The Role Played by the Regulatory ideals in Kants MP - Essay Example

THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE REGULATORY IDEALS IN KANT’S (MP) MORAL PHILOSOPHY School, The Role Played by the Regulatory ideals in Kant’s MP Introduction There exist certain regulative ideals in Kant’s MP. They are based around the concept of kingdom of ends that he developed. The kingdom of ends according to Kant is a state of being, and it comprises entirely of rational beings (Kant, 2014, 44). These beings are able to act rationally, and they live according to given maxims. The beings judge themselves from the perspectives given by the maxims. The rational agents are members of the kingdom of ends simply because of the fact that they have the ability to be rational. Discussion Kant argued that a rational being also known as a rational agent should have certain practices or behave in a way, which is acceptable universally. The choices which determine their actions should be based on certain maxims which Kant suggested should follow and be should be based on universal laws (Sullivan, 2008, 31). He further points out that the rational agent, however, is granted the choice to exercise his will power even as they live according to these maxims. The role of this ideal, therefore, is to point out the apparent autonomy between morality and the universal laws (Herman, 2007, 46). Agents therefore have the freedom of practicing their free will. Kant further argues that rational agents should never treat their fellow beings as a means to an end but should rather consider actions towards them as an end by itself. This argument is brought about by the aspect of morality that calls for beings to base their actions on reasons (Lake, 2000, 54). Treating other beings as an end in itself requires that the reason behind a certain action is out of moral duty. Moral duty can be explained as doing certain actions because it is the right thing to do. Therefore, treating fellow beings as an end in itself requires that one does certain actions simply because it is what is required of them to do (McCord, 2003, 55). Rational agents are perceived to be acting as a means to an end when their behavior may be originating from a reason, which does not conform to the aspect of moral duty (Paton, 2007, 56). This is despite the fact that the reasoning behind the action is logical. This, therefore, brings about the issue of looking into the motive of an agent when performing a certain action despite the existence of a logical and well-defined reason. This is important in defining morality; one may be classified as not moral even though they acted out in a rational manner simply because they did so out of ulterior motives. Kent further argued that an ideal rational agent’s morality is not an issue of subjectivity. This means that it is reached at through reasoning rather than by consideration of the agent’s feelings at the moment of decision making (Kant, 2014, 72). He argued that if morality were subjective, then what is considered moral would greatly vary from one person to another. This is due to the fact that individuals may have different feeling evoked even though they were facing the same circumstances (Philosophy Now Magazine. 2014, 3). Also, an individual may experience different feelings given different times and circumstances that they are be exposed to (McCord, 2003, 63). I agree with Kant regarding the idea that morality should be based on his ideals largely. This is because in my opinion, they call for the upholding of the positive traits of humanity thereby incorporating desirable aspects of human nature into Morality (Fouts, 2000). For example, the upholding of human dignity and respect for self and others. If Morality were to be judged on human nature solely, certain undesirable actions would probably have qualified to be moral actions despite the fact that they may be unreasonable or irrational. An irrational act, therefore, would be excused to be a moral act simply because it was a result of human nature (Lake, 2000, 57). I support Kant’s argument that rational agents should base their action on universally acceptable principles and that they should live according to maxims. This allows humans to show respect to others around them. In the event that one chooses to live according to maxims that are followed by others, it means that they respect them. This is because they do not deem themselves better than the rest by accepting to live by the standards that are generally accepted by others (Allison, 2011, 67). Respecting others stems from respecting oneself. Therefore, one can be said to respect themselves if the respect others. Self-Respect is a very important aspect of Humanity and human nature. It determines whether an individual will live a fulfilled life or not. Those who respect themselves are confident and are able to enjoy living because they are aware of their worth as individuals. If one however lacks Self-Respect, they may be weighed down by feelings of unworthiness and self loathe. Such individuals will always look at others at being better that themselves and this may breed negative feelings like hatred. As a result, the person will not live a fulfilled life (Dillion, 1997, 227). I also agree with his ideals that state the fact that that rational agents should act towards other beings such that their actions are an end in themselves rather than a means to an end. I believe that this upholds human dignity, which is also a component of positive traits of humanity (Bruxwood, 2011, 82). Treating others as a means to an end upholds selfishness, which is a negative trait of the human nature. Human beings are by nature instilled with the desire to better themselves (Kant, 2014, 68). If they were to do all that was in their power in order to achieve this, they may act in a way, which does not uphold human dignity thus contrasting the virtues of morality. I concur with Kant’s argument of subjectivity that states that morality should not be measured by the feelings that led to a particular action. As discussed earlier, the pedestal by which morality is based would not be constant if this were so. They standards would fluctuate because people feel differently depending on who they are. The same person can also experience different emotions and feelings at different times making this measure quite volatile (Sullivan, 2008, 59). What is rational through reason, therefore, could be construed to be moral and what is irrational construed to be moral depending on the prevailing circumstances if this were the case. Kant also argues that one cannot do the right thing for the wrong reasons (Kant, 2014, 43). I do not concur with him on this one. According to him, it should always be possible to do the right thing. In certain circumstances however, one may intend to do the right thing, which may end up being the wrong one. In addition, one may act thinking that they are doing the wrong thing, which may end up being the right thing (Paton, 2007, 88). This is because I tend to think that whether the action undertaken is right or wrong depends on the consequences observed. Kant based the right or wrongness of an action on the motives behind it which does not take into account the consequence of the action. For example, assuming that a killer visits a house looking for a victim who he suspects to be living in that particular house, the person who answers the door knows that the person that the killer is looking for lives there but they may choose to tell the killer otherwise. Lying to the killer according to Kent would not be right because lying is not ideally a moral thing to do. However, it will lead to the murder of the person who is being pursued, and, therefore, it is not the rational thing to do. Therefore, I believe that sometimes, it is best to act according to positive feelings like affection that are inherently descriptive of the human nature. Conclusion Kent’s moral philosophy is relevant and applicable to the subject of morality as discussed above. Rational agents, therefore, should act rationally given a particular reason. This will uphold morality kin the society. The rational agents exist in the kingdom of ends simply because they are rational and acting irrationally at times, therefore, cannot make them be expelled from this kingdom. This allows for the imperfections that are associated with the human nature, and Kent’s philosophy, therefore, can be seen to be upholding rather than disregarding humanity. References Allison, H.E., 2011. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, New York: Oxford University Press. Bruxvoor, B. J., 2001. Kant’s Moral Metaphysics, Germany: Walter de Gruyler GmbH and CO. Dillon, R. S., 1997. Self- Respect: Morals, Emotion, Political. Ethics, 107, P. 226-249. Fouts, D. S., 2000. Understanding Kant’s moral philosophy. Quodlibet. (Online) (Updated 2009) Available at: . (Accessed 9 May 2014). Frierson, P. R., 2003. Freedom and Anthropology in Kant’s Moral Philosophy, UK: Cambridge University Press. Herman, B., 2007. Moral Literacy, USA: President and Fellows oh Harvard College Publishing. Kant, I., 2014. The critique of Practical Reason, USA: Bibliotech Press. Lake, R. S., 2000. Kant: Duty and Moral Worth, New York: Routledge publishers. McCord, G. S., 2003. Rational Agency and Normative Concept, USA: Chapel Hill publishers. Paton, H. J., 2007. The Categorical Imperative. A study of Kant’s Moral Philosophy, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Philosophy Now Magazine. 2014. Having trouble with Kant. (online) (updated Apr. 2014) Available at: . (Accessed 9 May 2014). Sullivan, R. J., 2008. Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory, New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Read More