Kants Moral Obligation - Literature review Example

Moral obligation The issue of morality has sparked controversies considering the fact that various philosophers such as Kant and Hutcheson have given it different perspectives where the former insists that it is a function of rationality while the latter emphasizing on the role of obligation in morality. Indeed, moral obligation may have different meanings depending on the situation, the circumstances, and the persons discussing the concept but generally, it may infer to a set of codes of conduct that people tend to follow based on the motivating factors at hand. A psychology philosopher named Immanuel Kant projected the voice of reason and rationality as the major motivating factors when it came to the issue of moral obligation. Hutcheson on the other hand, based the issue of morality on individual obligation and benevolence, positing that the reasons for benevolent acts did not matter after all (Stern 32). This paper presents Kant’s argument of moral obligation, how Hutcheson would have argued in response to Kant’s claim’s, and finally evaluating the two authors based on their explanations to see who between them presents a more reasonable argument. According to Stern, Kant’s principle of moral principles and obligations are arguably on of the finest of ethical theories as stipulated in the deontological theory (36). In his argument, Kant asserts that human beings are uniquely and essentially rational beings meaning that every individual uses the power of reason to make decisions on the appropriate actions to take. He emphasizes the need to have good will beforehand in order to conceive and achieve all the essential things in life. Timmons state in this regard, that the logic would play an important role in determining whether the perceived act will bring any good thing without ‘qualification’ (206). A good thing without qualification would only have two extremities including the good and the bad and nothing in between. Therefore, individuals use their reasoning capacity to identify the acts with good consequences. While individuals accomplish their desires out of good will, it is equally important to note that good will is the only virtue that has the aspect of universal absolute good (Timmons 207). This means that every good thing including wealth, honor, and riches may turn to be bad things in the end if individuals harbor ill wills for accomplishing their missions. However, people can perpetuate the good things if they have good intentions and wills making their deeds good in universal terms. In this sense, rationality comes into play in the sense that people who have good intentions motivated by their positive reasoning will always accomplish good things in the society (Stern 45). While happiness may derive from a particular action does not accentuate the moral obligation of that action, as the idea of happiness is too empirical and indefinite to serve as a concept for moral obligation (Timmons 208). It is indefinite because people differ in tastes, preference, and enjoyments, while it is empirical in the sense that people actually understand that by experience, they can make decisions that bring them happiness. In revisit of the concept of good will, people act because they strongly believe that they have a moral duty or they are morally obliged to perform certain tasks. The consequences in this case according to Stern, do not play an important role in deciding to engage in such deeds (Stern 62). Individual inclination principles on the other hand, influence our actions in that reason recognizes our principles that in turn determine our motive in the quest of accomplishing our moral duty. This simply means that reason is the sole determinant of moral responsibility as Kant describes an individual will that derives from their principles play an essential role in materializing their moral obligation (Zakai 316). Although other factors such as consequence and happiness may have some impact on the moral duty of an individual, their main motivating factor for taking certain actions rests with their sense of rationality. Since only rational beings can act in a moral way and all humans are rational, it is appropriate to deduce that all individuals have the same moral responsibilities that come in equal measure. This from of consistency in the concept of moral obligation emphasizes on the universal law as posited by Kant in his theory of moral obligation (Stern 74). In response to Kant’s proposition, Hutcheson would take a completely different path as far as the principle of moral obligation is concerned. While Kant’s principles of moral responsibility were based on universalizability, reciprocity, and human dignity, Hutcheson insisted that benevolence was the key principle of moral obligation. In this regard, the motivating factors in undertaking certain actions were the benevolent and moral aspect of those particular actions as opposed to the rationality of the idea in question. Francis Hutcheson in his theory believes that in every moral proposition, the obligation of the actions superseded the moral righteousness of the undertakings. This school of thought completely disregarded the concept of consequences but instead focused on the reflection and sensation of moral obligations in order to determine whether the deeds in question possessed aspects of benevolence. In this concept, Hutcheson strongly believes that a person who undertakes moral obligations out of benevolence derives more happiness than an individual motivated by any other reason (Raphael 93). Therefore, Hutcheson would respond by first discrediting the fact that reason is the sole motivator of moral responsibility but instead would insist that moral sense and benevolence are essential in this issue. Another response that Hutcheson would give in accordance to Kant’s argument would be the fact that happiness is a key component of moral responsibility as individuals who perform moral duties out of benevolence and moral right more often than not derive happiness from their respective acts. From the two authors, critical issues and concepts concerning moral responsibilities and its motivating factors rise. While Francis Hutcheson brings out a strong point in placing emphasis to obligation, moral right, and benevolence as the key factors of moral duty (Raphael 94). His argument does not present elaborate explanation as to why human dignity and the universal law cannot apply to concept of moral obligation. According to Ward, Kant uses theories of meta-ethics in his argument here he does not admit whether moral imperatives should also form part of the universal laws for instance, Kant does not elucidate on whether the keeping of one’s promises is a moral imperative (154). Although this notion draws some strong criticisms against him, Kant generally presents better arguments concerning the concept of moral obligation and to a larger extent moral philosophy. This is because Kant gives the concept of moral obligation a universal and intelligent approach as opposed to Hutcheson that supports his argument by moral rights only (Ward 155). Works Cited Raphael, David D. Concepts of Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. Print. Stern, Robert. Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. Timmons, Mark. Moral Theory: An Introduction. 2013. Print. Ward, Andrew. Kant: The Three Critiques. Cambridge: Polity, 2006. Print. Zakai, Avihu. Jonathan Edwards's Philosophy of History: The Reenchantment of the World in the Age of Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Print. Read More