Kant, Why So Absolute?

Kant begins by defining his particular meaning of love and respect in regards to both always being combined as one duty according with the law (Metaphysics 448) that we, as rational beings, would legislate upon ourselves. Both are abstracted from any kind of sentimental connotation, and are instead instilled with a sense of practicality.
The duty of free respect to others entailed a negative law of duty. As such, we are free, as intelligent beings to not “exalt oneself above others” (449). Respect is thus a maxim that places intelligent, moral constraints on ones self esteem to prevent him from stepping on the dignity of another person (449). It keeps each person in obligation to himself, within his own bounds (450), and in a sense repulsed from another (449).
So what exactly provides for one person to be attracted to another? As a moral community surely cannot be comprised of people whom have nothing to bind them together; each member must not only keep from trampling on someone else’s dignity, but should actually treat that person as an end in himself rather than a subsequent means to one’s own end. This is precisely where the positive, practical aspect of love within duty makes itself crucial (450).
“The duty to love one’s neighbor can also be expressed as the duty to make the [moral] ends of others my own” (450). In other words, Kant attributes love in this moral-maxim sense insofar as it is accompanied in its definition by respect. Respect is included with love as love points out the necessity of obligating only oneself toward another in a respectful, necessary fashion and within one’s “own bounds” (450). As an obligation toward another person, here we are able to identify the positive practical attribute of duty in love.
I understand the fact that Kant is trying to classify aspects of morality in a generalized manner; however, I find myself rejecting the absoluteness with which he puts forth his claims. When speaking about love and stating that we (I) must keep within “my own bounds” (450), how exactly would these “bounds” be able to be identified cross-culturally as a single, absolute way of one’s obligatory actions in relation to another person? For surely there are norms in some countries that people from a different country would find peculiar, or in the worst-case-scenario, completely disrespectful. For instance, a married woman from Saudi Arabia is required to get her “husband's permission to depart the country, while unmarried women and children require the permission of their father or male guardian” (Saudi Arabia). Many people whom have grown up in the US would likely be very shocked by this treatment of an adult female; nevertheless, with the religious and cultural background of Saudi Arabia, nothing else could be considered more normal in terms of the obligations people have toward one another in that particular country.
So my concern rests in how exactly Kant would be able to explain his way out of such a drastic cultural disparity in terms of moral obligations one person would feel they have toward another. It seems to me that he claims the possibility of an absolute sense of what is moral and what is not. But surely, many unmarried 30-year-old women in the US do not feel morally obliged to ask their fathers’ permission to travel out of the country, thus undermining any applicable absolute rule common to both cultures.
Kant may answer my apprehension toward accepting such an unconditional claim with the use of this example by saying that, A) it has nothing to do with “depriving another of any of the value which he has as a human being” (450), or B) that ways of acting morally toward one another may, indeed, differ with regards to cultural background.
In response to A, I would claim that a relativistic example such as this does have a great deal to do with - in the mindset of the Saudi Arabian culture in the strict sense – the value one would feel in their human dignity, in the sense that if an unmarried woman did not ask her father’s permission (for instance, if she didn’t have the time to), she would most likely feel a negative affect within her own self-value, and her father would probably feel offended in his own person and depraved of fruitful emotional value in some sense. Thus, such a simple cultural norm that differs so drastically from ours can indeed affect the sense of value in at least one person involved. But how exactly would Kant explain this cultural phenomenon of difference in what would affect one’s sense of value? I see nowhere his mentioning anything with reference to the relativity between cultures, religions, or norms. This would be my reply to answer B, as these varieties in what different peoples of this world consider “normal” ways of conducting themselves is not even recognized in his writings. Without explicitly acknowledging culturally-based variation between peoples, I can only assume the absoluteness of his considerations, with which I cannot agree.


"Saudi Arabia." Welcome to Travel.State.Gov. U.S. State Department, 26 May 2009. Web. 31 Mar. 2010. http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1012.html.

Kant's Version of That Speech We All Got in Little League About Having Given It Our Best

For Kant it is impossible to think of anything in the entire world that, “could be considered good without limitation except a good will"(Groundwork 393). All other qualities, can be good, but can also be used for evil, they are not intrinsically good. This good will is not good based off of the ends that may be accomplished, “but because of its volition, that is it is good in itself"(394). Now, Kant goes onto say that the highest purpose of each individual is self-preservation and gaining happiness, and that reason is a pure choice for this activity. Reason, instead, serves a higher purpose and that is the purpose of bringing into fruition a will that is good in itself (396). The good will's specific obligations are called duties.

