Kant's Ethical Philosophy

Kant’s Ethical Philosophy
Introduction
Immanuel Kant is one of the most important and famous philosophers of the present Europe. He led a very dull life in the late eighteen century. He never left his home town of Königsburg. Neighbours used to set their watches by his afternoon walks due to his life which was organized. Still, what Kant did not have in terms of a fascinating lifestyle he replaced it in the interest and the complexity of his philosophy.
His main work on ethics was the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he wanted to establish true ethical values and duties over and against human desires.
Discussion
Immanuel Kant’s ethical Philosophy argues that ethical requirements are based on a certain level of rationality known as “Categorical Imperative” (CI). To him being unethical involves a violation of the Categorical Imperative and is hence irrational. Kant argued that conforming to Categorical Imperative and thus ethical requirements themselves can moreover be termed to be important to the agency of rational. This argument was founded on his striking doctrine that a will that is rational should be regarded as free. This is in the sense of being the founder of the rule that bind it. The law of a free will is the fundamental principle of ethics. Thus, at the centre of Kant’s ethical Philosophy is the acquisition of reason which extends beyond that of Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Furthermore, decisive grounds for viewing each person as possessed of same worth and deserving of same respect is offered by the presence of this self-governing reason in each person (Fistioc 277).
The traditional Christian judgement require that we become heteronomous vis-a’ vis God. Kant says that the basic principle of morality is autonomy. Taken in terms of divine power, justice can only be achieved if judgement is done by God who can unilaterally direct human wills but Kant in his categorical imperative theory says that in all its forms judgement demands that God always respect the autonomy of human beings (Timmerman 29).
Kant’s notion of human accountability at final judgment is that people can not be held accountable unless they can make choices. Whether free choices are really being made or not may be a doubt. This doubt originates from an application of causal determinism which is a theory that states that consequences are purely determined by their causes i.e. if this happens that must follow. Kant argues that this is only possible in
the natural world but not with human behaviour. Human behaviour can not be determined (Timmerman 34).
Categorical Imperative is the universal law that will comply with all people that can think rationally and make an ethically correct decision that is not founded upon their own desires. Not to inflict damage or harm another person or agent. It deals with universalizability. This states that an act is unethical if it can not be made into a law for all people to adhere to. For instance, if you say “I will never keep my promises”, this would be taken to be unethical since it can not be applied to all human beings. If it were like this promises would lose all meaning since no one would keep their promises. Kant insists that the fundamental principle of our ethical duties is a Categorical imperative. Being a command it is imperative for instance “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.” In short it commands us to exercise our wills in a certain way, not doing some action or other (Timmerman 36).
Rules for applying Categorical Imperative
Categorical Imperative follows three major rules (maxims) in its operation. These are:
1.) “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Fistioc 345). This first rule of the categorical imperative is the most important. Kant sub-divided these responsibilities into “perfect duty” and “imperfect duty”. All human beings have a perfect duty of not acting by maxims that conclude with a reasonable disagreement when they try to universalize them. In addition, human beings have an “imperfect duty” of working only by maxims that they can universalize.
2.) “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Timmerman 46). This second principle explains further about on the “perfect duty” aspect in that we ought not to exploit ourselves or other people solely as a “means to an end” It further expands on the aspect of “imperfect duty” in that we s...