Complementary Reflection, African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
Back
to Home Page: http://www.frasouzu.com/
THE IMPLICATIONS
OF KANT’S CONCEPTION OF THE ABSOLUTE
GOOD WILL
FOR SOME CURRENT ETHICAL ISSUES LIKE
SUICIDE, WAR, ABORTION, VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION AND
TERRORISM
BY
IWUAGWU, EMMANUEL KELECHI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………1
KANT’S ETHICAL THEORY………………………………………………3
THE ABSOLUTE GOODWILL………………………………………….3
THE CONCEPT OF DUTY
IN KANT’S ETHICS………………………5
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE…………………………………...6
THE ETHICAL PROBLEM OF SUICIDE………………………………….7
SOME REASONS
FOR SUICIDE……………………………………..7
ARGUMENTS
AGAINST SUICIDE…………………………………...8
MORAL EVALUATION
OF SUICIDE………………………………..8
WAR………………………………………………………………………..10
CONDITIONS
FOR A JUST WAR…………………………………...10
ETHICAL
EVALUATION OF WAR…………………………………11
ABORTION………………………………………………………………..12
REASONS PUT FORWARD
FOR ABORTION………………………13
ETHICAL EVALUATION OF ABORTION…………………………...14
VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION AND TERRORISM………………………..15
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION……………………………………16
WORKS CITED……………………………………………………………18
.
INTRODUCTION
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant is undoubtedly
one of the most influential figures in history of Western Philosophy. Born on
Kant’s contributions to
metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic and aesthetics have had compelling
influence on subsequent philosophical teachings. Kant is regarded as the founder
of classical German idealism as well as the founder of “critical” or “transcendental”
idealism (Frolov, 209). For a better understanding and appreciation of Kant’s
position one must understand the philosophical background he was reacting to.
Two main philosophical doctrines, which had significant impact on Kant, are
empiricism and Rationalism. Kant pointed out the flaws inherent in their positions
as they address the epistemological question of what and how we can know. He
rejected the empiricist extreme position of using only aposteriori reasoning
in explaining all we can know and also rejected the Rationalist extreme position
with their apriori reasoning.
In his critical philosophy
as outlined in his Critique of Pure Reason, 1781 Kant tried to prove
the impossibility of constructing a system of speculative philosophy (metaphysics)
without a preliminary study of forms of cognition and the bounds of man’s cognitive
abilities. This enterprise led Kant to agnosticism as he taught that the nature
of things as they exist of themselves (things in themselves) is in principle
inaccessible to human knowledge. We can only know things as they appear,
the phenomena. Supra-sensible realities are in accessible to human reason. God,
the soul, freedom, eternity etc. cannot really be known.
It has a been said that Kant’s ethical
theory has been as influential as his epistemology and metaphysics, his ethical
work, The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) is a
search for an establishment of the supreme principle of morality. While
his Critique
of Practical Reason (1787) is an attempt to unify his account of practical reason with
his work in the Critique of Pure Reason.
According to Kant,
ethics has no empirical aspect, it is metaphysical. This separation of ethics
from anthropology which has an empirical aspect helped Kant to ground obligation
apriori in reason. This also gave Kant’s ethical theory the character of necessity
and universality, which would not have been possible if it was grounded empirically.
Hence this his ethical theory of obligation is not
dependent on any empirical factors such as consequences. He insists that the
rightness of actions is grounded apriori in reason.
Kant’s ethical theory proclaimed
the categorical imperative as the basic law. This demands that man be guided
by a rule, which being absolutely independent of moral content of an action
could become a universal rule of behaviour. Thus by Kant’s reasoning, the only
feature which gives an action moral worth is not the outcome achieved by such
action but the motive behind it. Contrary to the formal nature of the categorical
imperative, Kant put forward the principle of the self-value of each
individual, which must not be sacrifice even for the good of the society as
a whole.
