Module 6 - Kant's Categorical Imperative & Theory of Right PDF

MODULE 6: KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AND HIS THEORY OF RIGHT COURSE OVERVIEW: COURSE OVERVIEW: 1. This subject deals with ethical theories, their respective proponents and their application in the analysis of classic and current moral issues. 2.. It seeks to recognize and understand the...

MODULE 6: KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AND HIS THEORY OF RIGHT COURSE OVERVIEW: COURSE OVERVIEW: 1. This subject deals with ethical theories, their respective proponents and their application in the analysis of classic and current moral issues. 2.. It seeks to recognize and understand the reasons in accepting or rejecting a certain moral principles, and pursues to clarify arguments behind a moral standing on moral issues. 3. It aims to develop in students the desire and appreciation for the “Good Life” and forge the skills of philosophical thinking, ethical reasoning, and moral courage. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: By the end of this module, students are able to: Discuss and understand Kant’s Categorical Imperative and his Theory of Right. COURSE CONTENT: The Human Person as the Foundation of the Categorical Imperative: The Human Person as the Foundation of the Categorical Imperative The a Priori Principles as the Bases for Morality Practical Reason, Goodwill and Duty Kant’s Categorical Imperatives Kant’s Theory of Right A. THE HUMAN PERSON AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804) is one of the most influential German Philosophers in the Age of Enlightenment, a time when Reason challenges Faith in all its assumptions. He argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality he called the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (CI). All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle. In fact, for Kant, the human person as a rational moral agent is the sole basis in determining the truth of the categorical imperative. Indeed, behind the formal ethical facade of Kant’s categorical imperative is the attempt of the human person to achieve moral perfection. According to Kant, the human person has a TWO-FOLD NATURE, namely: 1. HOMO NOUMENON - on the one hand, the term noumenon, which is derived from Kant’s epistemology, refers to the essence of things. For Kant, the noumenon is the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) (Copleston, 1963). According to Kant, the noumenon cannot be known because, as the essence of things, it is beyond experience. HOMO NOUMENON is the “god-like self” of the human person. 2. HOMO PHENOMENON - on the other hand, the term phenomenon, according to Kant, refers to the thing as it appears to the observer (Copleston, 1963). In other words, the phenomenon is the empirical part of a thing. It is indeed that part of a thing that can be experienced by humans. HOMO PHENOMENON is the merely human self.  The noumenon is the idealized person who must be perfected to actualize its “god-like” nature. We can actualize our god-like self by developing ourselves into moral persons. The phenomenal self or human self can provide us the key. Kant argues that the only way to perfect our god-like self is through its counter part of the human self as the human self is the spring board for the actualization of our god-like self. B. THE A PRIORI PRINCIPLES AS THE BASIS FOR MORALITY But what exactly is an a priori principle, and how does it differ from a posteriori one? Generally, the terms a priori and a posteriori are used to establish the basis of knowledge, that is, how something is known. Because morality requires about necessity and strict universality, as Kant posits, then it must be viewed in the light of pure philosophy (Babor, 1998). By pure philosophy, Kant argues morality must not be based on experience, but on an a priori knowledge or principle. This means that the human person does not need to experience the circumstance in actuality to be able to decide the morality of her actions. Rather, morality must be conceived a priori, so as to make the command, that is the categorical imperative, blinding to all rational beings. On the other hand, an a PRIORI principle is based on knowledge or concept that can be known independent of experience. The statement “All bachelors are unmarried” is a common example of an a priori knowledge. On the other handhand, that which can only be known through human experience, according to Kant, is called a posteriori knowledge. Statement such as “The pain due to appendicitis is intolerable” or “the food is delicious” are examples of an a priori knowledge. As we can see, it requires one to actually experience appendicitis before she can say that the pain is unbearable or is due to appendicitis, just as one can only say that the food is delicious when she actually taste it. For Kant, because an a posteriori principle is dependent on experience and its consequence, it cannot form the basis of morality. As is well known, human persons experience things in different ways. Hence, a posteriori knowledge may vary from one person to another, relative to their actual experiences. Therefore, if morality has to be binding to all rational beings without exceptions, then it must be based on something that holds a universal truth, that is, on an a priori principle. C. PRACTICAL REASON, GOODWILL AND DUTY Kant continues to assert that as morality is based on an a priori principle, this principle must be determined by reason. For philosophers, human persons acting morally are tantamount to rational beings acting in accordance with reason. As the foundation of morality, it is necessary to conceive of such a reason in which its application leads to an absolute necessity and forms a universal law. PRACTICAL REASON - Kant believes that reason, especially practical reason, is the source of moral law. Practical reason is concerned with action and what one ought to do. It helps individuals determine moral duties by deriving universal principles that are valid for all rational beings. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a product of practical reason, offering a guideline for moral behavior based on rationality rather than personal inclinations.  GOODWILL - According to Kant, goodwill is the only thing that is good without qualification. It means doing the right thing because it is the right thing, not for any selfish or ulterior motive. Goodwill, therefore, involves acting in accordance with moral duty out of reverence for the moral law. For example, telling the truth because it is inherently right, not because it brings a benefit or avoids harm. DUTY - Kant’s notion of duty refers to the moral obligations dictated by reason. He argues that one must perform moral duties not for personal gain or external rewards, but out of respect for the moral law itself. Duty is the motivation that aligns action with moral law. In his deontological approach, acting from duty rather than in accordance with duty is what gives an action its moral worth. A person acts morally when they perform an action because it is their duty, not because of any consequences or personal inclinations. D. KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE The principal moral rule in Kant’s ethical theory is what he calls the categorical imperative-essentially meaning “absolute command”. Kant argues that the only thing that is absolutely good, good in itself and without qualification, is the GOOD WILL. All other intrinsic goods, both intellectual and moral are only morally valuable if accompanied by a GOOD WILL. Kant makes distinction between HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE and CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE a rule of conduct that is understood to apply to an individual only if he or she desires a certain end and has chosen (willed) to act on that desire. Although hypothetical imperatives