Indicating that an act that has been adopted across the world is ethical. Secondly, it advocates for the protection of the human dignity; people should not just be used, humanity should be treated as an end and not in any way as the means. Finally, it advocates for an act that exemplifies fairness from all directions, that is, a person’s act should be conscious of both the actor and the one being affected by the actions. In this proposition by Kant, reciprocity of actions is very important (Wike & Showler, 2010). In this essay, I will put into perspective the application of this theory in incidences of violence that entails both self-defense and proactive violence.
According to the Kantian theory, morality is not based exclusively on reasoning but also the moral worth of a given action. Engaging in act of violence can be considered moral when the reason behind the engagement can be validated. Though it is important for an individual to apply their reasoning before they act, it is of essence that they are weigh whether the act can be universalized (Wood, 2012). For example, when a thief that has been terrorizing people and poses a threat to the community to the society, the moral worth of such an action can be established. According to Kant’s predispositions, the moral status of humans is based on their rationality; this means humans have the capacity to distinguish what is moral and what is not, hence some sort of universalizability. Therefore, it is possible to point to a moral action based on the extent to which we are able to apply our reasoning. However, despite the human rationality predicting the moral position taken, the basis of the judgment made is not clearly defined. Kant’s argument that reasoning also plays a pivotal role in the determination of the morality has a strong basis since humans not only acts on impulses but also on reasoning (Sullivan, 1989). Therefore, engagement in violent activities is an interplay of the two