Hobbes however would argue whether we realistically can be expected to put impartial considerations ahead of out own happiness and whether it matters if the outcome is the same. For example, it is rational for a shopkeeper too keeps the prices of his goods low, regardless of the principles of fair dealing because it is rational for him to, in order to gain enough customers for him to have a comfortable life. This is a fair point as although the shop keeper is acting for different reasons, his prices are no higher than a man who is acting morally out of his duty and out of self interest. Although a Kantian would say that even though the outcome is the same, acting out of self interest does not capture the true idea of morality.
According to Kant’s theory on morality, we do the right thing because it is our duty to, regardless of self interest. The categorical imperative helps us know which actions are obligatory and which are forbidden. There are three principles of the categorical imperative. The first is universal law; ‘act only to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should be come a universal law.’ This is similar to the Christian belief of treating others how you would like to be treated. The second is ‘Treat humans as ends in themselves’. Kant rejects the idea of using human beings for another purpose to achieve some other goal. The last is ‘Act as if you live in the kingdom of ends’. Kant believed we cannot act on a rule that assumes that others don’t treat people as ends, for example you cannot create a maxim such as ‘I may lie as all others lie’ as if a rule like that was followed, society would become unendurable.
However, a critique of Kant would say that if a moral theory sets goals which are unachievable for the majority human beings, the theory itself is flawed. Although the categorical imperative is a nice idea, it’s not possible for the majority of people, as we live in a very competitive environment regarding getting jobs and having enough money to support us and our families. For example when 50 Cent was living in a cramped house and facing pressure to bring in money, he started dealing crack in order to support the family. Another example would be that young people should look after their parents when they become too old to look after themselves at all cost, because it is their duty and when they are old they would also like to be taken care of. However people are not always able to act purely out of duty. Social pressures and economic needs, e.g. going away to work somewhere have to come first in most cases.
A defender of the Kantian position would say that moral theories are generally very demanding and ask us to aspire to things we can’t always achieve. But this shouldn’t mean that we give up trying, because it is a worthwhile aim. Although this is a good counter argument and does outweigh the fact that the theory is slightly flawed, asking people to act morally purely because of duty and regardless of themselves is a hard thing to ask of anyone. Although self interest should play no part in genuine morality, it is foolish to think that the majority of society can keep to such a difficult task. Self interest playing no part in morality is something to aspire to, but realistically, self interest will play a part to at least an extent in most people’s lives and although it can be argued that it is not genuine morality when this is the case, it doesn’t matter if the outcome is the same.