It is
Kant’s view that the only thing that is good without qualification is the good
will. With the goodwill behind our actions, one’s action must always be good
independent of the outcome or consequences. This paper will survey the implications
of Kant’s Absolute goodwill for some current ethical issues like Abortion, War,
Violence, terrorism, corruption and so on. It will begin with a summary of Kant’s
ethical theory, which will briefly treat: the absolute goodwill, duty and the
moral law, as well as the categorical and hypothetical imperatives. This will
be succeeded by considering some ethical issues like suicide, war, abortion,
terrorism, corruption, violence etc. the next section will survey the implications
of Kant’s goodwill for these ethical issues. We will finally have an evaluation
and conclusion.
2.1
KANT’S ETHICAL THEORY
Kant’s ethical theory is called deontological theory.
He is the primary proponent of this ethical theory. Deontology is the study
of duty. It is Kant’s view that what gives an action its moral worth is the
motive behind it, and not the consequences or outcome of such action. Thus it
is the view of Kant and other deontological theorists that:
the
rightness or wrongness of actions depend on certain formal moral
criteria such as rules or principles. The rules and principles in turn,
are
not dependent on empirical considerations of the consequences of obeying
such rules and principles (Blocker&Hannaford, 213)
By removing his ethical theory from every empirical
consideration such as consequences, Kant’s ethics assumed the character of necessity
and universality, which gives it greater force. In his ethical theory, the rightness
of actions is grounded apriori in reason. It is specifically a theory of obligation.
2.2
THE ABSOLUTE GOODWILL
Kant’s ethical theory hangs on the unqualified goodness
of the goodwill. For Kant, the will is the faculty of acting according to a
conception of law (Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy, Kant: Goodwill). Among his many famous ethical statements
is that:
Nothing in the world- indeed nothing even beyond the
world –
can possibly be conceived which could be called good without
qualification except a good will (Foundation, 9)
.
It is Kant’s claim that apart from a good will all
other things that appear intrinsically good are not unconditionally good, when
looked at closely they have problems. Desirable things like courage, health;
intelligence can be employed for evil purposes just as they can be used for
good purposes. Hence they are not intrinsically good. Kant argues therefore
that it is only the goodwill that is good without qualification or unconditionally
good despite all encroachments. It is possible that the changes and chances
of life may frustrate one’s designs and prevent one from achieving his goal;
the goodness of his will still remains. Thus it must be understood that the
goodwill is not good because of its accomplishments or because it possesses
certain inclination to do what is right or because it acts out of self–love.
The goodwill is good in itself and is always
good.
Kant denied that goodness
could arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination even if these coincide
with duty. According to Kant “it is not sufficient to do that which should be
morally good that it conform to the law, it must
be done for the sake of the law” (Foundation, Akademie pagination, 390).
In his example, a shopkeeper might do what is in accord with duty and not overcharge
a child, Kant’s argues that there is a difference between a shopkeeper who did
it for his own selfish end (not to attract the anger of customers) and one who
did it from the point of duty and the principle of honesty (Foundations
398). To elucidate this point Kant presents another example and argues that
the kind act of a man who overcomes a natural lack of sympathy for others out
of respect for duty has moral worth, whereas the same kind act of another man
who naturally takes pleasure in spreading joy does not. Kant therefore concludes
that a person’s moral worth cannot be dependent on what nature endowed him with
accidentally. “What matters to morality is that the actor think about their
actions in the right manner”(Internet Ency.of
Phil. Goodwill). It is Kant’s view that moral character is not bestowed
on an action by the consequences or effect of the action, actualized or intended,
all intended effects according to Kant:
could be brought about through other causes
and would not require the will of a
rational being, while the highest and unconditional
good can be found only in
such a will (Foundations, Akademie
pgn. 401).
This opinion led Kant to conclude that it is the recognition
and appreciation of duty itself that must drive one’s actions. It is on this
basis that Kant rejected utilitarianism, relativism, and egoism as totally inadequate
ethical theories because non of them can make claims to unqualified good these
theories concern themselves with the good or right which are “ always qualified
by consequences, by inclination or by self love” (blocker & Hannaford, 215).
With regard to why the good will is good, Kant answered that the good will is
“good only because of its willing; it is good of itself” (Foundations, 10). This good will is good in itself and of itself.
It is an “intrinsic or unqualified good”. What makes it good is its very act
of willing not its willing of consequences or intended effect Hence the good
will is good because if acts for the sake of duty.
