PHILOSOPHY OF KANT AND THE FORMULATIONS

PHILOSOPHY OF KANT AND THE FORMULATIONS

Kant is one of the prominent philosophers who came into the scene in the enlightenment period. It was a period of criticism and was marked by the rise of rationality. He initiated a Copernican revolution in the theoretical philosophy. In the classical philosophy objects were the centre of focus. And the one who live the dogmas were considered as moral. But he changed it and through his system put the individual reason to the centre. And for him the one who follow the rules that are self-legislated is considered to be moral. The law given through self-legislation is called ‘Categorical Imperatives’.

Kant wanted to propose a theory which will be applicable to all, always, and everywhere. According to him all the existing theories were incapable to attain this goal, because they had a lot of shortcomings. Various systems had given different aims for a moral life, but for him they were not correct – pleasure cannot be considered as the aim of ethics because it is unstable. Moreover some enjoy pleasure in suffering also. Happiness also cannot be considered because; we are not obliged by necessity to be happy. Moral sense also was rejected because it was not found to be universal; different cultures, civilizations, nations, etc have different moral sense. Perfection of self was also ruled out because it will also be giving pleasure and happiness which are already ruled out. So he looked for a more solid base.

All theories ultimately came to failure because of the exceptions. So Kant wanted to nullify the exceptions; for that the base wanted to be universal. So he took reason which is species specific to human beings as the base of his system. Also here the rule is that follow only that rule which is self-legislated by the reason.

In this system of Kant the fundamental principles are made not from book but from reason itself by critique on it (pure reason). The focus is on identifying these principles and to realize them. His focus is on the intentions and not on acts. Hence we can be sure about our acts as moral if we have a good intention. The goal of moral analysis is to make a coherent set of guiding principles and to live it out and it must be from pure reason. Three concepts are important in this system they are duty, categorical imperative and freewill. Will is the faculty of reason and if said more specifically it is the practical reason. Categorical imperatives we have already seen before and duty is the necessity or obligation that arises from the imperative, command.

Pure Reason

According to Kant the categorical imperatives or the self-legislation must happened from the pure reason. He gives a distinction for the pure reason because in human beings with reason there is also desires or inclinations. Here rationality, species specific to human beings is common and hence universal. But inclinations and desires are not same for all and hence are not universal so they are to be eliminated. Only those laws made by reason in its pure state are considered as categorical imperatives. Hence one must always try to make decisions from the pure reason by eliminating the inclinations.

But he itself later admitted that it is impossible to eliminate all inclinations. Also he in the later stages differentiated human inclinations from other animal inclinations. As humans are higher state of existents it will be different from the inclinations of the other existents. Also he even said that some inclinations will give an extra support to perform the rule commanded by the pure reason.

So looking from another dimension we can understand that his theory is an ideal one which can never be attained but what matters is the constant effort to attain that ideal state.

Formulations of Categorical Imperatives

As his theory is an ideal state and which is unattainable how it is possible to act morally? So he gave three major formulations which will help to act from pure practical reason.

1. Formula of Universal Law

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

2. Formula of the End-in-itself

“Act in such a way that you always treat the humanity whether in your own person or in the person of others; never simply as a mean but always at the same time as an end.”

3. Formula of Autonomy

“So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making of universal law through its maxims.”

Why We Should Act According to these Formulas

According to Kant necessity and universality are the characteristic features of moral law. And he clearly hold that only a moral theory based on reason could be sufficiently universal, and command with necessity; so anything other than the rational moral motive is rejected as spurious. So the presence of inclinations and desires will adversely affect the motive in the spectrum of moral practice.

According to the formula of universal law my rule must not be applicable to me alone but to all. It is a certainty from the idea of pure reason that, any act that we do from pure reason will be moral not only for us but also far all in their pure reason. Because if there are no desires or inclinations the pure reason is same for all so the rule of one will be the rule acceptable to all. Hence if the rule that made by reason has universality it is sure that it came from pure reason. But in the other way if it comes from reason coupled with inclinations it will not be a universal rule. Because inclination indicates a need; and it belongs to the psychological nature of human beings; which includes both emotions and passions. Kant considers that the subjection of a human being to emotions and passions is “an illness of mind” as they “exclude the sovereignty of reason.” “Unless reason holds the rein of government in its own hands, man’s feelings and inclinations assume mastery over him”; which according to him is unacceptable.

Universality criterion is also morally significant because I am in community and if my moral is not viable to community it is not moral. Thus this points to a community matrix in which moral maxims and morally worth actions are realized. I act morally only when I have a disposition to choose in such a way that I can consistently affirm that everyone ought to do what I do in the same circumstances. The actions coming from inclinations will be aimed not to the whole but only for the personal interests, so it will not fulfill the universality criterion, and hence it will be immoral.

According to the formula of the end-in-itself, human being at any condition must be respected. Humanity is the fundamental, so by our actions of pure reason we respect humanity and so we are realizing ourselves. So there will not be any conditions. So if the act is done keeping in mind the unconditionality it will be moral.

But in the actions arising from inclinations the empirical ends get prominence and for the fulfillment of it all others are considered as means, so it is a conditioned act. All our moral actions have their end in humanity. We rational beings are called as person because we are considered as an end in ourselves by our nature. So human beings cannot be treated merely as a mean. So, both the source of inclination and its dependence on sensibility, and its aligning with empirical interests with a motive for happiness, and the thrust on striving for its own satisfaction set it apart as unworthy of a moral motive and even detrimental to it.

According to the formula of autonomy law is self given and moral agent is autonomous in obeying. Autonomy is a property of goodwill. Autonomy is through self discipline or self mastery. Here we transcend our individuality in favour of universality. It is the greatest endowment. But in the actions done from inclinations self-interest is the motive and will not be done from self-legislation. By categorical imperative morality is not self –interest.

Conclusion

Kantian philosophy gives us an ideal theory. Here the morality is almost unattainable but what matters is the constant effort. It welcomes all for a self-legislated rule, which is to be done by the pure reason, the only certain faculty. So there is no choice it is an obligation, duty to follow it. Kant upholds the primacy of reason, and that unless reason capable of raising us to a status above the animals that are devoid of reason, and to fit us for “higher purposes,” the claim of possessing the faculty of reason is in itself worthless.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chackalackal, Saju. Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant. Bangalore: Dharmaram

               Publications, 2002.

Chackalackal, Saju. “Kant on Inclinations: ‘Alien’ or ‘Human’?.” Journal of Dharma

               30, 1 (January-March 2005) 117-134.