Kantian Ethics: A Critical Analysis of Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy
Many who have read and understood Kant’s ethical system find it sensible and plausible. In fact, when we try to prove that one’s particular action is unethical and ask him, “What if everybody behaved as you do?”, we are actually advocating Kant’s ‘universalizability’ formulation of the categorical imperative. (Read: Summary of Kant’s Ethics)
However, we may argue that the reason Kant’s ethics is appealing is that it’s just another way of stating the highly accepted golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and its proscriptive counterpart. Notice that the most famous formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative, especially the end-in-itself version, instruct us to respect others because that is how we treat ourselves.
From his doctrine of categorical imperative, Kant develops uncompromising proscriptions against some actions. He submits that some actions, like lying, are wrong regardless of the circumstances and the outcomes they generate. This notion is prone to many criticisms. Critics argue that if lying is the only way to safeguard from sure danger another person, then lying is what one must do. For instance, if a murderer, armed with a shotgun, comes looking for a family member or friend to kill her, should we reveal her whereabouts merely because we ought to tell the truth?
In proposing that we must always do our duties no matter what circumstances are, Kant’s view is deemed by some as a rule-bound moral philosophy that puts a premium on rules rather than on humans. We may suggest that human obligations, say keeping promises, telling the truth, and repaying debts, should be really kept, provided however that no other overriding factors exist. Ethical rules, some propose, are better construed as generalizations rather than as categorical commands without any exception.
Another shortcoming of Kant’s ethics is its lack of solution to instances when there is conflict of duties. Suppose a person promises to keep a secret and then another person asks him about it. He cannot tell the truth without breaking his promise. But Kantian ethics inflexibly demands that he ought to do both always and in all circumstances, which, in this case, is logically impossible.
As regards motive and consequences, Kant definitely favors the former as having moral worth. Regardless of the consequences, an act is moral if the motive was to act from the good will and out of respect for duty. With good intentions, a medical doctor who operated on a sick person and accidentally killed him in the process is not considered immoral. We may call him incompetent, careless, lousy, and the like but not unethical.
Notice though that in completely disregarding the consequences in moral evaluation of actions, Kant appears inconsistent. Remember that his complete ban on lying is based on the possible effect should lying become a universal law, that is, there would be no promises at all. Clearly, Kant here is referring to the consequences of lying.
Concerning enjoyment in doing virtuous acts, Kant’s theory differs from that of Aristotle. For Aristotle, the genuinely virtuous person totally enjoys carrying out moral acts. But for Kant, a moral act involves being contrary to somebody’s feelings, natural inclinations, and wishes. In fact, the distress of well-doing is even considered by Kant as a sign of virtue … continue reading
Related: Immanuel Kant Philosophy: Critical Method/Transcendental Idealism
Indeed, Kant completely removes one’s taste, emotion, liking and the like in the sphere of morality. Concerning this, we may argue nonetheless that there are situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to the rightness of our decisions and actions. In selecting a course to take, a job to assume, and especially a person to marry, we wonder how one’s decision can be right without considering our taste and preference.
Moreover, Kant’s theory would go against Christian philosophy’s emphasis on love, for love is basically a strong liking or desire. Applied religiously, Kant’s stance seems to go against the biblical decree to worship and serve God with a joyful heart.
In general however, Kant contributes much to the study of morality. It affirms our consciousness of the moral law inherent to our practical reason. Kant defines human dignity as resting on the attainment of moral character, and thus not on things like progress in scientific advances. His categorical imperative supports the democratic notion that all people are created equal, from which we can derive that discrimination is not good especially before the law. Moreover, his categorical imperative forbids us to behave in an inconsistent and hypocritical manner.
Copyright 2013-present by Jensen DG. Mañebog