Research Paper on Kant's Philosophy

Introduction

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who defined moral actions as those that are motivated by the desire of a person to fulfil his/her sense of duty to society. I will analyze the key strengths and weaknesses of Kant's philosophy in the context of the modern society. Some of these benefits include the perpetuation of social equality, recognition of the intrinsic value of humans, and the development of a universal principle that defines human conduct. Its weaknesses are the rigid and impractical nature of the philosophy, reliance on idealism while ignoring human nature, and the fact that Kant's perspective discounts human desires as effective motivations for moral action. Moreover, I hold the position that Kantian ethics is more beneficial than harmful to society since it inspires society to be selfless and honest, by doing actions based on an intrinsic motivation to fulfil one's duty to society. If people start performing moral actions through their internal motivation of service to society, then they will be less tempted to engage in immoral and unethical conduct which causes social disharmony and chaos.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Kant's Moral Philosophy

Kant's philosophy is part of a broader set of deontological theories which state that actions are right or wrong depending on whether they fulfil a person's duty. Deontology ignores the consequences of actions when analyzing whether they are moral or not; they focus on the person's duty to society. Immanuel Kant held the view that people should ask themselves two questions before they perform an ethical action. The first is whether everyone with a rational thought can perform such an action. If the answer is 'no', then the person should not perform the act. The second question is whether the actions respect the goals of society, or they are merely satisfying individual interests. If the act does not further societal goals, then the person should refrain from performing it.

Immanuel Kant also viewed morality as a rationality standard which he called the Categorical Imperative (CI). The CI is a rationally-necessary, objective and unconditional principle that human beings should follow in spite of their natural inclinations or desires to pursue other principles. The categorical imperative justifies all moral requirements, and any actions that violate the CI are deemed to be irrational and immoral actions. Kant held the view that a rational will is free and autonomous, and should not be influenced by human passions.

The key feature of the Categorical Imperative is the universal law that requires a person to act on a maxim (principle or law on which one acts), only if he/she would want it to become a universal law of nature. This means that a person should only perform actions that he/she is comfortable with generalizing and applying across the society. Moreover, people should not perform any acts that they would not want everyone else to do. For instance, if a person expects other people to honor their promises, then he/she should also honor his/her promise.

Immanuel Kant also discussed the moral worth of people, and he explained that a person is deemed to be bad or good, depending on what motivates their actions, as opposed to the consequences of those acts. Consequently, good people are those who are motivated by a sense of duty and morality to perform actions, as opposed to their individual desires or emotions.

Strengths of Kant's Philosophy

The first strength is that Kant's morality views human beings as creatures who are capable of having rational thoughts and actions. This means that they have an independent pattern of thought and are capable of performing moral actions. This perspective is consistent with advocacy for human rights as it acknowledges the self-worth of individual human beings and the need to treat them with dignity without oppression or exploitation. Kant's view of humans as rational beings advocates for protection of human rights and respect for human freedoms in society.

The second strength is that his philosophy applies the Categorical Imperative, which are universal rules that define moral and ethical conduct. The perception of moral and ethical actions is a subjective topic that varies from individual to individual based on their socialization process, intrinsic beliefs, value system, life experiences, and other factors. Without a uniform formula of defining how human should implement moral actions, then society will disagree and this will lead to anarchy. Kant resolves this problem by creating a uniform standard (Categorical Imperative), which everyone in society should use when analyzing whether an act is moral or immoral. Consistency in defining morality and ethics creates harmony and peace in society.

The third strength is that the philosophy promotes equality. Kantian ethics applies the Categorical Imperative when defining moral action and it expects every human being to follow this principle when analyzing whether an action is moral or immoral. Kant does not set separate moral standards for different categories of people in society, such as the poor and rich, males and females, or young and old. He expects every person to use the same moral principles and standards when defining moral actions. One of the challenges of the modern society is that it promotes inequality in terms of sex, race, ethnicity, access to resources, and others. People from different social, political, and economic segments are held to diverse moral standards. For instance, in many countries, the rich have faster access to justice as compared to the poor. Kant resolves this societal issue through developing a uniform set of standards of morality that everyone should follow regardless of their standing in society.

