Kant's Moral Philosophy - Term Paper Example

Kant's Moral Philosophy Introduction The issue of ethics particularly in determining which of its many principles is applicable as a best guide in a real world setting can indeed be murky. The real world is not neat and there a lot of factors to consider before electing a best guide to determine and guide one’s actions. Of all ethical principles available, I personally, I believe that the best ethical guidance in today’s world is Kant’s deontological ethics. Argument or view Kant’s Deontology posits that the best way to act morally to act from duty with the consideration of the highest good, that is, a good without condition which is intrinsically good by itself (Kant, 1780). He formulated his deontological ethics in a categorical imperative of doing good for the sake of good regardless of its consequence (Kant, 1785). Explication of argument To effectively argue that Kantian Deontology is the correct moral theory, it would be necessary to explain the formulation that executes Kant’s deontology which is categorical imperative. According to Kant, imperatives imply what they meant which are command such as “wake up early”. Often they are hypothetical imperative because they only serve a specific objective or purpose such as “wake up early so you will not be later for work. This imperative or command becomes categorical when it is applied universally and that the actions and decisions of individuals are to be judged solely by their motivations and that the consequences do not matter morally (as in the case of hypothetical imperative) neither the intended consequences nor the actual consequences matter morally; only the principle or rule we follow if we do the action matters morally. In simpler terms, this meant doing what is good regardless of consequence and that by doing is an end by itself. Thus, actions themselves become an end and this action should be a rational result in the exercise of freewill Consistent to this, Kant’s categorical imperative states that every person has the duty to use and exercise his goodness/humanity as a means to an end. The application of Kant’s categorical imperative is best illustrated in slave ownership. A slave owner may assert his right to own a property which in this case is a slave. While ownership by itself is not immoral, slave ownership becomes unethical or immoral according to Kant’s categorical imperative because it deprives a person of his free rational action and that persons can never be a mere means to an end (Johnson, 2012). One distinct characteristic of Kant’s categorical imperative is that it is universal and inflexible that it applies to everyone without exception. For Kant, neither good nor bad luck affects in assessing the moral act of a person. His idea of “goodwill” did not become good because it serves an end or objective but because it intends to do “good” regardless of the consequence. Objection The best objection to Kant’s deontological ethics as formulated by categorical imperative is Thomas Nagel’s argument about moral luck. Unlike Kant, Thomas Nagel makes an exception through his assertion of moral luck that there are a broad range of externalities that affects moral judgment. Moral luck occurs when “an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control” (Nelkin, 2013). It meant that we should only be assessed morally only to the extent that the factors attendant to the circumstances of our actions that we can control as stated in his “control principle”. This argument also hold sway because it consider the realities and externalities of which an action must be carried out and therefore, an act is best judged by considering its environment. Unlike Kant who is bent on stringent rules that we should do good all the time regardless of circumstances, Nagel’s theory on moral luck is more forgiving. Another ethical principle that is diametrically opposed to Kant’s deontology of categorical imperative is ethical relativism which state that there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own (Velasquez et. al, nd). Reply Moral luck and/or ethical relativism as a sole determinant of a certain course of action bears unsatisfactory implication related to the correctness of any action or decision. One of its unsatisfactory implications is that it holds that the concept of right and wrong of any moral beliefs is dependent on what the situation of the individual in the case of Nagel’s Moral Luck and the norm of a certain society (ethical relativism). These ethical alternatives are flawed because there are moral laws that are constant regardless of any situation or society that an individual is in. Right and wrong does not change with time, society or circumstances nor can wrong be justified. These ethical concepts are also unsatisfactory because it does not offer any room to rectify or for moral improvement because it already hold that a certain action is right because society and situation said so even if it is wrong. Lastly, it is not an ideal ethical principle to establish order in society because the concept of right and wrong Conclusion Practicing Kant’s deontological ethics which is to do good all the time regardless of situation and circumstances will not only address the social ills that the lack of ethics created (corporate scandal, increased crime, etch) but is also an ideal way to direct our lives. It will also make our society, and our world a better place to live in because people wants to do good for its own sake and not because it is only a means to achieve or get something nor would not attempt to justify evil through ethical relativist reasoning. We will also begin believing in each other that if we see someone good, we will appreciate the act and reciprocate instead of being guarded that the person is up to something else. It will prevent society from justifying evil or immoral acts because deontological ethics will not provide any excuse for us to do evil or immoral acts. References Johnson, Robert, "Kant's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Kant, Immanuel(1785). "First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical", Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Kant, Immanuel (1780). "Preface". In The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott Nelkin, Dana K., "Moral Luck", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = . Velasquez, Manuel ; Andre, Claire; Shanks, S.J ,Thomas; Meyer, Michael J. (nd). Ethical relativism. Santa Clara University. Online. Available at http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html [accessed April 12, 2012). Read More