Augustine and Kant provided revolutionary ideas on the problem of evil. They provided a means with which humanity could understand why they are so imperfect and thus paved the way for correcting those imperfections. The paper shall argue that the Augustinian view of sin excuses man from accountability and that the best way for solving such a problem is through adoption of Kant’s categorical imperative.
Augustine’s views on the origin of wrongdoing
The three assumptions upon which Augustine bases his ‘ origin of sin’ concept is that man was created pure and he/she has a tendency to do good. The second is that evil results from the absence of good thus making evil an undesirable thing. Lastly, man cannot change the inclination to commit a wrongdoing doing by altering his social environment or anything else around him. In essence, Augustine was arguing that human beings are naturally good, however, they were distorted by the original sin and this causes them to be evil. (Outler, p. 40) In this school of thought, he affirms that there was a monumental fall from grace during humanity’s inception. Consequently, man lost the freedom that had been granted to him and this is a penalty that all other descendants have to deal with. Augustine’s arguments present a number of paradoxes that are resolved by the ‘downfall’ perspective. Augustine asserts that human beings in essence are good and he further affirms that evil is not desirable yet all human beings have an inclination to commit evil. This paradox is therefore resolved by the fall where Augustine explains that man acquired the inclination towards evil when Adam himself sinned. Therefore, through the actions of the first man, everyone else became evil. (Outler, p. 60)
Kant’s view on wrongdoing
Kant did not support the ‘downfall’ concept and dismisses it as a falsehood. He however concurs with Augustine that man is naturally moral although man has that inclination towards committing evil. To Kant, one must give precedence to moral principles rather than one’s inclination and this is an inner decision not based on any superficialities. (Kant, p. 271) His explanation on the collective nature of sin is founded on the premise that evil is not equal or superior to the will. This brings in a paradox which is based on the notion of evil and how to define. If one affirms that to be evil to be human then man is free from moral law. Conversely, if one affirms that to be evil is not natural, then it is assumed that some external force actually caused it and he cannot be held responsible for adhering to moral law. The paradox is solved by the noumenal ‘self concept’. Here, he states that man has two sides which include the apparent and the real. The real human is one who has pure intellect and is not bound by space or time. Conversely, the apparent one is one who eventually unravels himself after certain periods of time. Therefore, man can change morally by subscribing to rational faith. (Kant, p. 47) He can therefore atone himself through suffering.
Why I support Kant’s views
The Augustinian view of evil has a number of loopholes. First, the explanation allows one to understand what happened to the rest of humanity but it does not cover Adam’s sin. His type of sin did not emanate from an inherent nature; Adam had not fallen so he was innocent when committing that sin. Furthermore, the type of evil committed by Adam was original so by virtue of its originality, it cannot be repeated. It is therefore difficult to understand exactly how such sin can be carried forward to other human creations that followed Adam. Critics often wonder why God could not intervene and stop that transmission. Additionally, if man is currently not guilty of his wrongdoing, then he escapes the responsibility for sinning (Kant, p. 248).
Kant’s categorical imperative therefore places the responsibility for rectifying one’s sins on the shoulders of man. When man chooses to act beyond moral law, then he is conscious of these acts and must be made accountable for them. This is a critical insight to the problem of wrongdoing because it provides a tangible solution towards correcting man’s imperfections (Kant, p. 60). Furthermore, because of Kant’s focus on the driving force or the maxim behind an evil act in the categorical imperative doctrine, then humans can demystify this phenomenon of evil. Kant believes that one is moral when they opt to act in a manner that can become a universal law by any other person who may have been placed in such a position. This means that it is man’s imperative to decide whether or not he needs to behave in specific way or not. To this end, Kant offers a means with which man can improve himself. By learning more about life, wants and the like, one can be able to act in a moral way. This implies that one is not born as an evil person; however one has the choice to become evil as one learns more about life. In other words, faith’s place in man’s life can have a richer meaning upon understanding the categorical imperative since faith can then be understood as a means for making man less evil (Kant, p. 238).
Conclusion
Kant’s assertions acknowledge that the problem of sin is a concept that will always be a mystery to man. However, through the categorical imperative, he is able to explain why evil occurs and therefore prescribes ways in which man can take responsibility for his actions.
References
- Outler, Albert. Augustine: Confessions. Texas: Library of congress, 1955
- Kant, Immanuel. Religion within the limits of reason alone, 1793. Steve Palmquist website