Kant explains that doing one’s duty does not involve serving one’s own interests. Thus one should be honest because it is the right thing to do, not because by being honest one will be rewarded, because then honesty would then be perceived as a means to an ends, therefore not intrinsically good. Neither should one act on intuition or by what comes naturally to them because an ulterior motive still exists, i.e. to do what one enjoys rather than what their duty recommends. Therefore one should do what is morally right because it is right and for no other reason.
The second part the Kant’s moral law is his concept of the Categorical Imperative. For an act to be right it must obey a particular rule/principle regardless of inclination and consequence, and it must be of universal application, thus relevant to everyone irrespective of their situation and must appeal to man’s reason. Therefore the Categorical Imperative can be defined as the law that the man of ‘good will’ will consciously or unconsciously recognises when he obeys his duty. The categorical imperative is obeyed precisely because what it commands is accepted as being good in itself (intrinsically good).
Kant gives the categorical imperative three different definitions. Firstly is the formula of the law of nature which states, ‘act as if the maxim of you action has to become through your will a universal law of nature’. This can be understood by saying that when you behave in any way you should treat that principle that informs your action as if it were a law to inform all moral behaviours, i.e. you set the way to behave based on your logical reasoning. Furthermore, this first definition highlights the idea that one must be able to universalise a moral action for it to be absolute and true good will. However it is important to note the Kant is telling us how to be moral (informing us of principles to shape our behaviour), not telling us what to do.
Kant’s second definition, formula of the end in itself, is ‘act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your person or the person of any other never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end’. This means that people should only be an end. For example, in a relationship one should not use someone as a means (e.g. money, status, and sex, what ever you can get out of it). Instead you should have a relationship with someone because of themselves and wanting to be with them because one should be treated as valuable in themselves. Thus Kant would see it as immoral to be friends with someone for own rewards and selfishness.
The third definition is similar to that of the first. The formula of the kingdom of ends affirms ‘so act as if you were through your maxims a law making member of a kingdom of ends’. This last definition refers to self discipline and responsible behaviour because true good some from inside and acting upon it. From these definitions it can be concluded that there is great emphasis on universalisability. Kant maintains that to test if an action is moral it must be able to be applied consistently and logically to the rest of the world.
The importance of Kant’s moral law has increased rather than weakened with the years because without doubt various features of the theory remain attractive. Most importantly one must note the theory’s ability to take good account of justice. It manages to be able to correct the utilitarian viewpoint that punishment of the innocent can be justified due to majority benefit, because the moral worth of an action comes from the intrinsic rightness of an action justice of the individual is safeguarded by the universal and objective character of the categorical imperative which obliges duties upon us all. Therefore an action taken against the individual, when contrary to duty, must be wrong no matter how many people believe otherwise. Furthermore the theory avoids people being selfish because an action can only be morally right if applicable to everyone, thus it cannot favour an individual.
Strength of Kant’s moral law is that he identifies man as a being of intrinsic worth and a rational creature and resists all use of him as a mere means to an end and to be exploited for the happiness of others. Therefore man is respected by the ‘feeling for humanity’ which dominates Kant’s entire philosophy. This aspect of the theory of definitely appealing because it recognises the individual’s intrinsic worth.
Moreover, Kant can be commended for his distinction between duty and inclination. Without doubt we are all capable and often prone to making moral decisions in favour or ourselves and close friends. Therefore Kant successfully prevents individuals from acting on the assumption that they know what is good for themselves and removes self interest and own pleasure because something is only right when it can be universalised. The great strength of universalisability means that man becomes less self centred and more appreciative of the rights of others.
Kant’s moral law is also so popular and strong because due to its secular perspectives it has the ability to appeal to everyone, both religious and atheists. Therefore its principles are universal and open-minded and have no reference to God within the system. Therefore Kant successfully creates a theory by which he can explain morality without religion whilst not rejecting the existence of God.
However Kant’s theory can be faulted with his claim moral people are those that base their lives solely in obedience to the rules generated by the categorical imperative. This therefore suggests that one must also obey those rules towards which they have no moral obligation at all. Simply, it could be argued that if one does not agree that something is right due to lack of inclination or emotion, and then is their act truly moral? I.e. is one just being reduced to the obligation of rules or are they still moral just because they carry out their duties?
Furthermore Kant’s theory can be criticised for allowing trivial rules into universalisability based on all the definitions of the categorical imperative. Firstly, this theory has the ability to accept rules which are neither good nor bad, thus morally neutral, which very few people would perceive as morally obligatory. Secondly, the categorical imperative is so that it can also allow rules that are so super specific that they benefit no one but the individual. Hence, it cannot be valid to argue that a moral person is one who acts in accordance with the categorical imperative. Thus it is quite possible to arrive at rules that the majority would consider either preferential or without any moral significance. Therefore it can be concluded that just because a rule can be universalised, this is not in itself enough to guarantee that the rule will be morally good or even moral at all.
In response to such a criticism, Kant offers us a sort of practical test which is that we can reject those rules that when universalised would produce a state of affairs objectionable to all rational people. This can work because people must reject what is contrary to the objectives that all rational people must have.
Another criticism of Kant’s work is that he fails to recognise that all people are different in that they have different levels of tolerance and temperament. For example, who is to say that a sadist wouldn’t want sadism to be universalised? In addition, thieves may wish to have stealing universalised at the risk that their property is in jeopardy. Indeed it can be argued that there are many people who accept that just as they neglect others, that they too in turn will be neglected. This idea works in accordance with the individual who realises that life is competitive and tolerates the chance of failure in the search of success. Whilst Kant could argue that such ideas lack reason, it could also be proposed that a man of this type who accepts that others may treat him as badly as he treats others is not irrational at all.
What Kant appears to overlooks his problem in exclusion of exceptions. In Kant’s contradictions in nature he maintains that telling lies and breaking promises are always wrong because they can never be consistently universalised, thus one can never lie or break a promise with no exceptions. However there are examples when such concepts can lead to serious dilemmas when duties conflict. Consider that one promises a friend that they will hide them from a murderer and later the murderer asks where they have hidden the friend. To tell the truth would be to break a promise, but to keep the promise is to lie. Kant’s moral law provides us with no answer to such dilemma and therefore the theory is weakened because it fails to help us in every situation.
Therefore in conclusion, clearly there are valid strengths and weaknesses of Kant’s moral law. However I feel that the strengths outweigh the limitations of this theory. Such idea is clearly reflected in the fact that Kant’s theory has become increasingly popular and accepted over the years. This has to show how successful Kant’s ideas are even though they have been faced with criticism. However, one can ask themselves if there could be any moral law without weaknesses.