The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals - Essay Example

Kantian Philosophy Kant’s desire to look for a morality in a universal principle can be seen in the manner of his argumentation in his book the “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” 1 In this book, specifically on the preface, it can be seen that Kant’s logic can be drawn from the paradigms of reason and subjectivity, which can be of clash with each other; a possible hindrance to achieving a universal philosophy accordingly. In my attempt to delineate what is universal and empirical in Kant’s philosophical though and inquiry, I shall explore the connection between happiness and goodness and provide a logical analysis on my part to clearly show how a certain thing can be empirical or universal. At the same time, I shall work on the idea of reason in influencing how happiness and goodness work in relation to the universal and the empirical. Principle of a good will is important because it determines the extent and the scope of what might be the effect and the accomplishments of it. 2 Having such condition, it can be considered that goodness may be considered universal depending on the purpose behind it. Having that said, one can observe that a good intention may or may not result into something beneficial even if helping can be considered morally good in its own right. People will always work out the presumptions that surround goodwill. 3 This is where things can be considered to be jumping out the universal condition that Kant tries to achieve. However, one cannot disregard the fact that inclinations are subjective which can devalue the universal condition. I would like to draw a connection between Kant’s notions towards happiness which can be connected to how the universality of a certain will can be considered absurd. Desire is one of the key concepts that Kant has put into place as he provides reasoning on how happiness works. 4 Possibly, it is a natural phenomenon experienced by people since it is natural and universal to show desire. However, the very subjectivity of it limits it be observable in the case of an individual and cannot be considered to be highly applicable in most cases. Variations then emerge. How does reason gives a condition to attain both of the phenomena? Goodness and Happiness are both subjective but reason has a certain conditioning it imposes on it to allow to materialize universally and empirically. However, Kant points out that duty has a certain influence on how happiness and goodness can be achieved. Reasoning provides the condition where duty cannot be considered universal or far from universal due to the inherent personal will that a person imposes on duty. 5 The subjectivity that has emerged from it became the influential condition as to how one may argue that goodness and happiness are done. Goodness is seen based on how a person does not want to abuse another person; however, there is still a personal bias that there is a way to look for happiness in the manner of achieving goodness. Analytically, it can be seen that happiness and goodness cannot be separated. The universality of it, presumably, can be seen on how people feel it and act on it. Its practical use is already universal in its own right. It just becomes empirical as the experiences of it vary accordingly to contexts. Extensively, it can be seen that goodness is inherent in humans because of reasoning that there is a need to keep things on order and by doing so, happiness is achieved. This becomes a highly synthetic and a dual paradigm of action. One may act for both goodness and happiness with separating it. The very manner of acting the happiness and goodness is already universal in its own right since it people have a moral inclination to do such. Experiences are the ones that make the universality empirical since it is even safe to say that Kant’s philosophy is relatively individualistic in nature. In this case, will become one of the most important conditions since its imperativeness make it part of practical and universal thought. Will is considered to be independent once it follows reason. 6 At the same it can be connected to categorical imperatives since these categories are determined by reason as well. Categorical imperatives are limitations since this provides a condition for compliance: a maxim which accords to the rule of practical law. 7 Practical law, in return, poses no limitations and restriction since it has confined the categorical imperative in its universality. 8 At the same time, the practical law is hugely dependent on reason since it also serves as an end in itself. 9 What seems to be the implication of this? It can be assumed and simplified that reason is the one that makes something universal and morally correct. At the same time, it also extends to an analysis that the universality of reason focuses on how an individual makes something universal. This, I consider, follows the conventions of Kant’s individualist approach in his philosophy. Thus, it can be considered that humans, by reason, are the ones that make things universal and possibly creating a universe of universalities as the case may be upon synthesizing. Nevertheless, one must scrutinize the importance to delineate the role of reason especially when happiness and goodness are at stake. Analytically, one can see that Kant puts up a premium on reason in achieving a universal law, devaluing the empirical conditions that can still be considered a universal feeling or experience which varies in terms of context and individuality. Objectivity and subjectivity is in a clash in the same manner as the empirical and the universal does. One must understand that people have oftentimes counted so much on reason without any regard to the experience which can still provide a logical and universal explanation on things. It can be conceded, analytically, that experiences might have flaws. Reason cannot be considered perfect after all. It will still have its flaws and deficiencies. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that Kant’s individualistic philosophy will always have man as its foundations. It is even man who formulates the universality of things by the faculty of reason. However, man must not devalue the worth of an experience because it is still something that possess knowledge and logic that cannot be confined by reason that is indeterminable and contextually – based. In the end, Kant’s philosophy is focusing on morality that both be assessed on the personal and social standards because of the compliance of empirical and universal to the aforementioned conventions respectively. Yes, dangers are present whenever there is a quest to look for moral philosophy universally. Nevertheless, ethical judgment is a need to ensure that will, imperatives and laws shall go hand in hand will not be inconsistent with each other. How is this related to the article of Gelfert on Kant? Basically, it is through the individualistic and empirical conditions present in it. Kant’s ethics and philosophy can be considered to be one of the prominent epistemological inquiries developed that is being used until now. Axel Gelfert’s article entitled “Kant on Testimony” focuses on the application and analysis of the philosophical framework proposed by Kant. Reason is one of the fundamental things that Kant uses in his philosophy. In the paper of Axel Gelfert, he tries to provide conditions about how reason is used in accordance to a testimony. 10 These are the following: ineliminability of testimony, testimony establishing empirical knowledge and certainty, presumptive acceptance of it, and symmetry between experience and testimony. 11 Experience and testimony coexist. It can be seen that both have a mutual connection with each other. The veracity of the testimony can be assessed by the experience itself. To delineate where the empirical knowledge of testimony exists, the conventions must be applied carefully, which are the personal and the social. Experience can be judged on the personal and the social level. Reasoning paves way for the understanding of the experience. The personal allows an individual to share an experience. This is where the validity of it can be subjected by the individual where he or she will lie to himself or herself. Given this case, the individual is already capable of deliberating whether there is a lie that occurs. Analytically, the person is already a preventive mechanism for lie not to occur as reasoning guides it. However, exposition to certain social factors can distort or devalue the experience whenever it is testified. For the individual, the experience and testimony can be valid and can be knowledgeable on its own. This is where the knowledge about the experience and testimony materializes. These are the main points of Gelfert’s paper. BIBLIOGRAPHY Gelfert, Axel. "Kant on Testimony." British Journal for the History of Philosophy (2006) 627 - 652. Immanuel Kant. "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals." trans. James Ellington. Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis (1993). Read More