Philosophy
Dr. Immanuel Reuter Kant (1724-1804), the greatest Enlightenment philosopher, developed what is to be called Kantian Ethics (a deontological philosophy that was named after him). His ethical philosophy contains his Categorical Imperative or the ethical principle that human behavior should be determined by duty or the moral obligation that is innately in them to follow no matter what the consequences are (Johnson). Additionally, Kant regards individuals’ goodwill or innately worthy actions to do good in all circumstances no matter what the repercussions would be because that is precisely what is morally good them and the world at large. He insisted that people should be treated not just as means to some ends, but ends in themselves. Kant’s ethics is commendable in that love, for instance, is universalizable in all society such that doing charity to one’s fellowmen is the way to go. Hence, I agree with Kant’s thesis that acts that are not universalizable or “use persons” are wrong even if they bring about good results or consequences.
My first argument is that Kant’s Ethics claims to be a practical guide to act rightly whenever there is a need to solve moral problems (Ethics Guide: Duty-based Ethics, 2013). It taps human autonomy and rationality in thinking about what is morally due or right instead of prescribing virtues in the form of indoctrination. When human beings learned to think critically for themselves, they are not easily swayed by various moral propagandas that diminish an individual’s inner moral worth to do what could be universalizable in the moral sense of the word. Hence, when people have attained moral maturity, they can be an exemplar of virtues that other individuals may try to emulate. For that reason, Kant’s moral belief that only universalizable acts are correct because they can be applied in all circumstance at all places without mere reference to good results or outcomes is defensible.
My second argument is that a person’s good motive through the use of his/her rationality is precisely the case why he/she should act in accordance with it in the first place. Without the good intention or motivation to will or do an act, it is pointless why a person should even perform an act. If a person is not motivated by his/her goodwill, he/she is just flaunting, or worse, doing an act out of self-interest. It is contrary to Kant’s principled morality to base one’s act on one’s selfish interest even when it would produce favorable outcome because, in the long run, it would not be universalizable. For instance, if someone lost his/her wallet and another individual found it; should the former return it because he/she is waiting for a reward? By all rationality, if all people will have the same reasoning, they might not return the wallet if it contains a hefty amount of money. This is because, it has been shown, for instance, by researches/statistics, that whenever a lost wallet is returned to the owners, only a very small reward is given as compared to the money in the wallet. Because many people are selfish, they would rather keep the wallet. So, there is no point that many of those who found a wallet would ever return it to the owner, which definitively violates Kant’s ethics.
My third argument is that Kant’s duty ethics assures people of a reasonable and consistent morality despite the unpredictability of outcomes. When followed strictly, it will avoid abusing other people for the sake of monetary gain. People will do what is in the best interest of their fellow human beings. If such is the general case, even individuals who do good to others will likewise benefit it because everyone else is ‘like’ him/her. It is an inevitable chain reaction because people have come to realize the importance of universalizable acts out of good intentions or motivation. As gleaned from the above example of a lost wallet, a universal action of one person is also true to anyone else who perform his/her duty out of a sense of principled action. Even when the consequences turn out to be the opposite of a well-intended action, people would still come to the conclusion that it is okay with them. People cannot simply predict the outcome of all actions because of external factors beyond their control (for instance, despite efforts to save the life of a person, he/she still died of the calamity).
Objections to the arguments above include Kant’s ethics as lacking practical utility, is not precise, and is not possible for universally shared moral experiences. Not all individuals are alike. Some people have an inclination to do an act because they give more importance to external rewards than intrinsic incentives. Moreover, there is cultural differences around the world because of diverse religious and sociopolitical beliefs (Kant 1). Because Kant’s oversimplifies his ethics and for being too individualistic, doing an act for the greatest number of people who will benefit in the long run is an option rather than the exception.
Despite anything to the contrary, Kant’s ethical philosophy of doing an act out of good intention for people as ends in themselves is its commitment. Even if it leads to unpredictable consequences, if a person uses one’s rationality, such as telling the truth to a murderer seeking one’s loved ones, it is still reasonable to ‘white lie’ because of the many versions of reality (Sandel). I can say to a murderer that my loved one is nowhere to be found inside my house because he/she is, in truth, out of my sight. So, I am not lying. Thus, given that Kant’s ethics can be universalizable by persons of good intention, that is, for not using people, I can commit to it no matter what the consequences would be.
Works Cited
Ethics Guide: Duty-based Ethics. 2013. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml#top>.
Johnson, Robert, "Kant's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-moral/>.
Kant, Immanuel. What is Enlightenment? 2013. Web. 10 December 2013.
Sandel, Michael. White Lies. 31 March 2011. Web. 10 December 2013. <http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/white-lies/>.