Kant goes onto to make three propositions about duty. The first being that actions are good when undertaken solely for the sake of duty. However, people tend to conform to duty out of other interests. They may have an immediate inclination, like a shopkeeper who gives everyone the same price, not because shopkeepers have a duty to do this, but because it is in his best interest to have a fair price (397). The second proposition is that an action from duty, "has its moral worth not in the purpose to be attained by it but in the maxim in accordance which it is decided upon"(399), and the moral worth does not matter if the object of the action is realized but that they do it out of duty. If an action is done solely out of duty it is because the actor recognized an a priori moral principle. The third proposition is that, "duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law"(400). All living things can act out from instinct, and in random situations it could lead to something beneficial. Rational beings see that there is a moral law and their actions are out of respect for it. Moral law cannot be based off of specific situations but it must make sense in all situations, being universal. The law of morality causes you to ask the question, "can you also will that your maxim become universal law? If not then it is to be repudiated"(403).

In the beginning of section 2, Kant admits that, "even most of our actions are in conformity with duty"(407), and that it is near impossible to find actions done solely out of duty. However, Kant insists that we should not lose heart. We should recognize that we could not get universal laws from specific situations since they are all dependent of specific circumstances. No single experience can be the source for universal law and applied to all situations.

Now in our society we can see elements of Kant, and elements concerned merely on the outcome. In our society today are we leaning more towards Kant in that we applaud actions only because of their moral worth or solely based on their outcomes? Both are present in today’s society, but which is more prevalent?

Autonomy and Heteronomy

When rational beings pursue the kingdom of ends and morality, an independence of their will is established known as autonomy (Greek for self law, Merriam-Webster dictionary). Autonomous beings are self-legislating and act according to the categorical imperative, their moral actions are taken from the sake of duty alone. An autonomous person’s maxims are in accord with the universal law which is an imperative that human beings will is necessarily bound to the rule (440).
When a rational being’s goals are determined by something other than universal law, and if the will “goes out of itself and seeks the law” in the character of its object then heteronomy results (441). Kant believes that the moral imperative must be abstract from every object so that nothing and no object has any influence on the will (441). This shows that autonomy is consistent with morality and heteronomy is not.
Kant goes on to show us that there are some principles that we would mistake as a basis of morality when in fact they are heteronomous. These two principles are the empirical principle and the rational principle. Empirical principles are unsuited to serve as a foundation for moral laws, they can never have the status of universal laws of nature (442). Rational principles are also heteronomous because they do not come from the pure concept of reason (442). Whenever someone does something in order to attain something else (even if it’s happiness of any kind of desire) the person's will and freedom is determined by that something else which therefore makes it heteronomous (442).
When most people speak of autonomy they mean the way in which an individual is free, however Kant brings up the point that we are most free when we give ourselves a law. Does Kant contradict himself when he says this, or can this be possible?
I think that Kant is trying to establish a common moral law for everyone to follow. For Kant a person is moral only if he acts morally not in his own interest but in the interest of everyone. Everyone is held together by universal laws and this makes the universal laws moral. Kant tells us that an autonomous will produces a universal law for morality that everyone can follow and that a heteronomous will produces false principles of morality that not everyone can follow (441).

The Kingdom of a Common Law

In this second section, Kant goes on to establish why a categorical imperative must exist. He finds that there must be a "supreme practical principle," that is, a categorical imperative (429). He does so by speaking of a "kingdom of ends" in which is a "systematic union of different rational beings through common laws" (433). In the kingdom of ends, a person must treat other people as ends, not as means (429). Kant says that this categorical imperative, or law, is in the context of a "kingdom" because all people must be subject to the law (433).

However, Kant seems to contradict himself when he claims that in the kingdom each rational being can be seen either as a member (legislator) or a sovereign (434). The sovereign is not subject to any will and must be an "independent being without needs" and have "unlimited power adequate to his will" (434). However, Kant does not seem to further discuss the case for the sovereign; perhaps there is only one sovereign, the "Holy One of the gospel" (408). Speaking of the members, Kant says that they are subject to the laws which they, the members, legislate. Within this kingdom, where all people are subject to the law, a member cannot use other people as a means for his end, rather each person must be an end.

