Philosophical Ethics - Essay Example

Outline Introduction: Kant’s moral theory is based on the view that human beings should never be treated as means to some ends. A critical review of Kant’s moral theory shows that Kant’s ethics is based on respect of human beings and use of right reason in making moral decisions. Thesis: Kant’s moral theory is based on the idea that human beings should be treated as beings with innate worth. Meaning of acting according to Free Will according to Kant: for Kant, to act according to free-will is to act in accordance with the moral law; the moral law for Kant is dictated by one’s reason. Kantian Categorical Imperative: Kant’s Categorical imperative is based on the idea that morally right actions should be based on absolute imperatives that apply to all people, at all times. The Difference between Kantian Categorical Imperative and Hypothetical Imperative: the difference between Categorical imperative and hypothetical imperatives lies in the fact that, while the categorical imperatives are absolute and admit of no exceptions, the hypothetical imperatives are relative and admit of exceptions. The first Formulation of the Kantian Categorical Imperative: According to this formulation of the Categorical imperative, human beings should always act in a manner that they would at the same will that their acting would be made into a universal law. The Second Formulation of Kantian Categorical Imperative: The second formulation of the categorical imperative states that in dealing with human beings, one should always treat human beings as ends in themselves, but never as means to some ends. The Third Formulation of Kantian Categorical Imperative: The third formulation of the categorical imperative, the autonomy formulation, states that human morality should be based on free decisions made by rational human beings. The Procedure of Universalizing a Maxim: the procedure of maximizing a maxim involves three steps. The first step is to find out whether or not the maxim is an imperative that one should will to be applied universally by all people. The second is to find out whether the application of the maxim in real life situation means treating human beings as ends in themselves, or as means to some ends, and the third step maxim is to find out whether the maxim is based on autonomous decisions of human beings, or if the maxim was formulated under compulsion. Student Name Professor Name Philosophy 10th April, 2015. Philosophical Ethics Introduction This paper analyses and critiques Kant’s moral theory with a view of demonstrating that Kant’s moral theory is based on respect of human beings and use of right reason in making moral decisions. In analysing Kant’s moral theory, the paper answers the following questions: what is to act from a good will? What is categorical imperative and how does it differ from a hypothetical imperative? Present and prepare the three formulations of categorical imperatives we studied: the “universalizing” formulation, the end-in-itself formulation, and the “autonomy” formulation. The paper also explains the procedure that one must follow in universalising a maxim to apply the categorical imperative. Meaning of Acting from will according to Kant Let us begin by looking at what Emmanuel Kant meant by acting from a good will. Before we explain what Kant meant by acting from a good will, it is important to look at Kant’s conception of good will. For Immanuel Kant, the will is the human faculty that enables human beings to act according to the understanding of moral law. For Kant, human beings have a free will and for that reason they are able to decide whether or not to act according to the moral law as dictated by right reason. Good will for Kant, therefore, is the will that is inclined to acting in accordance with the moral law as dictated by right reason. In Kant’s view, the good will is absolutely good, without any qualification. In his book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Emmanuel Kant argues that all other good things in the world are not good without qualification (Kant, 10). For instance, Kant argued that although good health, wealth, and courage are good, these things, however, can be used for ill motives, thus becoming bad things. Kant argued that even happiness itself is not good without qualification, because a person needs to have good will so as to be able to be truly happy. Having looked at Kant’s conception of good will, let us now explain Kant’s conception of acting from good will. According to Kant, to act from good will is to act in accordance with moral law as it is dictated by one’s reason. In his moral worldview, Kant conceived the source of morality as human reason. For Kant, the determinant of the morality of an action is the moral law or the categorical imperative, as Kant called it; in Kant’s views, an action is morally right if and only if it conforms to the dictates of right reason. To act from good will, therefore, means to act with the right motive or the right reason. Kantian Categorical Imperative Having looked at Kant’s understanding of acting from good will, let us look at Kant’s understanding of Categorical Imperative, and how the Categorical Imperative differs from the Hypothetical Imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative is actually the core of Kant’s ethical theory. Kant bases his moral theory on the categorical imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative states that morally right actions should be based on an absolute imperative that is applicable to all people at all times, without any exception. For clear explanation of Kantian categorical imperative, it is important to explain the following points about Kant’s views of human beings, and human reason. In his moral worldview, Kant viewed human reason as being the same for all people at all times; In Kant’s moral worldview, all human beings are equal and human reason is universal to all human beings. For this reason, therefore, Emmanuel Kant believed that human morality should be based on an imperative that that is binding to all human beings and that ensures that human beings are treated equally at all times. Kant believed that such an imperative is discoverable by human reason. Since in Kant’s worldview human reason is universal, Emmanuel Kant reasoned that the moral imperative that binds all human beings and that ensures that human beings are treated equally at all times is discoverable by all human beings of all ages. Kant called this moral imperative the categorical imperative. This moral imperative is categorical because it is an absolute moral imperative that should guide all human beings at all times; the categorical imperative is not relative and does not admit of exceptions. For Kant, with the