Means of Kantian Morality - Essay Example

Section/# Kantian Morality: A Discussion and Analysis of the Means by which Kantian Morality Can or Should be Utilized to a Greater Extent within the Current Model One of the most attractive aspects of Kantian morality is its simplicity. By this point of the course, the reader should understand that simplicity alone is a bit of a scary metric to seek to objectify and judge a philosophical approach; however, for purposes of this brief response paper, this particular student will seek to weigh and analyze the Kantian approach to morality through the rubric of suitability for worldwide adaptation, rationality, and present a list of positive and negative externalities that necessarily would exist if such an approach were to be adopted wholesale. As a function of approaching the issue from such a perspective, this student hopes to expound upon the overall suitability of Kantian morality and provide a well balanced approach to determining the inherent strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that should an approach would necessarily espouse. In the Kantian approach to ethics and morality, the ultimate identifier of a “good action” is one that is performed out of duty; with no other ulterior motive being present as a means of rewarding or punishing the individual performing the action. Although Kant was not the first individual to support such an approach to morality and ethics, he was the first that has been known to record such an approach and pass it along as a moral code of ethics that, as he argues, should be applied universally. This universality of Kantian morality is one of the hallmarks of such an approach that ultimately makes it unique among the other forms of ethical and moral approaches that have thus far been studied. This universality is born out of an understanding that the main guiding precept that defines goodness is duty. Therefore, the duty, as Kant describes it is not necessarily born out of an imprint of Godliness upon he hearts of mankind; rather, it is born out of the universality of reason in helping to develop moral and ethical approaches to the many situations that greet the individual within his/her daily life (Lachapelle 2005, p. 608). It should of course be noted that Kant never sought to distance God and/or his influence upon morality from his approach. Instead, Kantian morality and ethics take the approach that God is exhibited through reason and rationality and therefore is present within the duties that ultimately lead an individual to perform a moral act for the sake of duty itself. As a means to further this moral approach, Kant argues that the “good of humanity” in and of itself is sufficient enough a cause for encouraging the application of duty upon any given situation. Ultimately, this strikes at the motivation for action which itself Kant is able to trace back to a type of humanism that seeks to extol and ennoble the lives of others and the good of humanity in general as a means of promoting a better and more noble/honorable world full of duty and the ultimate expression of goodness through the unthought-of and unrequited acts of goodness that duty itself necessarily extol within the individual that aspires to such an approach. With regards to one of the greatest strengths of this particular theory of morality, the reader can understand that goodness for the sake of gduty and goodness sake is necessarily something that can and should be striven for. Conversely, on the other side of the analysis, the theory itself espouses several levels of weaknesses that serve to raise questions in the mind of the reader with regards to how effective such an approach would ultimately be in universal practice. The first of these is of course the fact that it appears as if Kantian morality has been created in something of a perfect world and/or perfect environment. Although it is laudable to seek to divorce self interest from moral actions, the fact of the matter is that this is a bit of a utopian response due to the fact the complete divorce of self interest from actions is something of an impossibility. Moreover, the universality of Kantian ethics/morality presents a serious problem. Although at the time when Kant first created such an approach, much of the world outside of Europe was either unknown or categorized as uncivilized and unworthy of the same moral and ethical approaches that can and should be emplaced upon white Europeans. For this reason, the theory of universality does not engage or consider the multi-cultural world in which we currently live or the ways in which different approaches to the same issues might come into conflict based upon prior existing cultural interpretations of a given problem. Similarly, the complete lack of a relativistic approach to morality and/or ethics lends the theory to what many can and appropriately should define as something of totalitarian in application. Although universality can be convenient in helping to succinctly relate a moral theory to an audience, its succinctness belies a layer of issues with relation to the means by which the theory necessarily tramples upon some rather innate differences that exist throughout the world. In conclusion, there is no moral theory that can or should be appropriately applied universally due to the innate differences that exist between the broad spectrum of humanity on earth. Conversely, Kant’s theory of good for the sake of good is something that can and should ultimately be striven towards as an exemplification of humanism and the ways in which people should integrate their beliefs with their actions. By the same token, encouraging moral actions based on duty and second nature rather than seeking to find some other type of impulse or impetus to engage in morally good choices is something that specifically attracts this particular student as it instructs and instills a level of goodness for the sake of goodness without any particular reward (whether temporal or within the hereafter) expected for successful completion of such an action. Reference Lachapelle, E 2005, Morality, Ethics, and Globalization: Lessons from Kant, Hegel, Rawls, and Habermas, Perspectives On Global Development & Technology, 4, 3/4, pp. 603-644, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 February 2013. Read More