In the kingdom, if the laws are universal and not based on a single interest, then they are unconditional (435). Further, morality is a key component of the kingdom, becoming the basis in determining whether or not there is a categorical imperative. Kants says that each legislator must be a moral person because only through moral actions can a person be an ends (435). If each person if moral, then he acts not in his own interest, but on the interest of everyone, producing laws which can be held unconditionally. Thus, the categorical imperative that people are held together by these universal laws which are legislated by the people is true.

As Kant does not seem to further address the issue of a sovereign, does this leave open the possibility for another situation which may support the categorical imperative? Kant's claim that each person must act morally suggests that everyone will indeed act morally. It seems that as soon as not everyone acts morally, the categorical imperative is no longer true. Perhaps there is a condition under which not all people must always be acting morally for this principle to be true. Is this condition the sovereign and is he exempt from factoring into the categorical imperative?

Kant on Imperatives and Universal Law

Kant begins by telling us that there are three imperatives that we must be aware of. The imperatives are techincal (belonging to the art), pragmatic (belonging to welfare), and moral (belonging to free conduct as such, i.e., to morals).(26-7) He then poses the question of how these imperatives are possible. To answer the question, Kant begins to describe the relationship between the wills to the end and the means or actions that allow us to arrive at this end. This theory is described as being analytic, as the logic concerning the means and the end is a linear process. We initiate the actions or the will to accomplish a specific end, knowing that the "proposed result can come about only by means of such an action..."(27) Therefore, the course of action involving the means and the end, Kant concludes, is analytic because the end is acquired through the means. Here, I agree with Kant because we have situations where this is true. For example, if Michael Phelps wants to be the best swimmer in the world, he knows that he must spend 12 hours in the pool each day to achieve the highest level of swimming. Phelps desires an end (greatest swimmer), therefore he desires the means to that end (swimming 12 hours per day).



On the other hand, there are no precise imperatives that we can use to determine the concept of happiness. In this case, it is similar to the case above in that "whoever wills the end also wills the sole means thereto which are in his power."(27) In simpler words, to desire an end is to also desire the means which will accomplish that end. In order to obtain or achieve happiness, we must be willing to do things which will give us the feeling of happiness. Happiness changes from person to person, having no definitive substance. Kant states that this is true because happiness is unexceptionally emipirical. We find happiness through the experiences that we have gone through in the past, which decides what we choose to do in order to experience happiness. He goes on to say that no specific imperative can make one person happy. I agree with the fact that one imperative cannot make a person happy, since one imperative will sacrifice health or happiness of another imperative. For example, if I decide to eat a chocolate cake, that will achieved by the pragmatic imperative, which will deal with improving my welfare or happiness by fulfilling my desire to eat the cake. At the same time, this imperative will be contradicting the pragmatic imperative because of the extremely detrimental effect it will have on my health, which is directly correlated to my welfare and well being.



The moral imperative is the most difficult because there is no action or imperative that can show there is a moral imperative present. The moral imperative would not be present in this case if there was anarchy and no law. Moral imperative is present because we know the actions will lead to a desired end, along with the punishment that follows the action. If someone wants to kill a person on the street, they desire the actions that will lead to the results they wished for. Yet, this person does not kill them because of the law that makes it illegal to murder someone. If this statute was not in effect, the desired end could be achieved without hesitiation, proving that absence of moral imperative.



This leads us to the question: is it necessary law for all rational beings always to judge their actions according to such maxims as they can themselves will that such should serve as universal laws? I say no. Acting as rational people, we can all agree on universal laws, such as thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. How do these laws apply to people that are homeless or cannot afford to survive under this universal law? They can justify stealing a loaf of bread by saying that they need to survive as well as provide for a hungry family. Here we see that even though there should be one standard of universal law, people can create different levels of universal law to justify their survival in this world.

The question I pose is: Are their different levels of universal law for different kinds of people? Or is it that there is one universal law with people that either abide by it or break it? Also, can a moral imperative be judged immoral even if it results directly in your survival? Are there imperatives that triumph or come before other imperatives in our daily lives?

Kant on Happiness and Morality: Are They Different?