THE CONCEPT OF DUTY IN KANTS ETHICS
According to Kant Duty “is the necessity of acting
out of reverence for the moral law.” He insists that an action assumes a moral
value only when it is strictly performed for the sake of duty ie.out of reverence
for the moral law. In Kant’s deontological theory two kinds of duties are distinguished
“acting for the sake of duty” and “acts not because of any expected gain, not
because of one’s feeling or natural inclination towards such action but purely
out of evidence for the moral law, ie, “doing something because the moral law
demands it, even if one stands to lose materially from such an action” (Omoregbe,
220).
On the other hand
to act according to duty entails acting out of prudent considerations for ones
interest. According to Kant actions in this class have no moral value though
they may be good. The same hold good for actions prompted by natural inclinations
or emotional feelings. Hence for any action to have moral worth or value it
must b strictly performed for the sake of duty. i.e., in
reverence for the moral law. To distinguish which action is right or
wrong Kant employed his categorical imperative.
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Kant employed the categorical imperative as the yardstick
for distinguishing right from wrong actions. This imperative according to Kant
is the principle of universalization. According to Kant, all imperatives command
either hypothetically or categorically. The hypothetical imperative is a rule
of action for achieving an end. A hypothetical imperative says, for example
if you want to travel to
Categorical imperatives do not present actions as means to any other
end;
Actions are presented as objectively necessary in and of themselves
(Blocker &Hannaford, 216).
It is because this imperative is “pure”- free from
dependence upon any inclination that it is fit to be a principle commanding
our behaviour absolutely, not merely relative to certain desires or impulses
given by nature (Prosch, 278). Kant calls this moral imperative an “ apodictic practical principle (Foundations, 78).
This is because it obliges all men without exception. The imperative of the
moral law is absolute and categorical and no one can be exempted from it. According
to Kant there is only one categorical imperative through we have many formulations
of it in his works .the categorical imperative is:
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same
time will that it should become universal
law (Foundations, 39).
Other formulations of the categorical imperative are
“Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal
law of nature” (Foundation, 39) and “act so that you treat humanity, whether
in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means
only” (Foundations,
46). Kant’s categorical imperative not only contains the character of universality
but also the necessity that maxims conform to this law. Like the golden rule
it demands that the good will must have as its maxims only that which can be
willed to be moral law.
Thus in
using the categorical imperative as a yardstick for determining the rightness
of actions or the moral worth of an agent one has to employ its principle of
universalization. From this we can say that the moral worth of agents and the
rightness of actions depend on one and the same criteria, namely the categorical
imperative. This categorical imperative is Kant’s first principle of morality
and this is proved apriori, in a nonempirical manner, by reason. By this categorical
imperative we are obliged to act in such a way that the maxim of our actions
could be made into universal laws binding to all rational beings. If we can
universalize our maxims then our actions are right and we are good, if we cannot
universalize them our actions are wrong and we are bad.
One
of the many examples given by Kant is that of a man who needs to borrow money
and is considering making a false promise to pay it back. Employing the categorical
imperative, we try to universalize his maxim “when in need of money, borrow
it, promising to repay it, even when you don’t intend to.” Trying to universalize
this maxim shows that if everybody were to act like
this, the institution of promising will seriously be undermined and the issue
of trust will no longer be regarded. The action can’t pass the universality
test, it is wrong.
Kant
therefore insists that we should do this test to judge the rightness of an action
and the moral worthiness of an agent. The categorical imperative should be the
standard of measuring the morality of actions. We will use the measure in looking
at the implications of some ethical issues like suicide, war, abortion, violence,
corruption, terrorism and so on.
Suicide is the direct taking of one’s life carried
out on one’s authority. Suicide can be direct or indirect. Some examples of
direct suicide are: hanging of oneself, shooting oneself, taking poison etc.
In this case death is directly willed either as an end e.g. euthanasia, or as
a means to an end, e.g. hunger strike unto death.
Indirect suicide
occurs when one “places a cause whose proper effect is not death but something
else although it is foreseen that death will follow from that cause”(Pazhayampallil,
1035). In this case death is not intended but only permitted. Here one intends
something which is licit and which he believes to be of a higher order to physical
life. Example a pilot during war who dashes his plane loaded with bombs into
an enemy warship or in the case of a shipwreck if a lifeboat is overcrowded,
passengers may voluntarily jump into the sea, even though there is no possibility
of being saved (Grisez & Boyle, 108).