Weaknesses of Kant's Philosophy

One of the weaknesses of the Kantian philosophy is that it is rigid and impractical in the modern world. An example is the universal principle which requires people to perform actions only if they are comfortable allowing everyone else to do. This principle is unrealistic in society, and a good example is when resolving the abortion dilemma when a mother's life is at risk. Based on Kantian ethics, the mother's life should not be saved since doing so would kill the child. The universalism principle would state that doctors should only kill the child if they are comfortable with every person committing murder. However, it is inhumane to let the mother die and the child live, as the latter depends on the former for survival. In this ethical context, the Kantian philosophy is rigid and does not offer solutions in unique circumstances facing society.

Another weakness of Kant's philosophy is that it seems to rely on idealism while ignoring human nature. For instance, it requires moral actions to be performed out of a sense of duty as opposed to the consequences of such actions. However, many human beings perform actions with a expectation in mind. For instance, example, people go to work with the expectation that they will receive a salary to satisfy the needs of their families. It defies human nature to expect people to work out of a sense of duty without regard for the remuneration that they will be paid by their employer.

The third weakness associated with Kant's philosophy is that it discounts human emotions and desires as appropriate motivations for moral action. For instance, it discredits moral acts that human do through sympathy, remorse or compassion. Kant's philosophy emphasizes duty over human desires. However, many people perform moral actions due to their emotional connection to issues in society. For instance, one may contribute to charity due to the sympathy that he/she has for the poor. In such a situation, Kant's philosophy would not view the contribution as a moral action since it relies on human emotion as the key motivator for charity, as opposed to human duty to society. This perspective reveals a major flaw in Kant's philosophy through discounting human desires and emotions as drivers for the moral good.

Personal Opinion of Kant's Philosophy

There are different aspects of Kant's philosophy that I agree with, and others that I disagree with. One of the principles that I support is the Categorical Imperative, which is an independent principle that humans should follow when making ethical decisions. The CI is devoid of human desires and passions, and it dictates how people should act, in order to conform to ethical and moral standards. I support the Categorical Imperative since human beings have diverse preferences, perspectives, ideas, and desires, and it is important to develop a universally-accepted standard of determining the moral principle that guides their conduct. If the CI did not exist, then the definition of ethics and morality would be subjective and people would interpret it to suit their personal desires and needs.

Another aspect of Kant's philosophy that I support is the definition of moral actions. He defined them as the actions that human beings perform out of a sense of their duty to society, as opposed to expectations of reward or assessment of the consequences of such actions. This means that people should be motivated by their duty to society to perform moral actions. I support this view since the most successful people in society, are those whose intrinsic motivation drives them to serve others. For instance, the most successful police officers are those whose actions are driven by the oath they undertook to serve and protect the public. Such officers hold their profession in high esteem and they perform their daily actions based on their sense of duty to society. However, the officers whose service is driven by expectation of reward are not as successful since they are usually tempted to engage in unethical actions such as corruption and taking bribes. These police officers usually engage in unethical acts since their day to day actions are not inspired by their duty to society, but the desire to be rewarded, sometimes by criminals.

However, there are also certain aspects of Kant's philosophy that I disagree with. The first is the principle of universalism, which judges moral conduct based on the possibility of generalizing human actions across the entire society. Kant explained that one must ask himself/herself whether the actions they perform, can be acted upon by everyone in society, and if the answer is 'no', then they should not perform such actions. This perspective is rigid and does not offer room for exceptions when the perceived unethical actions may be ethical when considering the greater good of society. The utilitarian approach looks at the bigger picture when deciding whether an action is moral or not; something that Kant's perspective disregards.

For instance, on the issue of capital punishment in society, most countries allow people convicted of capital offences to be killed. This action is done to safeguard the moral fabric of society by deterring would-be criminals from committing the worst crimes in any society. However, Kant's philosophy would only advocate for capital punishment if the perform performing it is comfortable with everyone in society killing other people. In this scenario, the approach by Kant disregards the unique situations that are involved in capital crimes, and the reasons why nations allow people convicted of capital crimes to be killed, whereas those who have committed other crimes are not killed. Utilitarianism would assess the bigger picture and support the killing of one individual to safeguard the welfare of the majority, through deterring capital crimes. Therefore Kant's philosophy is...