Introduction
Decision-making is one of the most crucial activities among human beings. The activity involves the critical application of the human mind that would lead to the most significant outcome. Social institutions and structures involve similar crucial thinking for the benefit of society. Ethical theories provide the foundation of a decision-making process by providing views from which humans seek guidance. Ethics guides telling the truth, keeping promises, and helping those in need. It is ethical to fulfill moral obligations as required by law or given principles. The consequentialist ethical theories are focused on the ethical consequences of particular actions. Meanwhile, non-consequentialist ethical theories focus on doers’ intentions when making specific ethical decisions. Therefore, ethical theories help humans determine their ethical actions and consequences.
Kantian ethics are non-consequentialist since it is based on absolute moral imperatives. The theory’s main features are autonomy of the will, categorical imperative, rational beings and thinking capacity, and human dignity. Kantian ethics is a theory of value since it values human dignity and the life of other living organisms like cats and dogs. Moreover, the approach emphasizes on moral evaluation of actions as obligatory. Therefore, Kantian ethics can be described as a theory of value and obligation. This research will explore the four main features of the Kantian theory and support the features with examples. Moreover, the paper will argue that the Kantian theory is a theory of value and obligation by drawing illustrations from its applicability.
What is Ethics?
Definition of ethics is a multifaceted question with no specific response and is sometimes confusing. However, the definition can be simplified by breaking it into two: well-founded ethical standards and developing ones. While the term ‘ethical standards’ brings another complexity to the definition, it is described as the extent of doing right or wrong. Obligations, societal benefits, or specific virtues are categorized as ethical standards. For instance, the standards impose reasonable obligations to desist from corruption, stealing, assault, and any other vice condemned by society. Secondly, ethics involves a constant examination of the mentioned ethical standards to ensure that they are within the reasonable ambit and well-founded. Personal feelings, law, and various social norms are at risk of deviating from ethical considerations. Consequently, it is appropriate to examine the ethical standards constantly. Therefore, ethics refer to moral standards and their constant examination to ensure that they are well-founded.
The Kantian Ethics
Having understood the meaning of ethics, dissecting Kantian ethics is significant. The theory was developed by a German Philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, who argued that the practical rationality principle is the supreme principle of morality (Mihailov 5). The categorical imperative is the leading principle justified by all specific moral requirements. Consequently, immoral actions like murder and rape are irrational since they encroach upon the categorical imperative. According to Kant, all ethical requirements are based on rational standards that satisfy one’s desires, as Thomas Hobbes argued, and external logical principles that can be reasoned, as argued by John Locke and St. Thomas Aquinas (Gorecka 2-6). Kant argued that a non-instrumental principle, conformity to the categorical imperative, is essential to rational agency. Consequently, a ‘rational will’ must be regarded as ‘free will,’ and the categorical imperative as the law of autonomous will. Therefore, Kantian ethics propounds that self-autonomy among human beings is the source of equal worth that deserves equal respect.
As non-consequentialists, Kantian ethics has a broad use in humanity and decision-making processes. The theory emphasizes not on the actions and the doers but the consequences of their effects on the doer. For instance, there is a perfect duty to tell the truth, even if it seems lying would help someone achieve specific goals that are beneficial to them. Moreover, the theory holds on respect to living organisms and prohibits the conduct of scientific test research on human beings and animals. For instance, vaccination tests on human beings are disrespectful even if it yields benefits to the entire society. Like any other ethical theory, Kantian ethics was criticized by various scholars and philosophers. G.W.F Hegel critiqued Kant’s arguments for insufficiently providing in his theory for decision-making and for denying human nature (Roupa 8-13). Meanwhile, some religious criticism of the theory includes the Catholic Church’s argument that the theory is contradictory since it regards Christian ethics as compatible with virtue ethics.
Elements of Kantian Theory to Ethics
The Kantian ethics place humans at the center of any decision-making process. The theory regards human existence and its capacity as a guiding norm in understanding moral conduct. Consequently, the approach is built on four core elements: autonomy of the will, categorical imperative, rational beings, rational thinking capacity, and human dignity and humanity as an end to itself. Although the theory gives insufficient information, it can be used to create norms and rules for practical implementation. Moreover, Kantian ethics has been used as a reference point in creating institutions like the United Nations that recognize the universality of human rights (Volpe 220-223). Therefore, the theory’s four core elements summarize the applicability of Kantian ethics.
The Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative underpins every moral judgment and helps determine moral duties. Consequently, human beings understand that an action’s morals in international society are judged based on the underlying rules. Therefore, the categorical imperative refers to perfect moral rules capable of universalization. A universal moral rule has an intrinsic value that describes objectives and constraints on conduct those human beings desire or not. In the book, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (4:393), Kant states, “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a goodwill.” Therefore, as argued by Kant, the categorical imperative is conformity with the moral law. However, his argument is different from the consequentialist theorists who argued that a ‘good will’ is the one that produces the best possible state of affairs.