SOME REASONS FOR SUICIDE
Among the many reasons put forward for suicide are:
ones inability to cope with problems, social isolation, the feeling of being
useless and being a burden to others a hopelessly protracted and painful illness
and despair. Many hallucinated individuals, in the state of feverish delirium,
amentia etc. kill themselves to escape the
frightening hallucinations. Some persons suffering from obsessions kill themselves
under a severe stress of anxiety brought on by a crisis of some sort. Drug addiction
can also lead to suicide. Other causes of suicide are: intoxication, boredom
in life, disappointment in love, death of a loved one, financial setback, and
humiliation. The most important cause of suicide is lack of faith in God and
in the future life.
Some
altruistic reasons are also given for suicide: captured spies or soldiers threatened
by torture kill themselves to prevent betrayal of their companions, their accomplices
or military secrets; a man kills himself to save his family from expensive long
lasting treatment of his hopeless sickness; members of a resistant group also
die of hunger strike for the civil liberties and rights of their people (Peschke
Vol.2, 300).
In spite of these reasons put forward above in defence
of suicide it is argued that direct suicide is intrinsically evil for the following
reasons: (a) Man does not possess the right of ownership over his life, only
God has perfect dominion over human life who has given it to man as a gift.(b) Suicide is a crime against one’s obligations towards
the community and dependents , for a person’s life is an investment of the community
which is expected to yield fruit . (c) Suicide is a violation of one’s duty
to love oneself and to strive for perfection (Peschke, Vol.2, 301-302).
MORAL
EVALUATIN OF SUICIDE
Suicide is generally regarded as a dishonorable act,
which is morally reprehensible. In moral philosophy Socrates, Aristotle, Kant,
Camus and others rejected it while the Stoics, Hume and modern day humanists
defend it as a right of self-determination given along with human liberty. For
Camus, the suicide is a coward who confesses that life is too much for him and
who fails to understand life thus seeing life as not worth the trouble (Myth,
5). For Kant suicide is unacceptable, because the extinction of the subject
of morality (man) implies the extinction of morality itself.
In positing the categorical imperative as criteria of moral evaluation,
Kant insists on universalizing the maxim of our actions, among the examples
he used in testing this criterion is the moral problem of suicide. In this example,
“a man feels sick of life as a result of series of misfortunes that has mounted
to the point of despair, but he still has perfect control of his reason to question
himself as to whether his intended action does not contradict his duty to himself.
He should then apply the test, to see whether the maxim of his action can be
universalized to be a universal law of nature.
Thus formulated:
from self-love I make it my principle to shorten
my life if its
continuance threatens more evil than it promises
pleasure. The
only further question to ask is whether this
principle of self-love
can become a universal law of nature. It is
then seen at once that
a system of nature by whose law the very same
feeling whose
function is to stimulate the furtherance of
life should actually
destroy life would contradict itself and consequently
could not
subsist as a system of nature. Hence the maxim
cannot hold as a
universal law of nature and is therefore entirely
opposed to the
supreme principle of all duty (Foundation,
85).
From the above if the problem of suicide is put to
test with Kant’s absolute goodwill it cannot pass. Suicide is therefore wrong.
Man must face the problems and challenges of life with hope and not escape his
responsibility through suicide. If this action is universalized it will lead
to the extinction of the human race. A father may commit suicide because he
can’t feed, house, cloth or cater for the educational needs of his children.
In doing this the children are thrown into serious hardships, they may also
commit suicide to escape their woes, hence the extermination of the family and
eventually the human race. Thus suicide contradicts man’s responsibility to
act for the sake of duty, or in accordance with the moral law not for selfish
interest. Suicide is cowardice and selfishness.
