‘search for establishment of the supreme principle of morality.’
I am mainly concerned with the Critique Of Pure Reason. Kant tries to unify his account of practical reason. In the Critique Of Pure Reason Kant also states that our knowledge is constrained to mathematics and the science of the natural Empirical world and it is impossible to extend our knowledge to the realm of speculative metaphysics. The reason our knowledge has these constraints is that the mind relies on experience therefore limiting the minds access to the empirical realm of space and time. Kant’s theory is deontological, he believes that humans seek an ultimate end called the supreme goodness (summum bonum). Kant also believes that there is an objective moral law and we know this through reason.
Kant was a big believer in good will and duty. This is where the question ‘what ought I do?’ comes in to play. He said that if you ought to do something then you should do it and you are able to do it. On the other hand he also said you may know you ought to do something but your motive may be bad and this would not be a good moral decision. You have to be aware of something for it to be a moral requirement and your motive behind any action you take must be good. Kant proposed that the consequences of any action were no guide at all to the morality of the action - what counted soley was the motive behind the action - it should be purely duty, and an action can only be moral if it can be universalised.
Kant devised a theory called ‘The Categorical Imperative’ This tells us what we ought to do. There are three principles to The Categorical Imperative. 1. Universalisation, If its good for one person its good for everyone else. It is applied to people in the same situation, what they do should be applied to everyone and if it is morally good then it would be a universal law. 2. Treat humans as ends In themselves. You must treat everyone as equals. You have not got the right to exploit or enslave any other human. You may seek the happiness of others as long as its within the law and allows freedom of others.3. Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends. You should act as a rule maker of society, you must not follow bad examples of others just to impress them. You must assume everyone is doing the morally right thing. If everyone followed these rules then hypothetically we would live in a wonderful society where no selfish actions would take place and no bad crimes would ever be committed. We all know that this would never be the case as people do not stop to think about their actions. People wouldn’t always follow The Categorical Imperative even though they should so Kant devised a term called the hypothetical imperative which is not a moral decision it is to do with wants and desires. E.g. you may want to kick someone but this would not be a good moral decision and could not be universalised.
There could be many examples to show what a universal application of a moral decision was. An action can only be moral if its universalised, so if someone has fallen over and they obviously need help because they have broken their ankle; e.t.c and you help them this moral could be universalised as their was no bad intention in the action you decided to take. On the other hand another example of a situation would be, if someone you loved had a bad illness but you could not afford the drugs and decided to steal them to help them get better. This would be a bad moral decision as it could not be universalised, if it was universalise it would mean stealing is okay for everyone if this happened no one would trust anyone and society would fall apart.
There are many strengths to Kant’s ethical theory, firstly it commands respect for human life by binding humans to a set of rules, this prevents people from hurting each other and shapes society. Kant corrects utilitarianism as utilitarianism can justify atrocities on the grounds of the pleasure of many where as Kant promotes happiness but not at the cost of another person so ideally everyone would be happy. Kant’s ethical theory is also reason based so there is no outlandish outcomes to any decisions you could make and usually everything is fair even though it would not be nice to make certain decisions. Finally Kant promotes a sense of duty, saying what you ought to do if you know you ought to do something then you should do it and can do it, if you have a duty to do something you should automatically know you should do it and have good motives. There are also many weaknesses to Kant’s ethical theory, the theory refuses to allow exceptions to different situations. It says all people should be treated equally and sometimes this is not possible depending on the situation. It is impossible to always do a duty without having some sort of selfish motive no mater how small. It is also never possible to sit and think about the categorical imperative before you decide on an action to take. Kant’s theory is to general no two situations are ever the same therefore you cant apply the same theory every time. If I had to chose an ethical theory it would have to be Kant’s even though I do not totally agree with it, I agree that it seems to be a fair theory but I like to take situations into account and consider actions, motives and consequences, Kant completely contradicts his deontological view when universalising situations as he considers consequences which in one way is good but then it makes me think if Kant’s theory is that reliable and it may possibly be to confusing to use. Kant’s ethical theory is not practical and I would suggest that people use a mixture of different theories to make decisions.
