Public and Private Areas of Life - Essay Example

Public and Private Areas of Life Public and Private Areas of Life Introduction Viewing life from Immanuel Kants perspective, there are two areas; the private and public spheres. In the private sphere, an individual tends to follow all the directions and guidelines given to them in a particular Civic post that they have been entrusted. This, therefore, means that there is no freedom for an individual to disagree or talk ill of the organization or establishment they work for. The private reason for a particular behavior is therefore simply meant to ensure that the social order of the particular organization or establishment is kept intact. The opposite of it is the public sphere where one could encounter some freedom as they are allowed to speak freely out their minds; which Kant refers to as enlightenment. It is in this essay therefore that a clear distinction between the two areas of life will get achieved, as we also focus on the different principles that govern how we should behave in each. As a student, one gets to share ideas with students from other colleges or higher learning institutions; mostly, the class experiences. In a particular discussion, there was this student who shared an experience of their professor degrading the policies of the college before the class; which got us wondering whether it was the right or wrong thing to do. It, however, depends on the reason the professor came up with that, and this is where the debate of public and private reason comes in. In this case, it can get confusing to many as to say that whether that was a public or private reason, being that the professor was using that reason in a civic post and at the same time said it freely. According to Kants perspective, the professor is speaking their mind freely as any scholar would; but because they are provided with guidelines of their post and expected never to speak against the institution, we can say that they are carrying out an abuse on the private reason for the public one. The kind of abuse on private reason the professor carries out is considered disastrous by Kant, as being that private reason is meant to ensure social order prevails, the professor, in this case, is risking the social order; as chaos or any form of disaster might happen. In the use of private reason, it is very important for one to obey and strictly follow the guidelines given by a particular establishment or organization so that they do not risk being demoted from their positions of leadership. It is equally important so that the authority of the establishment does not undergo collapse, as well as the establishment itself (Putnam, 2000). The professor, therefore, by speaking against the college was risking being sacked and excommunicated from the college for disobedience and disloyalty to the administration. At the same time, it is quite unrealistic for an establishment or institution to keep running with a lot of ills covered; which might in the long run have it rotten and destroyed, when the lying time ends. It is important as responsible members of the society to ensure that we expose all that is unjust so that the required adjustments can get fixed and have the society proceed genuinely. Meaning, it is very necessary for an individual to find out the right time to obey whatever guidelines have been set and argue against. In matters to do with what affects the community, it is important for the government to find ways of protecting its people in terms of the information that is relayed to them; which is to ensure that the objectives of a particular establishment are not done away with. For this to, therefore, get implemented, it is important for the private reason to at all times prevail; where one is expected to obey without any form of argument. As far as private reason is concerned, there is a difference when a certain scholar is addressing the public through their writings and when they are strictly under some establishment or organization. What should get clear here is that there is no freedom restriction from the scholar who communicates to the public through their writings even when they still work under a particular organization. This scholar is free to argue and can communicate as many ideas to the public as they please, as they are now acting on public reason. Different from it is when a scholar is strictly under an establishment, surrounded with rules and guidelines on how to behave; for the sake of the public. While on duty however, it is important for former to obey orders from their superiors at all costs, as it will be very wrong for the opposite to happen yet they stand on the private reason (Taylor, 2005). When it comes to the other scholarly mission of administering to the public, the officer can then be allowed to point out mistakes in their superiors and have the public give views on the same. As a citizen, for instance, everyone is expected to pay faithfully, taxes failure to which one gets punished by the law; meaning, it is an order to pay those taxes and every citizen must obey. However, being a scholar places one at a better position to act on public reason and, therefore, argue out on injustices that they might associate with the paying of the taxes. Another example is of a pastor who before getting into office has to take an oath of ensuring that the doctrines of the church, as well as its undertakings, are protected at all times. While addressing their congregation, therefore, the priest is expected to adhere faithfully to that oath; as that was his condition of getting ordained. It, therefore, means that the priest is acting on private reason, different from a priest who is equally a scholar. In a case where the priest in question is a scholar, they are acting on public reason and thus at liberty to address to the public whatever unpleasant issues they feel pertain to the institution they administer for; and even come up with a proposal of the kind of improvement that can be effected for good change to get realized, as they are now acting on public reason. There will be no issues concerning the step taken by this scholar, as they still are working under some orders and that there is no truth that is hidden in the information they might be trying to present to the public. It would be wrong only if whatever doctrines the priest administers are different from what the true religion in for, because