In this paper we will deal with the problem of war
in the strict sense as an armed conflict between states or large organized groups
similar to states. The horror of recent wars (in
Opinions
are divided as to the morality of war, some see it as the last option to peace
and freedom while others reject it totally because the evil it causes most often
outweigh the harm that might otherwise befall a state. For the advocates of
war, the unconditional rejection of force would be nothing but license for might
to prevail (Iraq-Kuwait) hence diminishing moral and religious freedom whose
loss is of greater value than physical destruction. This argument brings about
some moral justification for some wars in what is today known as Just War. While
war as self-defence gains greater acceptance as both a right and a duty there
is the danger of belligerent expansion by stronger nations against weaker ones.
This leads to putting forward some conditions under which war can be justified.
CONDITIONS FOR A JUST WAR
These conditions do not spell out permissions; they
merely define limitations. Among the conditions enumerated by Peschke (594-595)
include:
1.
War is lawful only for a just
cause i.e. in defence of vital goods of the state community –to repel an unjust
aggressor.
2.
All other means of non-belligerent
nature must have been exhausted.
3.
The war must not jeopardize
still higher goods than those to be defended and there must be a sufficient
likelihood of success. “When the damages caused by war are not comparable to
those of ‘tolerated injustice’, one may have a duty to suffer the injustice”(Pius XII, 748).
4.
The military action may not
extend beyond the needs of just defence and the restoration of the violated
rights.
5.
A competent authority must order
the war.
ETHICAL EVALUATION OF WAR
The widespread nature of armed conflicts in the world
today makes the world so much an unsafe place to dwell. Some of these wars have
so protracted or are so devastating that they pose a very difficult ethical
question as to their reasonableness. It is often asked whether the above conditions
can really justify the horrendous wars we have witnessed in recent times with
such great loss of human life and material resources. In such case one is forced
to ask whether human life still retains it’s
great value and if it does, is it not clear to man that modern warfare threatens
the continuation of the human race. In the face of the horrors of the devastating
effect of modern nuclear weapons and other precision supersonic weapons of mass
destruction, the human race faces imminent extinction.
But it does not appear as simple as it looks,
the question of whether a nation after exhausting all available peaceful means
of dissuading an unjust aggressor should fold its arms and watch its citizenry
crushed and exterminated by another power it could have repelled by taking up
arms against is not yet answered satisfactorily.
Just
war can even be more than a defensive war against an actual armed aggression.
It is argued that even a preventive war against an unquestionably threatening,
deadly aggression can also be justified. A case in hand is the Six Days War
of 1967 when the Israeli Intelligence armed with a very reliable secret information
of the imminent attack by Egypt and Syria, launched a preemptive strike against
these enemies seven hours before they had planned to start a war that would
have ruined the Israelis, this their strike destroyed the Egyptian air force
leading to Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights.
The question is: Should
Using Kant’s categorical imperative makes this issue
more complex than it appears. In the absolute sense we cannot universalize the
maxim “fight when you are threatened”, this
will surely lead to the extinction of the human race because our existence is
daily threatened by others in one way or the other.
In Kant’s ethics
also an action is right when it acts for the sake of duty i.e. out of reverence
for the moral law. It can be argued that man has the right and duty to defend
himself and his country, against an unjust aggressor. A soldier who fights in
battle is doing so for the sake of duty even if his father or mother becomes
the victim of the bomb he drops. The devastating nature of the battle not withstanding,
he has to forget about his personal feelings and inclinations and the consequences
of his action and simply act for the sake of his duty to defend his country.
From this it becomes clear that Kant’s absolute goodwill
may not completely solve the morality of war. The moral justification or non-justification
of war cannot be done absolutely but relatively since we cannot avoid the question
of just and an unjust war.
ABORTION
Abortion has been defined from various perspectives
some of which play down its moral implications. This paper defines it in a brief
but strict sense of the word. Peschke defines it as “the removal of the non-viable
human being from the mother’s womb by human intervention, whether by killing
him before removal from the womb, or whether by exposing him to a certain death
outside the womb (314). Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae
sees abortion as:
the
deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried
out, of a human being in the initial phase
of his or her existence,
extending from conception to birth (xi).
