FREE ESSAY ON KANTS THEORIES ON ETHICS

KANTS THEORIES ON ETHICS

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system for reasoning. It is based on
a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. In Kant's eyes reason is
directly correlated with morals and ideals. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be
undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for
appropriateness or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral
act is an act done for the right reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the
wrong reason is not moral you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty
code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. 
Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is. Kant described two
types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a
given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which
dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity.
The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these
words: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general
natural law. Therefore, before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be
following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by
everyone all over. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be moral; if you
are not, then the act is morally impermissible. 
Kant believes that moral rules have no exceptions. Therefore, it is wrong to kill in all
situations, even those of self-defense. This belief comes from the Universal Law theory.
Since we would never want murder to become a universal law, then it must be not moral in
all situations. Kant believes killing could never be universal, therefore it is wrong in
each and every situation. There are never any extenuating circumstances, such as
self-defense. The act is either wrong or right, based on his universality law. For
example, giving money to a beggar just to get him to leave you alone would be judged not
moral by Kant because it was done for the wrong reason. 
With Kant's belief in mind; if the consequence of immoral behavior were dealt with in a
legal structure, people would be prosecuted for EVERYTHING since there are no extenuating
circumstances. Kant's categorical imperative is a tri-dynamic statement of philosophical
thought:(1) So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a
principle establishing universal law.(2) Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own
person in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.'(3) Act according
to the maxims if a universally legislative member of a merely potential kingdom of ends.
In other words, Kant argues that particular action requires conscious thought of the rule
governing the action. Whether if everyone should follow that rule, and if the rule is
acceptable for universal action, it should be adopted. If the rule is unacceptable, then
it should be rejected. In order to understand whether or not an action follows Kant's
categorical imperative, we must prescribe those norms that we wish to be universal laws.
These norms are created through value judgments based on issues of justice between
persons or groups (nations, etc.) of persons. Kant's theories discuss the ethical
questions that determine impartial consideration of conflicting interest in issues of
justice. 
Kant also states that because we must believe that all things develop to their fullest
capacity, then we can theorize in summary, through cognitive processes we can create
communities, based on moral (ethical) action towards every person, thereby creating
universal ethics throughout the community or republic. With that in mind, it appears that
Kant makes statements that assume all people within like republics can achieve a level of
cognition equal to one another, for without that equanimity of cognition and judgment,
then the conflict issues cannot be rationalized through creation of universal law. The
statement that all people can achieve a similar level of cognition seems preposterous in
our modern world cognition in the sense of like thought. Because we need the principles
of Kant's categorically designed thought and action to have universal acceptance; we must
be willing to accept the undesirable psychological deviants within the republic. If we
can't accept that a person's cognition is capable of universability, then we must
dominate that person by removing them from the republic. This in itself contradicts
Kant's theory because in order to end domination, we must yield to and follow our
cognitive thought and this cannot be done because the deviant doesn't achieve the same
level of cognition as the rest of the republic. This example seems to point out a flaw in
Kant's reasoning and his belief of achieving similar or same ethical norms to follow. 
We must make the judgment on whether or not universal ethics is possible. I believe that
a bit of universability exists in certain social mores and norms throughout the world;
don't kill your neighbor, be kind to animals, incest is wrong, etc. yet, individual
perception of the world by people prevents the possibility of an all-encompassing
universal code of ethics. Furthermore, we have no way, to prove that our principles based
on perception can be rationally applied. Because of this inability to prove rational
application of perception and thus moral principle based on that perception, we are
unable to demonstrate the rational justification of any universal principle or ethic.
Application of the principles is central to creating universal ethics, yet it seems that
we cannot prove rational application of the principles and thus fall short of gaining
universal consensus on what those should be. To Kant, these principles can be made
applicable through his transcendental arguments, but there remains the fact that he
agreed sensory (and thus transcendental) experience couldn't be accepted as empirical
givens. This leaves the sensory or transcendental experience open to interpretation.
Empirical evidence creates responses that can be repealed time and again with identical
or nearly identical results.
Kant does make arguments for empirical thought in his, The Postulates of Empirical
Thought Section of the book Critique of Pure Reason, but his questions of an event what
became of that? and What brought that about? fail to argue concisely about real and
logical possibilities. Because of his lack of definite statement, Kant fails to prove
through his empirical thought arguments that empirical thought or action can be
universal. Kant followed his book, Critique of Pure Reason, with Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals, in which he argues at length on moral judgment, practical
reasoning and the like. Without having read the book in its entirety, it seems that Kant
provides example upon example on the possibility of universal ethics.
People attempt to describe good based on virtuous thought. Virtuous thought supposes that
a virtuous person has a fairly explicit conception of what is called happiness. Kant's
perception skews the person's thought because each person perceives an event (whatever
the event may be) differently. It is this difference in what people perceive that creates
opposing viewpoints on good whether virtuous or not. Any attempt to provide a universal
ethic to the community is impeded by the community itself. Not only was it an impossible
task in Kant's time, but it is still impossible today.