Kantian Moral Ethics - Essay Example

Kantian Moral Ethics There are various philosophical theories that have been advanced by different philosophers in an attempt to describe cases of violence. It is apparent that engagement in violent activities is a complex scenario that may involve interplay of various factors. Moral ethical theories attempt to provide some reasoning behind violence. One of the moral ethics that provide these descriptions is Immanuel Kant’s Moral ethics theory. This theory has three concepts that guide on the description of ethics. First, it points out that a maxim is acceptable if it can be universalized. Indicating that an act that has been adopted across the world is ethical. Secondly, it advocates for the protection of the human dignity; people should not just be used, humanity should be treated as an end and not in any way as the means. Finally, it advocates for an act that exemplifies fairness from all directions, that is, a person’s act should be conscious of both the actor and the one being affected by the actions. In this proposition by Kant, reciprocity of actions is very important (Wike & Showler, 2010). In this essay, I will put into perspective the application of this theory in incidences of violence that entails both self-defense and proactive violence. According to the Kantian theory, morality is not based exclusively on reasoning but also the moral worth of a given action. Engaging in act of violence can be considered moral when the reason behind the engagement can be validated. Though it is important for an individual to apply their reasoning before they act, it is of essence that they are weigh whether the act can be universalized (Wood, 2012). For example, when a thief that has been terrorizing people and poses a threat to the community to the society, the moral worth of such an action can be established. According to Kant’s predispositions, the moral status of humans is based on their rationality; this means humans have the capacity to distinguish what is moral and what is not, hence some sort of universalizability. Therefore, it is possible to point to a moral action based on the extent to which we are able to apply our reasoning. However, despite the human rationality predicting the moral position taken, the basis of the judgment made is not clearly defined. Kant’s argument that reasoning also plays a pivotal role in the determination of the morality has a strong basis since humans not only acts on impulses but also on reasoning (Sullivan, 1989). Therefore, engagement in violent activities is an interplay of the two factors; reasoning and moral worth. Kant clearly demonstrates that actions are judged in accordance to the way humans rationally perceive them. Looking at a violent action, there must be a strong basis that informs on the development of the action (Calder, 2005). Even after completing the action, there will be a justification of the action. However, the action can only be considered moral when the good thereof can be identified and justified. This means that an act of violence that is based on an individual interest cannot be justified, hence would be considered immoral. An action can only be justifiable as moral when it takes into concern the interest of others irrespective of whether it was intentional or not. This can inform on the justification of a given action. Largely, Kant attempts to apply practical moral reasoning in his theory. He presents the aspect of self-constraint as key aspect in ensuring one is able to abide by morality. Self-defense can be morally justified because it is something that requires less rationality, the person is obliged to act on an impulse. However, engagement in a violent activity is based on a rational decision made by an individual, on few occasions will the individual act based on impulse. It is possible to validate rational principles hence forming the basis of good ethics, therefore, aspects such as proactive violence that is not based on impulses can be categorized into what is moral and what is not. An action can be categorized as either ethical or not based on the underlying desires; they may be empirical or based on reason (Dierksmeier, 2013). When an individual goes ahead to engage in violence based on empirical move, then the action is individually justified morally. However, where rationality has been applied, the justification of violence should be based on very stringent terms. Universalizability is a key component of the Kantian ethics. The fact that Kant provides that universally acceptable actions are moral forms the basis of the law structures that informs on what is right and what is unacceptable. Actions of violence such as self-defense that are acceptable among all people may be considered as moral; however, not when the party did base the self-defense on action. He argues that the moral law should be applicable to all and should have a strong basis on reasoning. This means that whatever people imagine being right, then it happens to be morally acceptable. Many people cannot agree on an aspect unless they are able to have a common point of view. Therefore, violence to a large extent has been considered immoral and its universalization as an immoral act creates invokes a second though before an individual acts in violence. Kant disagrees with the view that an individual can attempt to impose their moral beliefs to a different culture of people (Timmermann, 2005). Based on acts of violence, it is difficult for a group of individuals to be convinced through a different culture on the extent of violence. For example, domestic violence cannot be considered moral since it has not been universalized. This is contrary to the view that there are cultures in the world, which do not find any moral crisis in domestic violence. The identities of humanity that are universal are the ones that informs on the moral obligations of individuals. For example, robbery is widely acceptable as immoral and hence there is no single state that encourages robbery-based violence. The Kantian ethics provides that human dignity should be upheld in order for an act to be considered ethical (O’Neill, 1989). Largely, violence is condemned in the society and discouraged in many circumstances. Therefore, in many scenarios, the universalizability of violence is difficult. Looking at both ends, whether on the positive or negative, morality based on violence should be there to promote the well-being of humanity. Positive violence will promote the dignity of humanity while negative violence is detrimental to human dignity. Though both have negative consequences, the positive violence can be justified on the role it plays in promoting human dignity. For example, a robber will have negative violence, which is directed towards destructive activities, if such a person is gunned down by the police, then the violence by the police is considered moral and constructive. This is so because the overall well-being of the entire community is put ahead of the selfish needs of the robber. In addition, human dignity does not advocate for violence unless when it is meant to reciprocate another violent act. Self-defense can be considered moral when it is considered up to a certain extent; overall, it is morally right to defend oneself when there is no other better mechanism. However, extending self-defense to the level of invoking mob-justice is unjustifiable. This is because, the universal laws requires that criminals should be found to be guilty through a court of law. Kant has mentioned the dimension of fairness and reciprocity as the main considerations in the determination of what is moral and what is not. The application of the reasoning as well as the consideration of the moral worth of a given act such as violence should be morally authenticated on the basis of fairness and reciprocity. It is important to think about any given act of violence as both the perpetrator as well as the victim; this forms the basis of the need for fairness. According to Kant, an act of violence is moral when the human dignity and fairness for the perpetrator is exemplified (Cicovacki, 2002). Through being rational, the victim of violence should be treated as other human beings. For example, the desire to engage in violence may be based on a very pressing need that the perpetrator would not avoid. Take for example, a player who has been hit and injured by another in a football match. Obviously, the first reaction can be a violent one, hence it is important that the injured player is understood for the first reaction. On the other hand, the perpetrator may have injured the other player accidentally. Therefore, it might their self-defense from the angry player should be considered. The accidental injury does not mean that the perpetrator is immoral. However, the reaction should be that of apology and calmness. In conclusion, the Kantian morality theory forms the basis in which both reasoning and the extent of an action judges on the morality of an act. Acts of violence are considered moral or immoral on the grounds of whether they promote human dignity, they promote fairness for all parties and that the maxim that is considered moral can be universalized. References Calder, T. (2005). Kant and degrees of wrongness. Journal of Value Inquiry, 39(2), 229. Cicovacki, P. (2002). The illusory fabric of kants true morality. Journal of Value Inquiry, 36(2-3), 383. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/203883978?accountid=45049 Dierksmeier, C. (2013). Kant on virtue. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 597-609. O’Neill, O. (1989). Constructions of reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print Sullivan, R. J. (1989). Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print Timmermann, J. (2005). Why kant could not have been a utilitarian. Utilitas, 17(3), 243-264. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200180658?accountid=45049 Wike, V. S., & Showler, R. L. (2010). Kants concept of the highest good and the archetype-ectype distinction. Journal of Value Inquiry, 44(4), 521-533. Wood, A. (2012). Kant on Practical Reason. Retrieved from http://philosophy.stanford.edu/community/documents-papers/view/Kant_on_Practical_Reason/   Read More