational beings altogether. Furthermore, the jobs that would be gained from the dishonesty would cause negative implications on behalf of both the organization and the employee. The worker may not be best qualified for the job and this may result in poor performance. The company on the other hand would suffer as a result of achieving poor results due to in competencies of the workers who have happened to secure their posts through lies and misrepresentation of facts. In the end, Kant would agree that the statement “Lying on a resume… morally wrong” is indeed, completely immoral and it is your responsibility to act otherwise.  “Morality is thus the relation of actions to the autonomy of the will, that is, to a possible giving of universal law through its maxims” (Kant, pg. 37). This means that action that can coexist with the autonomy is permitted while the one that does not harmonize with it is forbidden. A maxim that is in compliance with the laws is a good will.A maxim that is universal becomes an obligation or duty for everyone to make sure that they play a part in making that maxim work as a universally agreed law. Furthermore, this final formula for the categorical imperative takes us back to the original concept of the will as that which is good without condition. An autonomous will, is self conscious and has full of freedom. This is the major source of dignity of Humanity that Kant focuses on in the second formulation. A rational will that is bound by universal laws can act as a result of natural and non-moral motives that are self serving interests. However, in order to follow all of the universal laws, all the motives that are possessed by rational individuals may need to be set aside. Therefore, we are compelled to change our behaviour to display this autonomy of the rational will of people. Just like the Humanity formula, the new formulation of the Categorical Imperative does not change any outcome given that it is supposed to be part of the preparation of the very same moral law.  It can be observed that Immanuel Kant’s interest in moral matters is not exclusively theoretical. In Metaphysics of Morals, he came up with the practical application of categorical imperative in some detail thereby deriving a comprehensive catalog of specific rules and regulations for governing of social and personal morality. What each of us must actually will as universal, as believed by Kant is a very rigid system of narrowly prescribed content and conduct of human beings in their respective societies.  A common objection to Kant is that his opinion prohibits lying under any circumstance. Lying is seen as disruptive and can negatively impact on the welfare of the people. It can also be noted that there is a clear difference between deception and lying. Some forms of deception are permissible since they are honesty and in most cases they do not impact negatively on other people. Instead, they are beneficial to the individual person involved. Kant is of the opinion that his moral theory does not allow dishonesty under any conditions, even those cases where there is a murderer at your place wondering if there is an innocent victim inside your home. Lying would not help in this case since the murdered would not believe in what he would be told which is a typical violation of the first form of the Categorical Imperative. In the same vein, lying would violate the second form of the Categorical Imperative through failure to value the rationality of the murderer. Since lying in such extreme cases is a violation of the Categorical Imperative, many people view it as a serious argument against the categorical imperative.  A more severe error of the first formulation of the categorical imperative is the existence of false negatives and false positives. When using the Universal Law formulation to determine moral worth, there are certain maxims that may pass the Categorical Imperative but at the same time regarded as morally wrong. In such a scenario, the maxim is viewed as false positive. This can be illustrated by the example of an “honest liar” who says something he fully knows to be incorrect for the sake of benefiting at the end out of the action. Indeed, this action may not violate anyone’s rights but it may be morally regarded as wrong. It can also be seen that cruelty to animals may pass the Categorical Imperative test while it is something that is not commendable to be done. Cruelty to animals is immoral and it should be rejected since it is unethical to act in such a barbaric manner. Some people may see nothing wrong in displaying cruel behaviour to the animals they do not like. However, this action is unethical. On the other hand, a false negative is a maxim that fails to pass the Categorical Imperative test whereas it is clearly acceptable in a certain society. For example, during a financial crisis stocks may be low and people may translate this to mean that they should withdraw all their money from the banks. This is a false positive since this is not the case in most cases. People do not usually respond in uniform to such matters. The financial institutions are there to keep the money for their depositors and they are often covered by insurance in such cases. It can be seen that this maxim does not apply since this may entails that there would be no financial institution operating if all people would suddenly withdraw their money during unprecedented periods of financial crisis hitting the market. This could lead to bankruptcy of all the financial institutions if people tend to withdraw their money when such events happen. In this Categorical Imperative, it can be noted that the action of withdrawing money from the bank is morally wrong since this is often regarded as a passing period where the depositors need not panic. The issue of morality is topical in that it outlines the laws that ought to shape the behaviour of the people in their daily lives. According to Kant, it can be seen that laws or rules create duties for citizens to follow in their lives. These duties also inform the behaviour of the people with regards to the aspect of how they will socialize and relate with others in their respective communities. In summary, a maxim that fails to meet the test of universal law is often rejected since it would be inappropriate to be viewed as a principle in the formulation of universal legislation. There are certain instances where there is contradiction in that some actions are viewed as morally correct by some sectors of the society while others view them as bad. However, falsifying facts for the sake of selfish interests is morally wrong according to Kant. On the other hand, there are also certain actions that are morally wrong but acceptable such as telling “honest lies.” The issue of morality is tied to the aspect of truthfulness and honesty. References • Beck, Lewis White, 1960, A Commentary on Kants “Critique of Practical Reason” Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  • Kant, I (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, tr. by James W. Ellington, Hackett.  • Kant, "Good Will," ed. Serafini, p. 31.  • Miller, Ed. L., (1984).”Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy,” 3rd ed. (Colorado: McGraw-Hill, Inc., , p. 454.  • Roger J. (1994). Sullivan, An Introduction to Kants Ethics, Cambridge.  Read More