may be expressed in various ways, their basic logical form. Example: “If you want to be trusted, you should always tell the truth”; “If you want to become rich, you should steal whenever you can get away with it”; and “If you want to avoid heartburn, you should not eat capsaicin. HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES are contrasted with “categorical” imperatives, which are rules of conduct that, by their form— “Do (or do not do) Y”—are understood to apply to all individuals, no matter what their desires. Examples corresponding to those above are: “Always tell the truth”; “Steal whenever you can get away with it”; and “Do not eat capsaicin.” For Kant there is only one categorical imperative in the moral realm. Nevertheless, he formulated it in two ways: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” and “So act as to treat humanity…always as an end, and never as only a means.” CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a rule of conduct that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any desire or end. For example is categorical imperative, as distinct from the hypothetical imperatives associated with desire, such as “Do not steal if you want to be popular.” For Kant there was only one categorical imperative in the moral realm, which he formulated in two ways. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” is a purely formal or logical statement and expresses the condition of the rationality of conduct rather than that of its morality, which is expressed in another Kantian formula: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end and never as only a means.” The kind of imperative that fits Kant’s scheme as a product of reason is one that universalizes principles of conduct. He names it the categorical imperative (CI): “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.” By maxim, Kant means the general rule in accordance with which the agent intends to act. For example, if I am thinking about assisting someone in need, my underlying maxim might be this: “When I see someone in need, I should assist him or her when it does not cause an undue burden on me.” The second step is to consider whether this maxim could be universalized to apply to everyone, such as: “When anyone sees someone in need, that person should assist him or her when it does not cause an undue burden on the person.” If it can be universalized, then we accept the maxim, and the action is moral. If it cannot be universalized, then we reject the maxim, for the action is immoral. According to Kant: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law” is the only categorical imperative but could be formulated into three principles: 1. PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW OF NATURE - “Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.” The emphasis here is that you must act analogous to the laws of physics specifically insofar as such laws are not internally conflicting or self-defeating. Example: Making a Lying Promise: Suppose I need some money and am considering whether it would be moral to borrow the money from you and promise to repay it without ever intending to do so. Could I say to myself that everyone should make a false promise when he is in difficulty from which he otherwise cannot escape? M. Whenever I need money, I should make a lying promise while borrowing the money. 2. PRINCIPLE OF ENDS - “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never as merely a means.” Each person as a rational being has dignity and profound worth, which entails that he or she must never be exploited or manipulated or merely used as a means for the general good. We, as valuers, must conceive of ourselves as having unconditioned worth. We cannot think of our personhood as a mere thing because then we would have to judge it to be without any value except that given to it by the estimation of someone else. But then that person would be the source of value, and there is no reason to suppose that one person should have unconditional worth and not another who is relevantly similar. Therefore, we are not mere objects. We have unconditional worth and so must treat all such value-givers as valuable in themselves—as ends, not merely means. I leave it to you to evaluate the validity of this argument, but most of us do hold that there is something exceedingly valuable about human life. 3. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUTONOMY - “So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims.” That is, we do not need an external authority—be it God, the state, our culture, or anyone else—to determine the nature of the moral law. We can discover this for ourselves. And the Kantian faith proclaims, everyone who is ideally rational will legislate exactly the same universal moral principles.  Kant’s argues that human person’s perfection lies on how we deeply embraced the categorical imperative expressed in the three principles. The god-like self’s attainment of moral perfection is impeded when the human self constantly disobey the dictates of reason to follow the categorical imperative by valuing more one’s selfish desires or inclination. E. KANT’S THEORY OF RIGHT Kant conceived the moral law, that is, the categorical imperative as an absolute commandment is binding to all human persons, he insists that his bindingness is self-imposed. This means that the human person autonomously prescribes the moral laws for herself that govern her actions. In other words, although the categorical imperative is a universal laws, the human person has the freedom to choose wether or not to obey that moral law of action. It is common for Kant's rights-based liberalism to be contrasted with the communitarian authoritarianism of the later Fichte and of Hegel, and it is the concept of autonomy that is generally regarded as the theoretical fount of Kant's theory of natural rights, providing the analytical link between Kant's moral philosophy and his political and legal theory. The author argues that this view is erroneous: The notion of autonomy ultimately remains contentless and incapable of providing practical political and legal prescriptions without Kant's substantive account of human nature, an account specifying both the proper moral ends that humans should strive for and the anthropological limits of human perfectibility. Kant's theory of rights is informed by both sets of considerations. Contrary to the received view, Kant develops a socially sensitive account of the self in his later writings, and comes to believe that individual autonomy depends in large measure on the realization of certain propitious sociocultural and political arrangements. For Kant, natural rights, like individual freedom, are not ahistorical, universal standards of political justice but the historical outcome of the long process of enlightenment. As such, what is right will depend on what is timely. Here Kant is much closer to Fichte and Hegel than is generally acknowledged. Kant outlines his theory of right in accordance with freedom. In fact, Kant equated freedom with right. In his The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant (1996, p. 30) writes: “Freedom (independence from being constrained by another’s choice), in so far as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law, is the only original right belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity. “What we can draw from this passage is that we have the right to freedom by virtue of our humanity. In other words, freedom is the sole original right. And with this conception of original right, Kant was able to formulate the concept of human rights, which now includes the right to life, the right to be independent, and the right to express one’s own thoughts and opinions. Indeed, Kant says that it is by virtue of our being rational and autonomous that we are entitled to fundamental rights and other types of external rights.