right use of reason, all human beings are able to easily discover the categorical imperative. For instance, in Kant’s views, every human being is able to discover through the use of reason that lying is morally wrong for all people at all times; this fact, therefore, shows that the moral imperative that, lying is morally wrong, is a categorical, and not an hypothetical imperative. The Difference between Kantian Categorical Imperative and Hypothetical Imperative For Emmanuel Kant, the hypothetical imperative is a moral imperative that does not bind all human beings at all times; In Kant’s moral worldview, hypothetical imperatives applies to some instances and not to others- hypothetical imperatives admits of exceptions. For instance, when we say that lying with the intent to save one’s life is good, we mean that lying is sometimes morally right, and at other times morally wrong. Such an imperative is hypothetical because it is an “if” imperative that admits of exceptions. This fact, therefore, shows that the main difference between the categorical imperative and the hypothetical imperative lies in the fact that categorical imperative is absolute moral imperative and does not admit of exceptions, while the hypothetical imperative is a relative moral imperative and admits of exceptions. Having explained in details Kant’s categorical imperative, let us now look at the three formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative. The first Formulation of the Kantian Categorical Imperative The first formulation of the categorical imperative is the universalizing formulation. According to this formulation of the Categorical imperative, human beings should always act in a manner that they would at the same will that their acting would be made into a universal law. In other words, this formulation of the categorical imperative states that, in choosing moral actions when one is faced with an a moral dilemma, one should choose action that he/she would wish everybody in the similar situation to take. This formulation of categorical imperative is based on the view that human reason is universal. Since for Kant the human reason or the motive behind an action is the determinant of the morality of an action for Kant, a morally right action must be conceived right by all people at all times. For this reason, therefore, the universalizing formulation of the categorical imperative seeks to ensure that morality is firmly based on human reason. For that reason, therefore, in choosing moral actions, one should ask himself/herself whether or not he/she would will their actions to be made into a universal law applicable to all similar cases; if one would wish their actions to be made universal law, then such an action is morally right, but if one would not wish their actions to be made into a universal law, then such an action is morally wrong. The Second Formulation of Kantian Categorical Imperative The second formulation of the categorical imperative states that in dealing with human beings, one should always treat human beings as ends in themselves, but never as means to some ends. This formulation of categorical imperative is based on the Kantian view that all human beings are universally equal. Kant believed, as rational beings, human beings have intrinsic worth and for that reason they should be treated as such, i.e. as beings with intrinsic worth, and not as means for some other ends. Treating human beings as means exploiting human beings or treating human persons as beings without intrinsic worth; for Kant, exploiting human beings for selfish ends means that we do not treat all human beings equally. In choosing moral actions, therefore, Kant argued that one should ask himself/herself, whether or not the actions being deliberated upon will lead to treating human beings as ends in themselves, or as means to some ends; an action that treat human beings as ends in themselves is morally right, while an action that treats human beings as means to some ends is morally wrong. The Third Formulation of Kantian Categorical Imperative The third formulation of the categorical imperative, the autonomy formulation, states that human morality should be based on free decisions made by rational human beings. For Kant, an action done under compulsion has no moral worth; it is only actions that are chosen freely that Kant conceived as having a moral worth. This is because, for Kant, an action with moral worth must be a willed action. Kant conceived human beings as having a free will and as being able to freely choose their actions. Although Kant agreed that human beings are influenced a great deal in their actions by their sensual impulses, Kant, however, was of the view that human beings have control over their will, and for that reason, they are able to freely choose their actions. Kant, therefore, viewed human beings as being autonomous. The third formulation of the categorical imperative demands that in making moral decisions, one should be guided by the dictates of his/her reason, but not on the views of other people. In making moral decisions, therefore, one should ask himself/herself whether or not the decisions that they are about to make are based on their personal convictions, or convictions of other people; an action has moral worth if it is based and motivated by one’s convictions, and it has no moral worth if it is based on convictions of other people. The Procedure of Universalizing a Maxim Having explained the three formulations of categorical imperative, in details, let us now look at the procedure that one should follow in universalizing a maxim to apply the categorical imperative. The procedure of universalizing a maxim to apply the categorical imperative has the following three steps. The first step in universalizing a maxim is to find out whether or not the maxim is an imperative that one should will to be applied universally by all people. The second step that one should take in universalizing a maxim is to find out whether the application of the maxim in real life situation means treating human beings as ends in themselves, or as means to some ends. The third step in universalizing a maxim is to find out whether the maxim is based on autonomous decisions of human beings, or if the maxim was formulated under compulsion. If a maxim fulfils the three steps or criteria, i.e. if the maxim is something that we would will to be applied universally, if it is something whose application means treating human beings as ends in themselves and not as means to some ends, and if the maxim is freely formulated, then the maxim is universal and it is a categorical imperative. Work Cited Kant, I. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. (Wood, A. trans.).London: Yale University Press, 2002. Read More