However, absolutism also presents a difficulty in that there is inflexibility in Kant’s thinking. While we accept stealing is wrong and against the law, an extreme situation where someone is starving may require a different response. Kant does not bring emotion into his theory where fletcher does, fletcher would say that the circumstance is the main focus of the entire situation however Kant would say that the outcome and the act is the crucial focus of the situation. Kant does not seem to consider the theory that emotion is a natural part of the human mind and body. Kant’s theory is made for and from reason and reason alone. Kant’s theory is too abstract to make an effective moral theory, Kant believed that to be ‘fully human’ meant to be rational and free from our animalistic instincts, this is unrealistic out animal instincts and emotions come into almost all of our decisions such as stealing to rebel or stealing for food because you need to feed your family. The theory is too abstract and unrealistic.
The principle of the universal law seems to provide a useful principle in making moral decisions. It bears some similarities to the golden rule of religion ‘treat others how you wish to be treated’. It treats each person equally and stops us from making ourselves a special case. Kant has made his theory similar to this rule, Kant includes that if we are free from our instincts and rational in our decision making then we can know what is right and wrong. Then universally a person would want an absolute answer to a question, yes, no right and wrong. However Kant says we should not do this if we are trying to make it lead to good consequences such as no pain for a person rather than a lifetime a pain. Kant believes that every person wants an honest answer to a question or situation so we should do and say the right thing because it is the right thing to do rather than because it might have a better outcome than the alternative. This was famously named as the ‘Good Will’.
On the other hand, some situations are very extreme for the right thing to do. The outcome does matter in some. We may have told the truth to a murderer of where his victim was, and he would go on to kill them. We would feel guilty since out honestly led to a person’s life being taken. Kant does not specify what guilt is, he doesn’t express if it is an animal instinct or a reasonable feeling. Guilt can come from making a reasonable decision such as right or wrong, but it can also come from an emotional decision such as punching someone because they insulted you.
Lastly, Kantian ethics is rational and as such is not based on the changeable nature of our emotions, hence we get sound and reasoned decisions. This is helpful in circumstances such as euthanasia – the act of taking someone’s life is not right in the mind of moral law however emotions would say that it depends on the circumstance if it is right or wrong. On the other hand, Kant is too idelaised – he has created a eutopia in his theory whereas the world is not like that. The world is a lot more complex and needs an equal balance of all factors taken into account such as emotions, reason and animalistic instincts. Situations in the modern world are far too complex to fit into a box of right or wrong or truth or lie. There needs to be some relativity in this theory.
In conclusion, I believe Kants theory is far too abstract to make an effective moral theory mainly because he has created a eutopia rather than making his theory fit into the real world. Kants theory is an excellent theory as a whole and if the world weren’t so complex and situations weren’t so relative it would make an extremely effective theory. One that I would wish all to follow. But it simply comes down to that Kant created a eutopia in a world were no one will or can follow it down to the detail.
by
medinafaithrobertsgmailcom (student)
