Immanuel Kent: Societal Morals, Ethics, Values and Good Will - Research Paper Example

Immanuel Kent: Societal Morals, Ethics, Values and Good Will Introduction Emanuel Kent postulates concepts on moral, ethical and societal values in relation to good will with the aim of arguing the need for treating people with humanity. Through his writings, Kent has described the motivations for good will and the illustration of this concept as an intrinsically developed virtue within human beings. The theories which Kent has postulated have been applied in the descriptions of individual actions and the reasons why they are motivated to acts in such a manner. This research paper explains the morals, values and ethics within the society in relation to how people adhere to them or violate them as defined by the intrinsic value of good will. Good Will Emanuel Kent presents good will in all human actions in relation to ethics, morals and human values. Kent describes good will as the only thing which intrinsically and unqualifiedly good (Roche 664). Nonetheless it is important to consider that there is a difference between what is considered to be intrinsically good and that which is instrumentally good. The former in innate while the latter in defined by external forces or factors within the environment. In the light of this argument therefore, it only makes sense to describe good will as the things which individuals do because they consider them to be moral or ethical regardless of the external influences (Thorpe 461). Good will is therefore the motivation of the positive acts which people demonstrate in daily activities. On the other hand, involvement of individuals on what is considered unethical or against the values of the society is thus an adjunct of bad will. Kent’s description of good will reveals that it is not equal to happiness, wit, intelligence, talent or judgment (Sensen 264). This is because superior abilities or talents that individuals have do not necessarily mean that they will act on the basis of good will. Moreover, mental abilities do not reflect that an individual will do things according to the values, moral and norms of the society (Thorpe 461). This sentiment is demonstrated by the fact that people with mental abilities or talents may use these abilities for bad intentions or purposes and thus revealing actions which are not based on good will. This view of good will as brought forth by Emmanuel Kent only illustrates clearly that good will is a moral or ethical way of doing things and is not determined by the mental abilities or talent. However, mental abilities are not necessarily associated with bad purpose of action (Zermatt 611). When Kent presents good will in the light of happiness, it becomes clear that happiness and good will are not parallel entities. This means that good will does not necessarily reflect that a person is happy. Additionally, people who act against the values or morals of the society may demonstrate aspects of happiness regardless of their bad intentions and actions. Good will is illustrated by Kent as actions which cannot be perverted (Roche 674). Since good will is intrinsic and unqualifiedly good, it is therefore true to say that good will is different from moral, ethics and values which can be deceiving. This is demonstrated by the fact that apparent moral traits such as self control and moderation may be used for bad intentions or purposes. For example a temperate, self controlled and cool criminal may prove to be more dangerous as compared to a more intemperate and passionate one. Additionally, values may be deceiving as an individual could demonstrate compliance to values or ethics with bad intentions (Ranasinghe 299). This justifies Kent’s theory on good will as the only thing which cannot deceive because it emanates from intrinsic self. However, it is necessary to note than in most cases, adherence to morals, values and ethics is a demonstration of an individual’s good will. The distinction between deceiving morals or ethics can however be achieved by a well trained or experienced psychologist. This is demonstrated by the psychological evaluation of suspects and criminals to determine whether their behavior, communication, expressions or actions are actual demonstration of good will or not. Kent’s Moral System Emanuel Kent postulates that morals are objective (Gordon 144). To explain this, Kent presented three major elements within the moral system. Firstly, Kent argues that human beings are created to be rational individuals. This means that all people have the choices and ability to make decisions based on those choices (Sensen 265). In this regard it is argued that some situations in life present people with limited room for making choices. However, the analysis of Kent’s theories on good will illustrates that he presents the ability of making choices which individuals have as a moral right. Additionally, Kent illustrates the choices that people have to make as being based on reason. In this sense therefore, Kent’s theory on morals and good will seem to be centered on the fact that the choices that individuals make must be justified by reason. Kent’s ideas reflect the ethical and moral dilemmas which face individuals within the social and professional life. People are presented by choices and more often than not they may end up making the wrong choice. In accordance to the postulates of Emanuel Kent, wrong choices are motivated by bad intensions or lack of moral ethics (Zermatt 614). Another element within Kent’s moral system is that all human being are created with an intrinsic and inevitable moral value (Gordon 144). This means that within an individual there are values which are considered as moral and play the role of defining determining the course of action which people take. Because of the intrinsic moral value that individuals, a feeling of guilt is felt when actions go against what is considered to be moral (Roche 680). However the level at which people experience this guilt varies depending on one’s personality, social environment and experience. This is demonstrated by the different abilities which people demonstrated in concealing bad actions or crime. While one individual may be engulfed by guilty to an extent of exposing a crime that they have committed, others may be adamant and illustrate behavior of total innocence. Nonetheless human beings normally require speaking to a specific individual about their inner feelings. People may therefore choose to talk to a close family member, a friend or a psychologist. Opening up about actions which violate what is considered to be moral resolves the internal conflict which often builds within an individual. When Kent asserts that individuals have an intrinsic or innate moral value, he intends to illustrate that human beings are not only means because they are also an end to means (Thorpe 461). The moral system as presented by Emmanuel Kent finally demonstrates that human beings are the authors and determinants of the moral law (Ranasinghe 299). This means that human beings are created with a moral autonomy. In other words, where morals are concerned, individuals are autonomous and thus what they consider to be moral defines actions. In the same line of argument, it has been revealed that different societies and environments define morality differently. As a result, what is considered to be moral in one society may be completely unethical or a violation of the values of another society. In addition, a person may belief that what is done is moral and right while others find it to be conflicting to the moral law even within the same society. As the authors of moral law, human beings are therefore the determinants of what is defined to be right. Kent’s moral system is the