Abortion can be direct or indirect, spontaneous of
induced (artificial). Spontaneous abortion or miscarriage occurs as a result
of some abnormality of the developing baby or some illness on the part of the
woman. Induced abortion also called direct abortion involves the ejection of
human life from the uterus brought about intentionally by the patient herself
or an accomplice. With regard to direct abortion, the ejection or destruction
of the fetus is intended as an end of an action or a means to achieve this end,
whereas in indirect abortion, the death of the fetus is merely permitted as
a concomitant effect of a directly willed end (Peschke, 315). Example of indirect
abortion is the death of a fetus not yet viable caused by the removal of a cancerous
uterus of the pregnant mother.
REASONS PUT FORWARD FOR ABORTION
The advocates of abortion have proffered several reasons
as justifying abortion; among these reasons also called “indications” are the
following (Peschke, 321-322):
1.
The Eugenic indication: This
school advocates for abortion where there is a
greater probability that the expected offspring will be affected with
serious genetic or acquired defects or sicknesses
2.
The Ethical indication:
Here it is argued that when pregnancy is due to rape abortion is justified since
the pregnancy is an undue burden forced upon the mother and also exposes her
to great moral strains and social shame.
3.
The social indication: Here
it is argued that if the pregnancy is seen, as a great social or economic burden
for the mother or the family, the child should be aborted.
4.
Medical or Therapeutic indication:
Here it is argued that when the life of the mother is seriously threatened by
the pregnancy, the child should be aborted. Here it is also argued that for
the purpose of mental health of the child, abortion is warranted.
5.
Most recently the question of
the fundamental right of the woman to dispense with pregnancy is been argued
by pro-abortionist where sometimes refusal of abortion is said to be a violation
of the right of the woman. This argument collapses when we consider also the
fundamental right of the child to live.
ETHICAL EVALUATION OF ABORTION
In spite of the above arguments for abortion a directly
willed and procured abortion has been rejected as intrinsically evil and wrong.
Therapeutic abortions are merely permitted since the danger to the life of the
mother is also a danger to the life of the child. Hence operations, treatments,
and medications during pregnancy having as its immediate purpose the cure of
a proportionately serious pathological condition of the mother are permitted
when they cannot be safely postponed until the fetus is viable, although they
indirectly cause an abortion.
This acceptance of the lawfulness of therapeutic abortion
in cases of serious danger to the life of the mother is made possible by the
ethical principle of “double effect” or “twofold effect”. According to this
principle, it is allowable to perform an action with a good and bad effect provided:
1.
The good and not the evil effect
is directly intended.
2.
The action itself is good, or
at least indifferent.
3.
The good is not produced by
means of the evil effect
4.
There is a proportionate reason
to permit the foreseen evil effect.
When this principle is put to use it becomes clear
that the will plays an important role in determining the morality of an action.
Hence since abortion is the direct taking of the life of an unborn child, directly
willed and procured abortion is a fragrant violation of the right of a child
to life and this action cannot but be intrinsically wrong.
In the light of Kant’s moral philosophy, we cannot universalize the termination
of the life of a child for social, eugenic or economic reasons for these do
not threaten in any way our own existence. Therapeutic abortion may merely be
permitted since the life of the mother and that of the child may be in danger.
Justification of directly willed and procured abortion for any reason whatsoever
will entail the violation of the categorical imperative which also states thus:
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another,
always as an end and never as a means only” (Foundations, 46).
VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION AND TERRORISM
The widespread nature of violence, corruption and
terrorism in the world of today poses a very big ethical question with regard
to their justification partially or in their entirety. What are these social
problems?
Violence whether considered as a crime in the streets
or in the extended sense of psychological and institutional violence is simply
a violation of a person .A person’s body may suffer violence, his mind, his
autonomy or his property may also be violated. It is also noteworthy that this
violence may come from another person or an institution.
With regard to corruption, we may look at it as a deviation from, or
perversion of, the right order for the selfish purpose of making undue gains.
Corruption is a social ill which may be either institutional or personal. It
seeks undue gratification in violation of the constituted norms and standards
of operation.
Terrorism
is a forceful violation of a person physically and psychologically as well as
violation of his property and freedom in a dangerous way that even threatens
his very existence. Terrorism has become so widespread in the world today that
armed groups or organizations have resorted to it in pursuance of their presumed
just demands. They threaten the destruction of life, property and the social
order unless their demands are met.
