Examine the Strengths and Weaknesses of Kants Ethical Theory
Examine the Strengths and Weaknesses of Kants Ethical Theory.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a very trendy philosopher. The theory he puts forward is argued from deontological ethics (from the Greek Deon, meaning obligation) and therefore is an ethical theory considered solely on duty and obligations, where one has an unchanging moral obligation to abide by a set of defined principles. Thus the ends of any action do not justify the means, i.e. if someone were to do their moral duties, then it would not matter if it had negative consequences. So basically rules come above all else according to Kant.
In his book 'The Critique of Reason' he argues that only one fact is undisputable, and that simply is that there is a moral law in existence, which then leads to the existence of God. He said that everyone can detect with there senses a moral law existent in the universe and therefore they have a obligation to follow it to reach the highest form of good which he called 'the summum bonum' (is Latin for 'highest good'). Kant says something's are naturally good, and to do them would be defined as good will, and to have a good will is to do ones moral duty, we don't act out of compassion or love, we are just doing our duty. Actions should be performed as our duty not out of motive. He said morality was innate; a part of us, and it was our moral duty to carry it out for good, which must lead to God. So Kants evidently pre-supposes the existence of 3 things; God, immortality and freedom.
So these are the duties humans must perform according to Kant, which he refers to as the 'Categorical Imperative'. 'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.' The maxim of my action is my intention, or perhaps better yet, my principle of action.Kant defined an imperative as a statement that declares a certain type of action to be necessary. So for example, a Hypothetical imperative would force an action upon a being in certain circumstances i.e. 'If I wish to satisfy my thirst I must drink this water'. However, a Categorical Imperative is an absolute; it is an unconditional requirement that should have the authority in all circumstances, and is both required and justified as an end in itself. So it must necessarily mean that a particular act or kind of act ought not to be carried out under any circumstance i.e. "One ought not to commit murder".
A perfect example of this theory when applied:
'Someone who contemplates relieving a financial crisis by borrowing money from someone else, promising to repay it in the future while in fact having no intention of doing so. (Notice that this is not the case of finding yourself incapable of keeping a promise originally made in good faith, which would require a different analysis.) The maxim of this action would be that it is permissible to borrow money under false pretenses if you really need it. But as Kant pointed out, making this maxim into a universal law ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
A perfect example of this theory when applied:
'Someone who contemplates relieving a financial crisis by borrowing money from someone else, promising to repay it in the future while in fact having no intention of doing so. (Notice that this is not the case of finding yourself incapable of keeping a promise originally made in good faith, which would require a different analysis.) The maxim of this action would be that it is permissible to borrow money under false pretenses if you really need it. But as Kant pointed out, making this maxim into a universal law would be clearly self-defeating. The entire practice of lending money on promise presupposes at least the honest intention to repay; if this condition were universally ignored, the (universally) false promises would never be effective as methods of borrowing. Since the universalized maxim is contradictory in and of itself, no one could will it to be law, and Kant concluded that we have a perfect duty (to which there can never be any exceptions whatsoever) not to act in this manner.'
On the other hand:
'Someone who lives comfortably but contemplates refusing any assistance to people who are struggling under great hardships. The maxim here would be that it is permissible never to help those who are less well-off than ourselves. Although Kant conceded that no direct contradiction would result from the universalization of such a rule of conduct, he argued that no one could consistently will that it become the universal law, since even the most fortunate among us rightly allow for the possibility that we may at some future time find ourselves in need of the benevolence of others. Here we have only an imperfect duty not act so selfishly, since particular instances may require exceptions to the rule when it conflicts either with another imperfect duty (e.g., when I don't have enough money to help everyone in need) or a perfect duty (e.g., if the only way to get more money would be under a false promise).'
So in other words Kant is saying act only in a way that you would want all men to act. So if I want to murder someone; I would need to make this into a universal law, and only then can this action be right. Good actions should be universalisable and free, therefore Kant said one fact is undisputable and that is the existence of a moral law, he said everyone can detect a moral law and have the duty to do so seek for the highest form of good which he called the 'summum bonum' . This led him to argue that God exists as no-one on earth can achieve 'summum bonum' so there must be someone who can, he defined that someone to be god.
Accordingly Kant says good actions should be universalisable and free, so basically when making our ethical decisions we should ask ourselves a simple question "What if everybody did that?" f the answer is no, then the categorical imperative tells us that the action is wrong. So if I cheated on my A-level exam to pass and be successful in the future, this would be my maxim, however I would not want others to do the same and therefore this action would be wrong according to Kants Categorical Imperative. My cheating pre-supposes that most people do not cheat even though they have the same reasons to cheat as I have.