Unlike other rules of action, the categorical imperative informs human beings what they are obliged to do regardless of circumventing conditions. Kant argues that “there is an imperative which, without being based on, and conditioned by, any further purpose to be attained by a certain line of conduct, enjoins this conduct immediately” (Kant 4:429). The other rules of actions dissimilar to the categorical imperative were described as hypothetical imperative. For instance, getting something to eat if someone is hungry and does not have any binding obligation is a hypothetical imperative since it tells someone what to do if certain other conditions are satisfied. Contrary to the hypothetical imperatives, the categorical imperatives immediately enjoin conduct. Therefore, the hypothetical imperatives are incapable of universalization since they are based on personal free will and subjective desires without constraints. Kantian categorical imperative includes a duty not to steal and a general duty not to harm others. For instance, the duty not to steal is morally right since it enhances trust, secures ownership, and helps human beings know what belongs to them. Although the categorical imperative explains how human beings identify universal rules, it does not explain why they should ‘will’ them to become ‘universal law.’
Autonomy of the Will
Every rational being wishes to act in their interest and capability. Moreover, every society acts in the interest of its people and their ability. Kant argued that autonomy of the will is the property the will has of being a law of itself. According to Kant, “the will is the thought of as a faculty of determining itself to act under the representation of certain laws, and such faculty can be found only in rational beings” (Willascheck 40-50). Kant’s averments make the qualification of a personal will chaotic since everyone may act as they wish. However, he supports his argument with the universal formula: any rule must be capable of universalization. In his book The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he explains, “never to choose except in such a way that in the same volition the maxims of your choice are also present in universal law” (Kant 4:391). Although Kant proposes human free will and actions, they are only permitted if they can be universalized.
Moreover, according to Kant, rule-making should be free of personal desires and interests. However, it is impossible to legislate without relying on personal desires and inclinations, and legislators succumb to personal interests. Kant objected to the functionality of personal desires in a will and stated that personal desires and motives are just part of the deliberative process. If the motives are consistent with rules capable of universalization, then they can be permitted. The autonomy of the will concept becomes more muddled since how will one know that a personal motive is capable of being universalized? However, Kant’s arguments can be understood in simple terms: any legislator makes law with an understanding that they are also subject to such a law in question. Therefore, no legislator would make a law that would be prejudicial to themselves but for their benefit and society. In conceptualizing the autonomy of the will, Kant advocated for universal government: ‘the kingdom of ends’ (Kant 4:433). Perhaps the formation of the United Nations and the making of general rules of international laws borrowed Kant’s concept.
Rational Beings and Rational Thinking Capacity
Emmanuel Kant used ‘rational being’ as the primary agent in rule-making. Rationality in human beings refers to the capability to understand and reason causing an action or conduct (Kant 4:488). Kant proposed four features of a ‘rational being’: capacity to understand and reason, set and be subjective universal rules, practical reasoning, and deliberative and self-reflective capacity (Kant 4:453). Human beings can think and set ‘ends,’ objectives, justifications, and reasons for specific actions. While only ‘rational beings’ can legislate, they can only do that with free will. Therefore, Kant suggested that coercion cannot be used to make ‘rational being legislate.’ In his book, Kant states, “reasons create the idea of spontaneity, which could start to act from itself, without needing to be preceded by any other cause that determines it to act according to the law of casual connection” (Foreman 50-67). Therefore, deliberative capacity allows ‘rational beings’ to make decisions with the feeling that they are free o do so.
Judgments are crucial for social and interactional competencies since they enable ‘rational beings’ to decide whether a particular thing falls within a general rule. Therefore, human beings can acquire knowledge through ‘analytical judgments’ and ‘synthetic judgments.’ While the predicate of ‘analytical judgments’ is contained in the subject’s concept, it is external to the subject in the ‘synthetic judgments.’ Moreover, the predicate adds something new to the ‘rational being’s conception of it in the ‘synthetic judgments’ (Kant 4:445). Synthetic and analytical judgments enable human beings to understand concepts like freedom and autonomy of free will without prior knowledge.
