Kants morally impermissible actions - Essay Example

5th April Kant’s morally impermissible actions Deontological ethical theory Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher proposed the theory of deontological ethical theory; this has the foundation on the point that only essentially good will is derived from a good thing. This implies that an action is evaluated when the motives or maxim behind it are evaluated, these can be looked at from two angles. First, evaluation of actions by taking into consideration their consequences, this is rejected, a person can control motives and purpose but lack the inability to control the consequences of his/her actions. Secondly what is ‘ought’ means ‘can’ this means that a person is held responsible morally only for a limited number of actions that are under his/her control. Logic as the Basis for Ethics: What action can be described as permissible and hence the converse implies impermissibility? An action is said to be permissible if its cause can be found to be logically consistent and an action is said to be impermissible if its cause is found to be irrational, inconsistent or contradictory (Sullivan 163). This arguments aid in avoidance of mistake and prejudice, provides tenable defense of moral motives, and implies a reply to moral skeptics. The argument can also be said to provide moral universality theory and to give the impression that immorality implies inconsistency and irrationality. For an action to be praiseworthy, the action must have foundation on a logically rational or consistent motive. A praiseworthy action is one that has foundation on a given motive that is obeying the moral law, moral laws are those that are consistent for everyone and are applicable to every other person. Permissible actions are as defined above are those that are because of a consistent motive and are done out of moral duty. The Categorical Imperative: Kant suggested that the moral duty is given to an agent by reason as a categorical imperative (McCracken 131) a person is told how to behave out of an imperative statement. Imperative statements can be considered on two occasions, hypothetical imperative is built on commands for accomplish a particular objective; categorical imperative is modeled on natural law. This becomes the focal point of Kant’s moral principle; to him the foundation of the principle cannot be anything but absolute. An attempt to rationalize morally impermissible behavior will prove self-defeating; this is known as morally impressible action (McCracken 131). An act is impermissible if and only if the action is acted upon the foundation of the maxim that a person cannot will to a universal law; therefore, the permissible action implies the converse. This implies that a person will do an action given the circumstance and because of a certain motive, this gives the reason for the action-the maxim. Every person will do actions given the set of circumstances and because of those motives; this means that a person’s actions is consistent with everyone’s actions. The murder example If a person is considering killing another person for egoistic reasons, because, the other person is committing adultery with his wife, consider the impermissibility of this case. The action, which is murder for egoistic reasons this gives the circumstance and finally the motive, is adultery. Every person will kill those people for egoistic reasons, because, these people have committed adultery with their wives. The first argument provides the maxim principle while the second argument provides the universal law; this cannot consistently will that people will commit all those actions this therefore means that the action is impermissible. This example above illustrate classifications of moral duties, the classifications are premised on these divisions, first, the duties to self by implication to others and perfect duties by implication imperfect duties. Perfect duties are done at every other chance whilst the imperfect duties are done at a unique chance but the agent must put thought to it. Violation of that duty generates two types’ contradiction, internal contradiction and external contradiction. Internal contradiction occurs when a given motive or intention draws on an individual to do contradictory actions in the case above the motive of adultery leads to preservation of ego and eliminating competition. External contradiction occurs when the moral agent is facing a dilemma and two different motives lead one to perform conflicting actions. This second formulation is used to offer accurately the given moral principle; this implies that an action is permissible if and only if the agent does not treat rational beings as means to an end. Human beings are rational animals and that only those who have essential value are the rational ones. Treating a person as a means to an end is to use that person only as a tool for achieving one’s own personal objective and ignoring that person’s interest. An impermissible action therefore implies that other people are involuntarily taking part in the action, the resulting benefits are shared equally and they are treated with respect and politeness, in our context above this action is an impermissible action. This therefore means that an action is impermissible in a case where the maxim that permitted it would be one that any person would reject in their reasonable mind. Any action performed in a manner that leads to treating a rational being not as means, but as ends in its self can be argued as those actions being impermissible. This is if and only if they are inconsistent with the notion that human beings are ends in themselves. Utilitarian Objections Murder is wrong in that it does not take into consideration of the maximization of the good; this is inconsistent to those people who are only looking for the opportunity to maximize the results for themselves. His argument further claim that a person must act even if the consequences are evil, the action might be moral this is inconsideration of the evil consequence. Despite the utilitarian objection to Kant’s theory, this theory has foundation on accountability of integrity, an action done accidentally or with evil motive if the intention is to advance evil action is in fact good(Paul et al 151). Conclusion The utilitarian holds the moral agent responsible for the consequence that cannot be predicted, foreseeable, or controllable. There is a reason why objects and things exists, the world is ordered and patterned in a given way and manner. Rationality is supreme in all human beings and that it does not exists in other lesser creatures that are endowed with happiness. Human beings are rational and they can do actions that are beyond the boundaries of love and mere happiness. If human beings are rational, this enables them to differentiate the good action and the evil action not just what makes them happy. Works cited McCracken, Janet. Taste and the Household: The Domestic Aesthetic and Moral Reasoning. New York: SUNY Press, 2001. Print. Paul, Ellen F, Fred D. Miller, and Jeffrey Paul. Human Flourishing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print. Sullivan, Roger J. Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print. Read More