Chapter 5 goes over Emmanuel Kant’s or “Kantian” ethical theory, where he does not talk about consequential or governmental law but rather a device of his own creation “moral law” . Firstly, what is described is that there are 2 fundamental types of people in regards to why they obey laws. In the first case persons will obey the law in fear of the consequences thus consequential law, while in the second case they obey in respect of the law. However Kant will argue that there is another category or “moral law” where the law is not of origin of government but instead “there are moral laws that apply to all persons” the chapter continues to discuss Kantian ethics.
A brief look is given to consequential ethics and how it relates to Kant, and it considers how consequential ethics deal with the action and how good and evil arrive from that action. While in contrast Kant is the most notable of a group of “deontological” philosophers, people who believe that people have a universal duty to observe moral law.
The chapter continues to explain the idea behind a “personal rule” where each rational individual can identify as the guiding principle for his/her action. So thus it is not enough that by coincidence the action matches with moral law but must be intended to follow moral law.
Next, the chapter reviews that the Kantian insight is thus: “The Kantian Ethical insight us that there are moral laws and that these laws apply to all persons.” Thus the moral law applies to everyone equally, no one is above or below the law and person A should receive the same punishment as person B is they both broke the law in a similar fashion and that these laws are all connected with reason and rationality. Hence, since all persons are equals and as per example I steal from one man’s property and not from someone else I hereby disregard the rule in 2 ways; a) I am inconsistent in treating everyone as equals and b) I am breaking a moral law assuming stealing can be willed to become a moral law. Thus to Kant, the key ideal’s are moral equality and ethical consistency.
To Kant, “moral laws are connect to reason, and they bind all free, rational beings.” Thus, someone who is able to make well thought out decisions and follow rules and comprehend the idea of what a moral law is. To Kant if one fails to do so he does not qualify as a rational being.
The chapter continues to describe that moral laws but in regards to conditional rules, conditional rules follow a “if-then” format whilst a moral law has no condition, it is both universal and absolute and place (assuming they are legitimate moral laws) an obligation on all persons regardless of their desires.
More so, the chapter describes Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” to determine the legitimate morals laws that guide our actions. Comparing it to the “Golden Rule” found in many of the world’s religions such as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The first categorical imperative as described by Kant would be phrased as: “Act only from those personal rules that you can at the same time will be moral laws.”
The difference as explained is subtle but important for Kantian ethics and that is Kantian ethics is less likely to lead to a subjective interpretation. Since the Golden rule can be interpreted as someone’s likes and dislikes. Thusly, “Persons are to act from those personal rules that they could will to be ethical laws because they are rational, moral equals.”
The chapter also explains that in order to determine if a law is indeed an ethical moral law it must be consistent, universal, and treat all rational human beings as moral equals. “First, individuals must determine the personal rule on which they propose to act. Second, they should only act from rules that are internally consistent. Third, they should only follow rules that are universal. Fourth, they should only act from rules that treat persons as moral equals. Finally, people should never act from rules that treat persons as a means to accomplish the ends of others.”
Later, Kantian ethics is compared to other basic ethical themes on which what their positions on the four basic themes are, the first in the form of a question: “’What kind of moral guidelines make something good or bad: subjective, relative, or objective?’ Kantians believe good and bad are objective because they depend on or are the product of considerations of reason that do not depend on the perceptions, judgments, or emotions of persons or the beliefs of society.” The second major theme is represented as: “What makes something good or bad; is it the consequences that are produced or the reasoning that lead up to it?” Kantians, as stated above obviously believe that the rightness/wrongness depends on the reasoning behind the action. The third theme is: “Are good and bad related to following general rules without exceptions or connected to evaluating each separately?” Kant believes that all moral laws are consistent and absolute and that everyone will if they are ration agree to them but has no list of exceptions or of different instances of moral laws. Fourthly and also finally: “Should the group, community or majority of persons be the focus of Kantian ethics or should the focus be on the individual?” Kantians believe that the individual is the focus not the majority.
Also, the chapter compares Kantian ethical theory and ethical egoism, explaining that while they both share that ethics is rational however egoism does not share Kant’s assertion on universalizability, impartiality, and moral equality. Also the two theories agree on the Kantian assertion that good and bad are objective because they depend on general considerations of reason and not on society or emotions of individuals while ethical Egoism also agrees that good and bad are objective because they relate to factual considerations related to harm and benefit of the individual. They however disagree on the second ethical theme, egoism determines good and bad based on the consequences while Kantian’s looks at the reasoning that precedes the action. Also there is disagreement on a third theme, Kantian’s connect good & bad to general rules and leave no exceptions while Egoists believe on a case by case basis. But both however agree that the focus should be on the individual, so thus the chapter explained that while there are similarities there are also important differences.
However, there are some problems some people may have noticed, these moral laws seem to apply in a black and white matter with little to no room for flexibility. For example, stealing is wrong because your not treating everyone universally as equals by stealing from one and not the other, also your stealing which is morally wrong in the Kantian view. However what Kantian Ethics doesn’t look at or deal with what if you have to steal bread to feed your family? Now there’s a moral dilemma, and because of this Kantian Ethics is more complete then the other theories mentioned in the book but however holds together better and is more consistent.
posted
I think that was pretty good. I only have three comments:
1. Don't use "the chapter explains" so much. Instead of saying "Next, the chapter reviews that the Kantian insight is thus:" just say "The Kantian insight is thus."
2. You mention a lot of terms without giving a lot of explanation of what they are. For the most important terms of the chapter you might want to stop and add in another sentence to clarify what that term means, or give an example. For example, you might want to explain a bit more about the difference between consequential law and moral law. Then it would be a bit easier to follow what Kant is saying.
3. Is this for a philosophy class? If so, the most important thing tends to be whether you can give a clear explanation of exactly what Kant's central argument is - WHY he concludes what he does. That's pretty hard in Kant's case, but if you can try to look at what the core central argument is that is given in the chapter, and see if you can make sure that argument is very clear in your summary. As in Kant says A and B, from which he concludes C, and therefore D.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