Human Dignity and Humanity as An End in Itself
Kantian ethics is described as transcendent value-based ethics since it encourages humans to treat humanity as an end to itself. A transcendent value is a value that surpasses all variances and unifies a group (Kant 4:391). According to Kant, ‘treating humanity as an end to itself’ means recognizing and upholding the status and value of human dignity. Therefore, humanity is a representation of objective ends, not relative ends. Unlike the objective ends, relative ends are based on personal desires, wants, and ambitions and are replaceable (Kant 4:428). For instance, personal ambitions of becoming a doctor can be replaced with the equivalent of becoming a pharmacist. Meanwhile, objective ends like respect for human life and privacy cannot be replaced with any other end. Therefore, human dignity is an objective end that can be universalized and cannot be replaced by relative ends like ambitions.
Human dignity is a concept that has gained universalization and is included in the international customary laws. For instance, article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Ramcharan 23). The concept is significant in deontology since it enables the integration of morality beyond an individual, group, or society to accommodate the broader world. Consequently, the legislators devise prospective and aspirational rules of what humanity aims for. Moreover, human dignity is an intrinsic value possessed by all human beings and is not based on their characteristics. Therefore, human dignity and humanity as an end to itself are significant for rule-making processes.
Plausibility of the Kantian Ethics
Theory of Value
Value theory, in axiology, is any theory that examines how, why, and to what degree humanity can value things and objects. The value ascribed to a particular object or subject of the human being can either be intrinsic or instrumental value (Keitsch 829). While intrinsic value is worth for having itself and not as a means to something else, instrumental value is worth having as a means of getting something good (Willascheck 45-49). An example of an object with instrumental, extrinsic value has a smartphone for communication. Kantian ethics, like the Utilitarian theory, ascribes to intrinsic value. Kant only thought of an intrinsic value as having moral worth for its own sake to be goodwill. The categorical imperative as a fundamental law of morality places intrinsic value on actions that are of free will and universal. Moreover, the theory places an intrinsic value on human dignity that must be respected regardless of other pleasures that comes with driving it out. Therefore, Kantian ethics is a theory of intrinsic value on categorical goods and not extrinsic value.
Theory of Obligation
An obligation is a multifaceted term that has legal and moral meaning. While moral obligation arises out of right or wrong considerations, legal obligations arise from principles or laws governing society. For instance, it is a legal obligation not to over-speed in certain countries. Unlike legal obligation, moral obligation emanates from ascribing certain intrinsic values to things. According to Kantian ethics, human dignity and goodwill are categorical imperatives with intrinsic values. Consequently, human beings are obliged to respect human dignity for their own sake. Moral obligation can only be applied to those rules that have universality. For instance, it is a moral obligation not to steal since stealing is detrimental to society and the thief himself. ‘rational beings’ formulated the stated moral obligations based on ‘rational thinking.’ International instruments have adopted Kantian moral obligations to develop international customary law. Therefore, Kantian ethics is a legal obligation due to its universal moral obligation.
Conclusion
Ethical theories are significant in giving moral perspectives on various decisions that affect humanity. The theories define the kinds of moral obligations bestowed on human beings due to their uniqueness of rational thinking. Kantian ethics is an example of ethical theory that is obligatory and centered on intrinsic values. The theory’s four main features are autonomy of free will, the categorical imperative, rational beings and rational thinking capacity, and human dignity and humanity as an end to itself. The four elements distinguish the theory’s argument from other theories in that it is centered on the ‘rational being’ and intrinsic value of the human subject. The Kantian theory imposes moral obligations adopted to become international customary laws. Placing an intrinsic value on humanity, Kantian ethics argues that it is immoral to disrespect human dignity. Therefore, Kantian ethics is a theory of obligation and value.
Works Cited
Forman, David. “Kant on the Moral Law as the Causal Law for Freedom.” Kant-Studien, vol. 113, 2022, pp. 40-83.
Gorecka, Arletta. “On the nature of law: The relevance of deontological natural law perspective in modern times.”International Comparative Jurisprudence ,vol. 6, 2020, pp. 1-8. Web.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Edited by Allen W. Wood, Yale University Press, 2019, Web.
Keitsch, Martina. “Structuring ethical interpretations of the sustainable development goals—Concepts, implications and progress.” Sustainability, vol. 10, 2018, p. 829.
Mihailov, Emilian. “Measuring Impartial Beneficence: A Kantian Perspective on the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2022, pp. 1-16.
Ramcharan, Bertrand. “Universality.” The Protection Role and Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Brill Nijhoff, 2022, pp. 13-38.
Roupa, Vicky. “Articulations: Of Nature and Politics.”Articulations of Nature and Politics in Plato and Hegel. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020, pp. 1-20. Web.
Volpe, Valentina. “The Importance of Being Earnest. The United Nations and Democracy-Promotion.” Mentoring Comparative Lawyers: Methods, Times, and Places. Springer, Cham, 2020, pp. 219-235.
Willaschek, Marcus. Kant on the sources of metaphysics: The dialectic of pure reason. Cambridge University Press, 2018.