In Kant’s discussion of metaphysics, he argues that, as reason determines a man’s will, he acts on his will only according to what he recognizes as “being practically necessary, i.e., as good” (412). So, man strives for what he thinks is good and necessary. When he acts according to purely objective principles, he acts according to commands of reason called imperatives (413). These objective principles are universal, and therefore not subjective to circumstance or individual experience. Kant also outlines two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. A hypothetical imperative means that an action is necessary as a means to some end, while a categorical imperative means that an action is necessary in and of itself (415). He states that there is one universal end necessitating hypothetical imperatives that all rational beings strive for: happiness (415). Similarly there is one categorical imperative which applies to all rational beings: morality (416).

Thus Kant creates a clear distinction between happiness and morality. Both are objective means, and as all rational beings strive for each, both are grounded firmly in reason. Yet, they are not identical, as one is a means and one is an end. Thus one’s action can be qualified as good either because happiness is the end of this action or because the action is morally good.

In this sense, it seems that Kant makes a fairly substantial break from Aristotle. Aristotle argued that morality (i.e. virtue) is good as it brings about happiness, and happiness is good as the end of virtue. Happiness and complete virtue seem to be one in the same and both good by the same intrinsic principle, as one cannot be happy without virtue and one is happy if he is virtuous. Kant, on the other hand, makes happiness and morality separate products of reason. Any action towards happiness is justified solely by this end, while any moral action is justified solely in and of itself. Kant states that morality is the “one imperative which immediately commands a certain conduct without having as its condition any other purpose to be attained by it” (416). Thus, if our actions are truly moral, there need not be any purpose or end; we act according to this imperative not because of what it attains but because it is good.

In light of Kant’s argument I pose my question thusly: Does Kant’s definition of morality as intrinsically good without having an end hold up, or must all moral actions have an end such as happiness, as Aristotle suggests? In other words, is Kant correct in separating happiness and morality?

Kant's golden rule.

For all of his ambiguities, Kant sums up his description of duty quite clearly through the use of his catagorical imperative, which can be stated as "I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law" (Kant, 14). According to Kant, it is by following this law that we act in accordance with duty without any worry of accidentally acting on inclinations or for the purpose of producing an end (which both hold no moral worth).

To be honest, this is the first time I've found Kant really making sense. Throughout his description of duty and all of the ways in which an action can be considered immoral, he maintained that the only actions that are completely morally right are those that are good in and of themselves. To finally make this more clear, he introduced the means by which we can decide what these actions are: a universal law. To restate this law in more simplified terms, an action can be considered morally correct if it can be turned into a law that everyone must abide by. He uses one particular example to illustrate this idea. He asks if it would be morally acceptable to make a promise with no intention of keeping it if he were to be in a state of distress. Since it is fairly obvious that there should be no such law stating "everyone must always make false promises in order to avoid distressful situations," as then there would be no such thing as a honest promise, we can conclude that this action is not good.

Therefore, in order that our will's may be morally good, we must only ask ourselves whether we can also will that our maxims should become universal law, and if we wouldn't will them to be universal law, the answer is clearly no. I've decided to try and live by Kant's law according to this weekend an see how it works out. First action I will to be universal law? "Everyone must always go and see Alice and Wonderland"

Kant Traps Himself

Kant begins section 397 by stating that, “The concept of a will estimable in itself and good without regard to any further end must now be developed” (Kant, 9). Kant sees the moral content with regards to duty, only when things are done for the sake of doing them, not as a result of any external factors. He argues, rightfully so, that to preserve one’s life is a duty but Kant believes that this duty only has moral content if that person preserves it, “[W]ithout loving it” (Kant, 10). In effect, is arguing that our actions are only moral or virtuous insofar as they are done solely because of our responsibility to do them; our actions themselves must be self-sufficient.

I do not believe that Kant’s views about will and duty are anything more than theoretical. He uses the example of the person who wishes to die, but maintains themselves alive for nothing other than basic laws of self-preservation, as an example of an act with moral content. I would argue that if a person wishes to die and has yet to, then they do in fact fear suicide and their self-preservation is motivated by a fear of death. I would also contend that someone who’s life has been defined by existence for the sake of others, like Mother Teresa for example, has a much greater moral content than someone who maintains themselves alive for no reason.

