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.

CHANGE FROM PHRONESIS TO MODERN MORALITY

CHANGE FROM PHRONESIS TO MODERN MORALITY

Introduction

Immanuel Kant transforms the Greek concept of ethics into modern morality in his Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant makes a transformation of Greek concept of phronesis into supreme principle of modern morality. It is true that there is nothing called Greek morality or modern morality, but we find merely different theories of morality. Transformation however does not mean mere change. The transformation of Greek into modern morality is nothing but literally inversion-perversion of Greek world.
Man is a rational animal, who has human inclinations. It is reason that makes a person truly human. For Kant, every human has a moral responsibility to act in such a way that it becomes a universal norm. Due to human inclinations man cannot exercise his pure reason. So it becomes our duty to purify our reason and to act from reason. He introduces categorical Imperative, which every person has to make his own. “As our rationality is mixed with sensibility, in order that the moral law be carried out, it must be able to generate specifically incentives.” We have to act out of duty, for our nature is corrupt.
Greek Phronesis

Phronesis is practical wisdom. According to Plato and Socrates phronesis plays a role in arête. Aristotle also makes the same point in Nicomachean Ethics. In this master piece he makes distinctions between two kinds of actions :( 1) actions, which are ends in themselves and are designated as doing or acting, and (2) actions, which are designated as making or producing and have ends different from these activities themselves and these ends are produced by these actions as consequences. Thus, phronesis is the reasoned state of capacity to act. In his view “making and acting are different. So that the reasoned state of capacity to act is different from the reasoned state of capacity to make. Hence too are nor included one in the other; for neither is acting making nor is making acting.” So, for Aristotle making and acting are mutually exclusive categories.
This distinction is further elaborated by St.Thomas Aquinas. He comments, that the reason for this difference is that art is the ‘right reason of things to be made’, where as prudence is the ‘right reason of things to be done’. Phronesis is concerned with action not production.
Change of phronesis into Kantian ethics

Kant in a way rejects the Greek concept of morality, and tries to bring about a new form of morality where human reason plays the vital role. For, Greek concept of morality is nothing concerned with production nor making, thus, Kant tries to relate morality exclusively to a kind of action, which is action of production, to effect the transformation.” Kant has completely derecognized Aristotelien-Thomastic conception of moral action as human action relegating it to non-human unconscious animal action-reaction; he needs to transform Greek ethics and phronesis to make it consistent with the new mode of human action.” To know how Kant is effecting this transformation of Greek phronesis we have to refer the first chapter of Ground Work.
He is merely abstracting the supreme principle of morality through the comparison by reflection. He is abstracting the supreme principle of morality from ordinary rational knowledge of the principle of morality. We have already seen that phronesis is concerned only with action, where the good action itself is its end, it is not concerned with any action, which has an end other than that action itself, and for Kant this Aristotelian ‘reasoned state of capacity to act is good will’. “Kant has introduced a subtle difference from Aristotelian position. Kantian good will is good even if it results in no action. “ Here for Kant only wishing is needed even if it does not produce action.
Good will and Duty

Kant makes goodness of good will completely independent of any kind of action, so that good will is good due to its willing alone transforms good will into a good wish, which remains innocent of the action to be done. Kant implicitly transforms good will into a good wish, which remains innocent of the action to be done. To analyze the notion of good will we need to analyze the concept of duty. The concept of duty is the concept of good will, “exposed, however, to certain subjective limitations and obstacles.” The action done under the impulsion of a mediated inclination cannot be immediately good, it is good mediately and hence it cannot be good in itself rather than it is good as useful for the purpose of self interest. The motive of duty is isolated if we can find an action where there is no immediate inclination for the action, rather there is a contrary inclination yet the action accords with duty. So we have to abstract from even the action where there is immediate inclination for the action.
Kant is not writing the Ground work to teach the humanity how to be moral, rather he is interested in preparing the possibility of transforming metaphysics of morals into a science of morality. He is inscribing morality within the point of view of the subjectivity of the subject. The scriptural commands appear to be contrary to Kant’s claim that moral worth resides in motive of duty and not in inclination.
According to Aristotle, moral knowledge has no particular end, since it is concerned with right living in general, as it is not technical knowledge and hence, it is concerned with natural or moral laws.”Aristotle stresses that phronesis presupposes the existence of nomoi. This is what keeps phronesis from degenerating into mere cleverness or calculation that characterizes the clever person.” The moral knowledge, for Aristotle, is concerned with the right estimation of the role that reason has to play in moral action. For Aristotle these laws are laws of action or conduct of man. Where as for Kant these laws are or principles are Principles of Volition only, thus they have no end or have no reference to the matter of action.
Since the only kind of action recognizes are the actions which are at some end other than themselves which cannot be involved in the estimation of moral worth, so Kant is having only one option to go for a priori formal principle of will in determining the moral worth of action done from the motive of duty. When moral principle is abstracted from the ends of action Kant is not deducing his principle of morality rather he is transforming Greek concept of morality through his reflection on the motive of duty. There is a necessity associated with moral law. For Kant this necessity is the necessity, which binds the rational beings individually. That is to say law has necessity only in the sense of it being necessarily universable over all rational beings individually.