motivation for the societal rules or regulations which provide a standard for what is right so that actions which violate societal laws are punished regardless of whether they are considered by the criminal to be morally right or not. Societal Ethics, Values and Good Will According to Emmanuel Kent, there is a “categorical imperative” within the societal values and ethics which define good will. Kent thus postulates that individuals must act only on a specific maxim which is desired to be congruent to the universal law (Zermatt 624). Kent’s definition of societal ethics therefore is in the light of the fact that ethical actions must be parallel with what is universally acceptable. In an organization for example, ethical practice by an individual is what the whole organization would consider to be right. However, there is culture within societies or organizations which would be against the universal law. For example, in hiring, a manager may stick to the cultural values or the organization and thus violate the universal ethic of non discrimination. Therefore, the ideal approach of implementing societal values or morals is making use of the intrinsic good will within an individual. In this sense, it is clear that good will overrides what the society considers to be of moral value or ethical. Kent’s presentation of societal ethics and values shows that individuals should act in a manner which reflects good treatment to humanity (Gordon 144). Humanity in this sense means that the way people should be treated should be right and moral. Good treatment of people must be practiced regardless of age, gender, race, nationality, skin color, tribe, religion, political or economic standing. In the contemporary society, Kent’s theories on morals, ethics and values as they relate to good will are applicable in the discouragement of any form of action which demonstrates discrimination. Moreover, many governments have instilled the morality in treatment of humanity into their regulations and laws. Additionally, ethical frameworks in various organizations are in line with Kent’s postulates on ethics and adherence of values for humanity. Furthermore, regulatory bodies such as those which provide standards for health care professionals and psychologists have implemented their ethical framework in accordance with the description that Kent presented on issues of morality, values, ethics and good will in general. Within the society, Kent proposes that there is a “kingdom of ends” (Sensen 275). This means that individuals freely and naturally obey the categorical imperative. As a result, human actions are driven by the need to treat others with humanity. This illustrates the intrinsically embedded good will which mandates people to act in line with the kingdom of ends which is a group of values, morals and ethics which define actions in relation to a motive of treating all people with humanity (Ranasinghe 299). However, it has been revealed by psychological research that people normally deviate from adherence to the categorical imperative due to organic or social reasons (Roche 686). This deviation is the explanation for the anti social behavior which individuals within the society engage in. Moreover, social conflict would drive people into criminal behavior and involvement in drug abuse and addiction, actions which are considered to be against the values of the society in general. This explains why psychologist endeavors to find an understanding of the root cause of an individual’s problems by analysis actions against the societal values to determine the causation of conflict and thus prescribe treatment. If individuals obey the categorical imperative, an ideal community called “utopia” will be realized (Zermatt 630). However, it is not possible to attain a perfect community because inevitable psychological and social conflicts are doomed to arise and result into actions which violate the social morals, ethics and values for the general good will of humanity. Moral Worth and Good Will Kent describes human beings as having a sense of duty to apply proper motive which is considered to be the source of moral worth and expressions of good will (Sensen 272). Kent’s postulates are against utilitarian theories which argue that moral worth of human action is driven by the expected consequences which would emanate from actions which are in violation of the values, ethics and laws of the society (Thorpe 461). The moral worth of actions is described by Kent in relation to motive. For example, a criminal who unsuccessfully attempts to murder another person is as worse as the person who commits an actual murder successfully. This is because the motive of the two individuals is the same. Kent’s theory of the moral worth of various actions serves to demonstrate that the consequences of the things that people do are often beyond their control (Ranasinghe 299). The moral motive for good will is described by Kent as the desire to do what is right for other people with a desire of making them happy (Gordon 144). However, the moral worth of human actions may be motivated by rationality and the general desire of doing what is logical and beneficial. In this perspective, Kent’s theory on good will is interpreted as the desire of people to obey what is considered to be the moral law and not the need for bringing happiness to others. It is thus true Kent’s theory that the moral worth of human actions can be explained. This is because actions may be motivated by the need to benefit from a situation and not through good will (Zermatt 618). Furthermore, there are dutiful actions or obligations which people are given which would not be driven by moral worth or god will. Additionally, there are many motives which psychologists employ in the definition of the moral worth of individuals’ action. For example people would be seeking honor or attainment of respect from the society and as a result present actions which mimics good will when in the actual sense the motivation of such actions has nothing to do with the intrinsic need of doing what is considered to be morally good. Moral worth of human actions can also be defined in relation to the ethics and values of the society. For example, people often engage in doing what is morally considered to be good by the society because they desire to adhere to the values which the society considers true. Furthermore, the element of religion has been described by Kent to a large extent through his writings. The moral worth of human actions is described in relation to the religious belief in God. In this regard the actions which people demonstrate are often than not defined by the belief in a divine being. Kent says that individuals should act on the basis of morality and belief even if they do not consider a divine power to be in existence (Roche 690). This demonstrates that beyond the societal values and ethics, individuals often act with a desire of being congruent with the provisions of a religious affiliation or divine power. Works cited Zermatt, Scutt, Marie. “Kent’s Moral Theology”. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 2010:18.4, 611-633 Roche, Andrew. “Kent’s Principle of Sense”. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 2010, 18.4, 663-691 Ranasinghe, Nalin. "Ethics for the Little Man: Kant, Eichmann, and the Banality of Evil." Journal of Value Inquiry, 2002, 36.2-3: 299 Gordon, David. "Unnecessary Evil: History and Moral Progress in the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant." Library Journal, 2000, 125.20: 144 Thorpe, Lucas. "The Point of Studying Ethics According to Kant." Journal of Value Inquiry, 2006, 40.4: 461 Sensen, Oliver. “Kent’s Conception of Inner Value”, European Journal of Philosophy, 2011, 19.2, 262-280 Read More