I also believe that Kant traps himself when he writes, “To secure one’s own happiness is a duty” (Kant, 12). If happiness is defined as the end of all things achievable in action, then every single one of our actions is characterized by its aim towards happiness. Aristotle argued that we cannot be happy after death and so we must remain alive in order to be happy. Every step that we take to maintain ourselves alive because it would lead happiness is a step devoid of moral content according to Kant. According to Kant, we have a duty to maintain ourselves alive solely for the sake of doing so whilst having a duty to secure our own happiness. If our actions are not geared towards happiness, which by Kant’s own logic they shouldn’t be, then happiness becomes a carrot-on-a-stick and is not worth discussing.

Case in point, we can eat just enough to survive but still be unhealthy, according to Kant this would have moral content because it is solely a step towards self-preservation for no real reason. If we were unhealthy however, we’d be hard-pressed to secure happiness but if we eat enough so that we are healthy and thus happy, then suddenly our act of self-preservation has no moral content. In effect, Kant’s argument is flawed.

If everything that we do must be done for the sake of itself, then how can we do anything aimed towards securing happiness?

Misology...Philosophical Blasphemy.

I found it extremely interesting that not even two full pages into Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant brings up the idea of misology, or the hatred of reason. Kant believes this to be truly present in those "most experienced in the use of reason" because after they actually think back on their lives they "find that they have in fact only brought more trouble on their heads than they have gained in happiness. (Groundwork 8-9)

So, Kant (a philosopher), is trying to say that those who find themselves reasoning most often (usually philosophers) look back on their lives and wish they had just been dull drones like the rest of the masses so they didn't realize how little they've accomplished towards make themselves happy. This is far from the praise the Greek philosophers gave to those who dedicated their time to logic and reasoning. If Plato was in charge, all our leaders would be depressed, psychiatric patients dreading the next time they delved into deep thought.

Well, as it obviously did for me, Kant declaring that the thinkers of the world wish they weren’t thinkers can seriously derail a reader from paying attention to the actual arguments. Kant introduces the idea of misology not to tell us that reason is bad and will only make us unhappy, but that we may have been thinking about reason in the wrong ways. For example, Greek philosophers usually thought that reason was the ultimate channel through which we reach happiness. A life spent pondering what is good would lead to a virtuous and satisfactory life. However, Kant seems to think that this would simply be a waste of our reason. He says our “instincts” are there to make us happy, our reason exists bring about a life and will that is good in itself. (Groundwork 8) Striving for one’s own happiness is a good for a particular purpose (one’s own happiness) and is therefore not truly good in Kant’s definition of good.

And, in this argument Kant really informs his audience of why the arch-enemy of philosophy can exist in a world that has hope. Misology isn’t really a hatred of reasoning but a hatred of the misuse of reasoning. See reasoning is like a kazoo. Some people can use reason to best bend their will into something truly good in itself just as some people can play great, if not glorious, songs on a kazoo. Then there are others who only use reason to ponder their own purposes eventually realizing it’s not leading them to happiness. These people are like that one guy who is continually blowing the same note into an innocent kazoo for the entire hour after it hits their mouth.

And that’s how I taught myself Kant today!

Morality

In the preface of Ethical philosophy, the author Kant states there are three divisions of science philosophy. The three divisions are physics ethics and logic. He also describes philosophy to have multiple parts. Material philosophy is concerned with the interaction of objects in relationships with the laws of nature and freedom. Formal philosophy is considered to be one of the three sciences of philosophy logic. Kant throughout the preface focuses on the idea of moral philosophy. He also discusses the idea of moral philosophy of being evident in society’s laws and also evident in the idea of moral and duty because we follow certain ethical acts like the example he states of thou shall not lie (2). In the preface he discusses the idea a book on metaphysics of morals.

Kant’s main idea throughout the preface is that morality comes from just being rationale. He believes if one is rationale they should be able to make good decisions. I believe Kant’s idea of moral philosophy is evident today, and the idea of laws influencing ideas to reflect the hunger for the need of good morals. At the same time I do not believe in the idea mentioned before because there are people who do not base their decisions of law and we label them as criminals. I also believe the criminals are rationale, so would this make criminals have good will. Kant also discusses the idea of authors who do not believe in distinguishing motives based off of morals, but believe in motives based off strengths and weaknesses. This argument does not make sense to me. I believe motives are based off of beneficial significance. I also believe the significance of the decisions can be based off of good morals because most of the times the strengths of a decision are in good faith, but at the same time the strengths can be negative. Criminals are an example making decisions based on the reward behind it. I just want to know if Kant would judge people who do immoral deeds or make immoral decisions to be irrational.