Phi202 Essay

Is Kant's moral theory defensible?

Kant's moral theory is an interesting theory which has merits and shortcomings. The philosophy of the categorical imperative produces some interesting and thought provoking ideas. However, when taken to an extreme end, it proves to be an irrational and dangerous philosophy. Kant's moral philosophy gives a strong starting point to discussing and developing ideas about the way morality works, however this logical force is lost in the long run to problems such as contradictory terms and other fallacies.

The first formulation expresses Kant's categorical imperative quite well: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. (Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.. Hackett. pp. 30) This expression provides a firm foundation for analysing morality. To explicate further, according to Kant, an action can only be right if this action may be considered and applied by all of humanity without having any detrimental affects on humanity. Therefore, the action of lying for one's own gain cannot be right because, if one imagines, a world where everybody lies for one's own gain then the nobody would believe one another and no gain would be found thus the premise is found to be illogical. However, the direct opposite of this claim, that is a world where everybody must not, is not logically defensible either, as it will be explained later on in this essay. Not long after Kant expressed his first formulation he was challenged by other philosophers. Benjamin Constant, a Swiss philosopher, challenged Kant's theory on the basis that telling the truth must be universally right an thus must happen in our world. He provided the scenario where a murderer has asked for details of his potential victim, of you, and you must tell the truth, thus divulging the details of the murderer's potential victim and thus aiding and abetting the criminal. Obviously this seems illogical and puts Kant's theory at risk. Kant replied to Constant's challenge by writing the essay "On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives". Kant primarily agrees with Constants premise that one must not lie to a murderer. He then denies that this action creates any sought of weakness in his own philosophy, justifying this by explicating that the ends should play no role in one's decision making when deciding about the means. One simply should not be worried about the final conclusion of their actions when they follow the universal law, according to Kant. So, it seems that Kant's categorical imperative is a horribly illogical philosophy veiled in a shroud of supposed logic. However, under the formula of Universal Law, the conclusion is found to be logical.

Even so, in another light this scenario does not prove Kant's philosophy to be wrong. It shows that in the face of evil even human morality sometimes gives humanity the chance to do something that may, from an idealistic perspective, seem to be wrong. (Christine M. Korsgaard, Cambridge University Press, 1995, Kant's Moral Philosophy, p.135). As Korsgaard explicates, Kant's philosophy is not deemed wrong from this conclusion, it actually illuminates a nuance often overlooked when we deal with evil, that is, that when evil presents itself the situation often needs us to use special principles to properly interact with evil. One of these special principles is found in the scenario with the murderer and the person who may or may not lie. It is found to be right that the person lies to the murderer in order to save the victims life. It is definitely not wrong to lie when the lie disables or hinders evil plans. And according to Kant's categorical imperative, this maxim, that it is right to lie when the lie disables or hinders evil plans, would work universally. It is similar to the concept of there being: "a lesser of two evils".

Furthermore, Kant describes his Formula of the End in Itself. Which is a ridiculously fancy way of saying that we should all treat each other with respect. He endeavours to describe that each of us holds within us the 'end', that is we all hold rationality within us. And because of this rationality we must all treat each other with respect, and not use each other as 'means'. This ties in with Kant's idea about the autonomy of Mankind. Kant suggests that all human adults should be able to think rationally and because of this we are able to justify and argue our beliefs. In Kant's eye these beliefs would have to live up to his categorical imperative, the beliefs must embody universality. What this means is, for a person to be an end, not a means, that person must have knowledge of what is going on around them. And furthermore, those who are around them, must make known what is occurring. So that at any time, each person knows and may assent to what is occurring. If this does not happen then evil is present, for coercion and deception are evil things. Therefore, if your end is one that others cannot know about, that you may not tell them for the sake of remaining in your position, then that end cannot be good. All things that are good must be able to be made known to everybody so that everybody may be able to assent to them. If you can not tell somebody what you are going to do, then you should not do it. The world where these philosophies occur perfectly is called the Kingdom of Ends.

The Kingdom of Ends is a world filled with rational beings who live by universal maxims. This is the perfect world, in Kant's eyes, because it combines his theory of categorical imperatives with autonomous individuals creating a society of perfected rules. According to Korsgaard the kingdom of nature is representative of the Kingdom of Ends (p.140). The reason is because moral laws have a relationship with natural laws. Natural laws are by themselves perfect, and so if a moral law can be compared with a natural law, and if no differences in structure and use are found, then it can be deemed that the moral law is now a universal natural law. This however, proves to be problematic for Kant's philosophy, as some theories that were taken for granted in the earlier formulations are now being challenged. Take for example, the scenario with the murderer, in the first formulation, the categorical imperative, it seems as though lying to the murderer is the wrong thing to do. However, upon further inspection, duties such as the duty of mutual aid and the duty of self respect arise which contradict the duty of telling the truth. Thus we see a problem in Kant's theory which was not addressed by him.

The merits of Kantian moral philosophy are small but sweet. His foundations provoke interesting thought with regards to the philosophical area of morals and his philosophy certainly does provide an interesting argument. However, it can be seen that the shortcomings of this philosophy are too significant. The contradictions and horribly ridiculous conclusion which can be drawn from his philosophy prove it to be a highly irrational theory veiled in the guise of logic.