The danger posed by these social problems to the peace,
progress and very existence of the human society has led many people to denounce
them in their entirety refusing to find any ground for their justification. Some people however see these as justifiable
means of ensuring ones survival in a world that seems to approve “might is right”
or “survival of the fittest”. With regard to corruption it is argued to be a
means of survival to make ends meet. A poorly paid worker justifies corruption
as some kind of “occult compensation”. On the other hand violence and terrorism
are seen as means of settling scores or pressing some presumed legitimate demands.
A close look at these ethical problems in the light
of Kant’s categorical imperative and Absolute Goodwill shows that these acts
in themselves are not good and we cannot universalize a maxim of action built
on corruption, violence or terrorism. We cannot universalize the maxim: “when
in dire need of money for the upkeep of your family, use any fraudulent means”,
nor can we universalize the maxim “use violence
to redress an injustice suffered at the hands of others.” To legalize any of
these acts is to call for a chaotic and dangerous society, which will be very
unsafe for the expression of the fundamental human rights. A society built on
these social evils cannot be stable and will be devoid of progress and development.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
Kant’s contributions in the field of ethical philosophy
are really immense. His conception of the Absolute goodwill and his Categorical
Imperative as the yardstick for the moral evaluation of actions and agents has
greatly influenced moral philosophy since his time. In Kant’s view the categorical
imperative is our criterion for deciding what our obligations are. If the maxims
of our actions can be made into universal laws which necessarily bind all rational
beings then our actions are right and we are good, if they cannot be universalized
the our actions are wrong and we are bad.
The moral force of Kant’s deontological ethical theory notwithstanding,
his categorical imperative as a yardstick of moral evaluation has attracted
some criticisms from various fronts
Some scholars have rejected Kant’s ethical theory
for its inability to handle situations where conflicts of duties arise. There
may be a situation where a conflict arises between duty X and duty Y, a situation
where one can only perform one and not both .
For example, a man faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his duty of defending
his fatherland at war with and unjust aggressor and another duty of staying
behind to take care of his aged and sick mother. He cannot do both at the same
time. In this case Kant’s deontological theory offers us no solution of how
to resolve this dilemma.
It is also argued
against Kant that his ethical theory “seems to confuse judgments of moral obligation
and judgments of moral value”(Blocker &Hannaford,
218). It seems to run the two different kinds of judgments together. One can
have a very humble motive and yet what he does is right, since the rightness
of an action is independent of the agent’s motive. This means there is a distinction
between the agent’s intention and the action’s consequences.
Another objection to Kant’s ethical theory is that
it allows for no exceptions. It is too inflexible for it cannot account for
cases where exceptions have to be made. There are
times circumstances beyond our control make it difficult or even impossible
to keep our promises or fulfill our actions wrong.
In spite of the above objections to Kant’s absolute
goodwill we cannot deny the fact that his categorical imperative is a valuable
guide in making ethical decisions. The ethical issues of suicide, war, abortion,
violence, corruption and terrorism become wrong and unacceptable when subjected
to the test of Kant’s categorical imperative since in the strict sense we cannot
universalize a maxim constructed with these problems.
The
intention of the moral agent must be of universal good not selfish good. The
action must equally be good or at least amoral .We can therefore conclude that
Kant’s ethical theory, though not without its faults, is a conscientious and
valid contribution in deciding the morality of the human agent and his actions.
Blocker, Gene H,
& Hannaford, William.
Introduction to Philosophy.
D. Van Nostrand Company, 1974.
Camus, Albert.
The Myth of Sisyphus. Trans. John Cumming
and J Hargreaves.
Frolov,
Grisez, G and J.M.Boyle. Life and
Death With
of Notre Dame Press, 1979.
Harry, Prosch.
The Genesis of Twentieth Century Philosophy.
University Press, 1966.
John Paul II. Evangelium
Vitae.
Kant, Immanuel. Foundations
of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Trans. Lewis White Beck.
Omoregbe, Joseph.
Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study.
Pazhayampallil, Thomas.
Pastoral Guide Vol.II.
1997.
Peschke, Karl H.
Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of
Vol. II.
Pius XII,
“Address to the International Office of Documentation for Military
Medicine”
In Acta
Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) 45, 1953. P. 748-749.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
“Immanuel Kant”.