Immanuel Kant’s duty theory can be considered as an element of the deontological ethics. It is the duty that every person has to follow according to moral ethics. All the right or wrong actions of the individuals are not depended on possible consequences of these actions, but rather serve to fulfill the duty. However, it is impossible to insist on the good motives of something without providing any convincing facts.
A good reasoning should be a performance of our duty and demonstrate a will of goodness. Kant indicates that some good issues do not necessarily contain a meaning of the consequences and results, it is good in itself.
Performing of our duty has to be based on the understanding of its major parts and significance. A duty is a necessity to act taking into consideration law issues. In order to get a better understanding of a duty, it is important to investigate two notions of Kant, such as the categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative. An imperative is the statement that indicates the individual the way of behavior.
The hypothetical imperative includes a form of the conditional statement; thereby this position provides the instructions for a specific goal’s achievement, while the categorical imperative gives the instructions which have to be followed regardless of one’s goals (Meerbote and Walford 15).
The categorical imperative is a fundamental principle of Kant’s theory related to the individual moral ethics. For Kant, it is the absolute rule which cannot be overridden by other moral considerations. Therefore, according to Kant, morality has to be a basis of the categorical imperative. An individual is usually controlled by his morality and behaves according to one’s moral principles.
Kant provides several definitions of this principle. The first definition says that an action is permissible only in case it is performed from the position of a maximum. For Kant, a maximum is the universal law that should be followed by everyone (Meerbote and Walford 15). A maximum is the basis for every action including the voluntary one. It is the principle which everyone has to follow.
For instance, the time one spends on charity has to be equal to the time he/she spends on eating. All maximums have a particular format that has to be followed in every circumstance. The universal law provides everyone with the opportunity to perform actions given under certain circumstances and motives. In other words, you have to act more carefully and in accordance with the particular circumstances.
It will be an example for other persons and lead to the similar behaviors of the ones who are facing the same situation. For instance, if I decided to lie in order to get some benefits, it would lead to the situation when everyone can easily lie to each other. So, what consequences will we have?
Nobody will believe me and I will also have doubts about other people’s words. According to Solomon, in case the maximum of lying becomes universal there is no point to lie anymore. It is absolutely impermissible within the first categorical imperative notion (Solomon 5). Kant emphasizes that the notion of maximum contains several flaws in its application. Therefore, the philosopher provides the second notion.
This formulation is based on the same moral principle, but it is more comprehensible and easier in the use. This notion indicates that action is permissible only in case the rational being is not treated. The philosopher believes that only humans are the rational creatures.
Due to their intrinsic value, no one can be treated as an instrument of the desires fulfillment. People involved in this action should accept it voluntarily (Meerbote and Walford 15).
According to Kant’s theory, lying is always a wrong action and, therefore, people should not get involved in it. However, due to the different life positions and moral principles of people, it is difficult to achieve the positions of this statement. There are always some specific circumstances which require the particular exclusions.
For instance, if I have to lie in order to save someone’s life, isn’t it an exception to the rules? The present universal law can be considered from position of contradiction. As the result, people would not stop believing each other because they lie to save lives.
Kant explores his theory with the relation to lying only. The maximums and other universal laws should be specified in the ways that could demonstrate the relevant features of any situation given. For instance, in this case, the situation of committing a murder in order to protect oneself can be considered as an exception.
The understanding of the universal maximum of lie is not an answer which helps choosing the right method of behavior in a situation when someone has to save the other person’s life. Therefore, Kant’s theory of ethics cannot be considered as the universal conception of the human behavior. However, comparing with the utilitarian system of ethics, Kant’s theory seems more applicable due to its objectives (Gregor 46).
According to Kant’s theory, the system of ethics is very useful in guiding principle of human morality. However, this theory cannot be relevant in the complicated and vague situations. Immanuel Kant’s duty theory contains a good definition of morality and its particular elements, such as lying or stealing. Kant indicates that the goodness has not to contain a meaning of the consequences and results, it is good in itself.
Works Cited
Gregor, Mary. The Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Cambridge University Press,1975. Print.
Meerbote, Ralf & Walford, David. Theoretical Philosophy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1992. Print.
Solomon, Robert. Introducing Philosophy. Boston: Sage, 1997.Print.