there are hardly any contradictions, the priest is free to carry on with their mission. It is never acceptable for the priest to fulfill their mission with a lot of freedom, as they are supposed to be working under orders. The freedom only comes in at a time they are evangelizing to their public or the world. It is, however, unacceptable to me that the priests have to work under the orders of their seniors in administering to followers of a religion. They at least should be left a chance to work on public reason so as to condemn or argue against the practices in the church that they consider unacceptable, and have followers enlightened. It also would be much better for followers to use their reason in an accurate manner and confidently without having to get external guidance from the religious leaders. In this case people will receive the religious truth, a reason the private reason should be done away with in the religious institution context. The distinction between private and public reasons can also get realized in the context of parenting, especially for children in their adolescent stages. Each family always has guidelines set by parents on how people should behave in and out of the household. The guidelines usually come as an order and every child is expected to obey to the latter without any form of argument. It is, however, different when it comes to other families where children at that stage are given the freedom to do anything they please, as parents assume that is how to get them responsible enough. Kants concept of private and public reasons for various actions, therefore, comes into play at this point. The family that has guidelines set for the children on maybe the kind of music to listen to and which not to, has the children operating and behaving on private reason; which is however different when it comes to the other family that has offered the children the freedom they please and, therefore, act on public reasons. The irresponsibility that comes as a result of too much freedom to the children translates into bigger problems at the workplace in future. Limits on actions become very important in this case and, therefore, the public reason of action. In the private sphere, failure for one to obey the guidelines set is liable to punishment, which may in a case of a family setting be denial of some forms of luxury or even getting disowned by ones parents. In cases, therefore, where a parent has utilized the public sphere in their parenting and, therefore, failed, should wake up and take full responsibility of ensuring the children are given some restrictions. Children in the public sphere are exposed to a lot of content from external sources; information on drugs, sex and other forms of abuse, which might not be safe in the long run. They are forced to learn everything through experience, and end up with many regrets in life. It is quite unacceptable to think that parenting can successfully take place in a public sphere as opposed to the private one. Most of the children who grow up as a result of the public reason of action, end up being irresponsible members of the community. It, therefore, should occur to guardians and parents that too much freedom for the children may result into a poor ending for them. However, nothing is completely bad or good, as what may be considered as bad may have some good in it and good some bad in it. In this case, therefore, the public reason of action for children growing up makes them responsible to an extent that they will not have to get the consent to do something for them to act; they grow up knowing how to do things on their own. On the other hand, too much restriction on an individual to act your way-private reason of action might have children growing up into pretentious and rebellious children. It, however, does not mean that the providing of strict guidelines to children is wrong, but if done then it should proceed with moderation; as too much of it can lead to negative effects to the child, in the long run. For the private reason of action to effectively fulfill the demands of parenting, it is important that the strictness and seriousness of parents on certain issues does not get exaggerated. Conclusion In the essay, it is evident that there is a clear distinction between the public and private reasons of action in life. Every action that an individual always takes has a reason behind it, which could be as a result of some force perpetrating it or ones freedom and, therefore, mind to act in a certain manner. Private reasons for action have proven to affect all people working under the orders or care of another individual and are often dictatorial; as one is not allowed to speak their minds concerning issues that are work-related. In an institution, for instance, the strict following of orders by the seniors in the organization is important for the peace and assumed comfort of those being led. We have seen how various individuals under the leadership of their seniors follow orders without question for fear of consequences that may come as a result; which includes the priests, tax-payers, professors. Things are, however, different with the public sphere where individuals here are offered freedom to carry out their duties in the way they please, meaning there are no orders to follow. In this case, speak their minds out concerning various issues that those in the private sphere are restricted upon. We also have focused on the various reasons for those in both the public and private spheres to behave the way they do, more so those in the private sphere. The fear of losing the leadership positions in their areas of work makes these individuals in the private sphere to exercise caution in their duties. There also is the duty to ensure that the social interests of the people they serve are protected so that confidence in them is maintained. To a great extent, therefore, I support Kants ideas on the distinction between the public and private ideas of life. The difference is clear though can also say that the two areas of life are in some instances contradictory. An example of this is in the case of the priest or clergy, professor, and other instances raised in the essay. References Putnam, R. (2000). Public and Private Reasons of Philosophy. London: Sage Publications. Taylor, C. (2005). Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, M. A: Harvard University Press. Read More