So as a result Kants ethical theory can often be described as an idealistic view (tells you what you should be doing but doesn't take into account real life situations and consequences) So it is therefore inevitably in conflict with Utilitarianism as Kants approach rubbishes all motive and only the action is important, compassion and love hold no significance. Kant calls Utilitarianism "Morally repugnant" and "Calculated"
Kant's theory has many strengths, one strength being that it is absolute and deontological; to many people this is a strength as with the rules being deontological they don't change. You can avoid debate, as many of the moral laws are common in most societies, I.e. do not kill, therefore it could be argued that the rules are universal. It gives a kind of assurance about how to behave and live our life, many people then strive towards the same goals and values, taking away any uncertainty. This is an imperative strength of the theory.
Another essential strength of the theory is to do with bad actions, such as murder, rape, adultery; these are clearly bad in this approach. I.e. a man could easily argue that extra-marital sex is ok with a married woman, because he "loves" her and her husband does not. This doesn't necessarily make the action right. Therefore Kant's ethical theory recognizes these actions are wrong and are never allowed, it therefore inevitably also appreciates human rights, and it gives guidance.
Furthermore it is always based on distributive justice, unlike other theories such as Utilitarianism which simply rules out the possibility of the minority being virtuous and right. So this theory cannot be defined as selfish as it isn't based on one sections action over another, rather one action applies to all beings, and therefore it doesn't allow any action to be performed under the means of selfishness. 'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end' So in other words, Kant says that it can never be right to treat people just as a means to satisfy some other selfish end. Therefore it can never be right to treat human beings greedily and selfishly to satisfy our happiness or to treat any group of people as a minority that does not matter. This view is also supported by the teachings of Jesus 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. This is a key strength of Kant's theory as it simply does not allow selfishness and the exploitation of minorities. So this puts Kant's theory directly in opposition to Joseph Fletchers Situation Ethics and Utilitarianism.
It is also based on an official decision for rationality, and therefore prevents any rash decisions from being made under pressure or influence of emotions. 'So act as if you were through your maxims a law making member of a kingdom of ends' i.e. in a critical situation I can let my emotions take over me, and therefore end up making some really brainless decision which is not based on wisdom.
However, many people oppose Kant's theory, and exploit its weaknesses. A key weakness being its in-flexibility. It doesn't take the circumstances of a situation into account whereas others such as Utilitarianism or Situation Ethics do i.e. an absolutist approach 'do not kill whatever the circumstances' can lead to all sorts of strange circumstances as the circumstances have not been taken into account i.e. Kants absolutist approach would not have allowed the killing of Hitler regardless of the circumstances 'one must not kill', but then looking back at it, it would have been a bad decision. So it is too rigid, deontological and absolute.
Another weakness of this theory is how it fails to accommodate human emotion. 'The law of love is the ultimate law' (Joseph Fletcher) this theory demands that laws be put first above al humans so people will see this as an weakness as it doesn't always seek the well being off others. It leaves love meaningless and love is seen to be universally good. It also doesn't judge each situation on its own merits rather on some law. This is a strong point a situationist would raise. It doesn't make allowances for compassion or sympathy in motivating our actions.
And what about the categorical imperative, is it a good way of testing right or wrong? Many people will also raise this question. If we are to act according to our duty, then how do we deal with conflicting duties (i.e. the war in Vietnam, telling the truth might conflict with saving a life, or what about lying to save a friends life from a manic intent on killing him)
Its concept of 'Duty also raises many weaknesses': don't we as general reasoning human beings want to know more about its contents? Are we satisfied with being told 'do you duty'??? Why should we do the supposed duty without being told why? Isn't this injustice. This is a weakness of the theory.
So far the arguments for and against Kants ethical theory we have looked at provide a hugely contrasting picture. The basic contradictions seem to be between love and law, on one hand we have Kant arguing that all decisions should be made based on the moral law inherent in the universe and on the other hand we have others saying that leaves no value for love, compassion, emotion etc. These seem to be the basic contradictions.
In conclusion I believe Kant's theory is not a very effective guide to human behaviour as it is contradictory, and how far can duty maybe lead to a disastrous outcome; there is no space for common sense i.e. not killing Hitler lead to the holocaust. Consequences should be taken into account!
References:
RS Textbook (Pg 143)
Puzzle of Ethics- Peter Vardey (Pg 53)
Website-(http://web.tepper.cmu.edu/jnh/informs03ethics.ppt#276,17,Strengths%20of%20Kantian%20ethics)
Mohsin Ali Raja
Re, Ethics, 07/05/2007
