Philosophy and Social Issues
German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, is primarily known for is philosophical work on the study of ethics. What sets him apart from other philosophers on this subject is that rather than judge individuals themselves, he instead looks at the subjects of “right” and “wrong” as separate entities in order to suggest the best way for people to behave. Kant grew tired of people acting immorally based on their idea that the ends would justify the means. He believed in deontology, which suggests that moral judgment resides in the act itself and the ends do not justify the means. There is no gray area. Recently, the Ferguson riots were sparked by the murder of a young African American man called Michael Brown by a police officer. Many accusations have been used to cajole the public into believe the murder was just, the officer has been given paid leave, and local government and law officials continue to look the other way as more racial and social injustices are perpetrated upon the townspeople. Kant’s deontological views would provide ample guidance on this matter.
During his time, Kant became frustrated with the moral gray area of his people and began suggested a philosophy he called the categorical imperative . The categorical imperative was born of Kant’s idea that all morality comes from a human’s ability to be rational, therefore condemning all irrational acts to be immoral and erasing the gray area . As far as Kant was concerned, there was absolutely no possible way for an individual to deviate from the categorical imperative without appearing immoral. Consequently, the categorical imperative can easily be applied to the August 9, 2014 shooting in Ferguson, Missouri because many of the actions that took place during this time appeared irrational. Initial reports claim that only one shot was fired, but later the New York Times reported eight or nine shots were heard, fired by officer Darren Wilson. The differentiation in the report and how many shots were fired shows severe irrationality on the part of law enforcement, suggesting immorality. Furthermore, seven bullets hit eighteen-year-old Michael Brown, the last striking him in the cranium, causing his death. Under Kant’s first Maxim, universality, one should do something if they think it is right to perform that action all the time, no matter what . Refraining from shooting people or causing their death falls into that category. Furthermore, at the time, Brown was the supposed suspect of a convenient store robbery, but Wilson admitted to stopping him for walking in the middle of the street. The story was muddled further when Wilson insisted a single shot was fired because Brown engaged the officer in a physical fight, reaching for his gun. However, the family’s personal autopsy shows the bullet wounds entering Brown’s body from behind making it impossible for a scenario like the one Wilson described to have happened. If Kant were to examine the situation, he would condemn Darren Wilson for immoral actions. Categorical imperative states there is no gray area for morality, especially when it comes to murder.
The shooting occurred on August 9, 2014. Officials promised the following Tuesday they would release the name of the officer responsible for Brown’s death. However, Wilson’s name was not released until the following Friday. Officials explained the reason was that they feared for Wilson’s safety due to death threats the authorities had received all week. According to Robert Stern’s, “Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard,” Kant would also deem this immoral because the ends do not justify the means in deontology . Law enforcement entered an unspoken obligation with the local population when they said they would release Wilson’s name on Tuesday. Not to do so, even if it meant preparing the officer to hide from the public would still be unacceptable. Technically, it went against Kant’s second maxim, that each person should be treated as an end, and not a means to an end . Kant did not think that people should be manipulated for the greater good, nor did he believe people should be manipulated for the good of one. They should not be manipulated at all. The townspeople of Ferguson were manipulated by law enforcement in order to save Wilson, making the action more immoral. Moreover, the idea that it took three extra days to get Wilson into a safe place where he would be harmed suggests irrationality, following the categorical imperative’s guidelines. Several weeks after Wilson was revealed as Brown’s murderer, he was not officially removed from the force, but still out on paid leave. This action, taken by law enforcement administration, would also be seen as immoral by Kant because, once again, the ends do not justify the means. Law enforcement attempted to explain Wilson was out on paid leave because the evidence against him was circumstantial, but because he was the only one firing a gun at Brown, it is arguable that the evidence is condemning. The means, in this case, would have been considered immoral because the evidence was convincing that Wilson had murdered Brown. Paid leave was a vacation for taking a human life. Though paid leave may have kept the majority of Ferguson’s population happy, it was still immoral.
Many other social and moral injustices that could be analyzed from Kant’s moral point of view have also happened in Ferguson regarding the August shooting. For example, peaceful riots began taking place shortly after Brown’s death. Protestors wanted answers that corroborated the family’s autopsy, and authorities resisted. Instead of giving answers, they fired tear gas into the crowd and pepper sprayed the crowd. Of course, this was against Kant’s moral authority. Those sprayed with pepper spray were left to their own devices. Citizens lucky enough to avoid the spray broke into a local McDonald’s to steal small bottle of milk, typically given with Happy Meals, to pour into the afflicted citizens’ eyes. Many would think this an act of kindness that justified the breaking and entering, and the thievery. However, Kant would not approve because the ends do not justify the means. After being assaulted in this manner, protestors also began to grow unruly and violent, launching random objects at law enforcement, forcing police to arrest more protestors. While some may believe that protestors’ actions were justified because law enforcement acted first, Kant would likely argue that violence against another is never okay and would call it immoral regardless. Brown himself was also supposedly not innocent. Shortly after the incident an eyewitness, Dorian Grey, came forward confessing that he and Brown had in fact been involved in the robbery that took place minutes before Brown’s death. While Kant may not have thought it moral to shoot a man over stealing from a convenient store, he would condemn any thief based on maxims one and two, and the principles of deontology. Concerning the Ferguson shootings, it would be difficult for Kant to take a side on the issue because based on deontology both sides were morally at fault.
Unfortunately, there was a flaw in Kant’s deontological theory. Maxim 3 proclaims that each individual must act as if they are the moral authority over everything . Kant’s original idea might have been for this philosophy to manifest so people would act morally just. However, it has caused some people instead to simply bend the rules for themselves. Brown and his cohort may have been stealing because they were hungry and had no money, believing the convenient story clerk had enough for himself. Darren Wilson may have murdered Brown because he believed he had robbed a convenient store and murder was the proper punishment. If Wilson was unaware that Brown ribbed the store, he may have murdered him because he knew he would get away with it. Citizens assuredly broke into a McDonald’s to steal milk so their neighbors would not go blind due to lack of treatment from pepper spray, while law enforcement used force on a peaceful crowd because they knew they could. Each action shows that the individuals acting took the moral imperative based on Kant’s third maxim. They saw themselves as the moral authority, doing what they thought was right for themselves, the situation, or the greater good. Kant’s philosophy on morals makes sense in many areas concerning the Ferguson shooting and riots, but in some instances, they grant too much power, or make things too confusing.
In sum, the situation in Ferguson is confusing, and at times morally ambiguous. Kant’s deontological views helped make quick work of what was right and what was wrong because his views were black and white. Deontology leaves no room for a gray area. There is a right and a wrong; each is to be used as a means, not in a situation that allow the ends to justify the means. Therefore, the murder of Michael Brown was wrong, as was Darren Wilson’s paid leave without any repercussions for his actions. The law enforcement’s use of force against a peaceful crowd was also wrong. In contrast, though, it was immoral of Michael Brown to rob a convenient store. It was also immoral of citizens to rob a McDonald’s of merchandise, even if it was to help pepper-spray victims. Once again, the ends do not justify the means. Kant’s three maxims state universality, the ends vs the means (people should not be manipulated), and that each individual is a moral authority help explain what is moral or not. The only question left in the Ferguson situation is whether it was okay to execute a man for robbing a convenient store. Based on universality, unless we are prepared to shoot every individual who robs a convenient store, the answer is no. Also based on the fact Wilson did not indicate he knew Brown was a suspect, the act would be found immoral regardless of the robbery.
References
Stern, Robert. Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Book.
Velkley, Richard L. Freedom and the End of Reason: On the Moral Foundation of Kant's Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014. Book.