Supreme principle of Morality

Kant is transforming the basic element of Greek ethics, phronesis into the supreme principle of modern morality. It is the aspect of moral reasoning which finds expression in the supreme principle of morality as announced by Kant, “I ought to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” So the principle says that will is good will which determines itself by only that maxim, which is such that in that act of self determination it can also will that its maxim should become a universal law. For Kant, the particular determination of will by a maxim is also a determination of a universal law.
For him, in moral reasoning, the particular determination of the will and the universal determination of law takes place simultaneously and one is involved in the other as it happens in Aristotelian phronesis. So we can say that Kant is very close to the essence of Aristotelian phronesis in his announcement of the categorical imperative. Yet he has completely departs from the Aristotelian concept and transforms it to make it applicable to the new category of human action, which he has recognized under the influence of Critique of Pure Reason. For Aristotle, the law is not strictly universal but only general. In the holding back of the law he is not diminishing the law but finding the better law.
Conclusion
For Aristotle, the law needs to be concretized in each situation of its applicability, which is the business of phronesis. But this is not acceptable to Kant. To be moral law the maxim must be strictly universalizable. If morality and duty is not to be fictitious then the bare conformity to universal law as such without having as its base any law prescribing particular actions must serve the will as its principle. This makes Kantian Ethics depart from Aristotelian Phronesis. Human kind had been thinking of morality in Aristotelian framework, but at the same time has lost the category of human action, which is performed for no end other than its excellent performance. So mankind in general is also becoming Kantian in morality.

Bibliography
Agarwala, Binod Kumar. Phronesis and Categorical Imperative, in Indian Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 31
Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics, tras. J. A. K. Thomson. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1955.
Chackalackal Saju. Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2002.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten 1785), tran. H. J. Paton. London: Harper&Row, 1964.

CRITIQUE OF PURE PRACTICAL REASON

CRITIQUE OF PURE PRACTICAL REASON



Introduction

Will is a kind of character to the living beings, because they are rational. Freedom is also an important property to work out the actions independently. The property of being determined to activity by the influence of causes. Freedom of will lead to a kind of autonomy. When we act with our freedom or actions from the will it is an independent act without the help of the other. But there is the ways; it may be negative or positive. A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same. Because when we act it should be universal law. According to pure practical reason when a law should be moral it will be universal and is consider as the law of agent. From the good will we can derive the law which as universal law.


Freedom must be Presupposed as a Property of the Will of all Rational Beings

Here morality is the law only for rational beings; it must be equally valid for all rational beings. It should be derived from the property of freedom. Freedom is also the property of the will of all rational beings. It is not enough to demonstrate freedom from certain experiences of human nature. We must prove that it belongs universally to the activity of rational beings endowed with a will. Here the author asserted that every being who cannot act except under the idea of freedom is by this alone . From the practical point of view all the laws bound up with freedom are valid when his will could be pronounced free in itself. Every rational being possessed of a will we must also lend the idea of freedom as the only one under which only he can act. In such a being we conceive a reason which is practical that means which exercises causality in regard to its objects. We cannot possibly consider the reason which is from the outside in regard to its judgements. Reason must look up on itself as the author of its own principles independently of alien influences. So the practical reason or the will of rational being must be regarded by itself as free. The will of rational being can be a will of his own only under the idea of freedom. Such a will is applicable to all rational beings.


The Interest Attached to the Ideas of Morality

Freedom is something actual in ourselves and in human nature . If we wish to conceive a being as rational it must be endowed with will. The idea of freedom is that every being endowed with reason and will and taken up actions from the reason and will. Any law is related with something moral it should universal and applicable to all. But there is question is that why should I myself to this principle simply as a rational being and subject to every other being endowed with reason? For this I should be willing and take the interests. Otherwise I will not produce categorical imperative. On the other hand if I am willing and take the all interest to understand what happens, provides in him practical with out any hindrance. But subjective necessity is distinct from thre objective one.
Moral law is the principle of autonomy of will. It have been unable to give an independent proof of its reality and objective necessity. In that case we should still have made a quite considerable gain and we should at least have formulated the genuine principle more precisely than has been done before. As regards its validity however and the practical necessity of subjecting ourselves to it we should have got no further. In order to find ourselves able to take an interest in a personal characteristic which carries with it no interest in mere states, but only makes us fit to have a share in such states in event of their being distributing by reason. When we detach ourselves from every empirical interest by our idea of freedom you are belonging to moral laws. We ought to regard ourselves as free in our action and hold ourselves bound by certain laws in order to find in our own person. We do not see how the moral law can be binding . So the conclusion is different fractions of equal value can be reduced to their simplest expression.


How is a Categorical Imperative Possible

Choosing one’s moral path in life never an easy one. What is right, and what is wrong? Furthermore, is it always possible to tell the difference between the two?
Kant focused a great deal of his philosophical thought in determining this very thing. What he developed became perhaps the most important system for determining morality ever created by man –the categorical imperative.
Kant developed categorical imperative in his two works ‘Ground works of metaphysics’ ’Critique of practical reason’ and ‘Metaphysics of morals’.
According to Kant in order to determine the morality of any situation we must
1. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity in your own person never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.
3. Act as though you were through your maxims a law making member of a kingdom of ends.


Questioning the Categorical Imperative
One issue that is often addressed in regard to this topic revolves around a response Kant once gave to a man who came to him with a logical question concerning the Categorical Imperative:
The question was this:
What if one is approached by a murderer, who asks the location of the man he intends to kill? If, as the categorical imperative would state, it is morally unacceptable to lie under any circumstance all three formulations suggest this then would one be morally forced to tell the truth to the killer?
Kant's answer to this question: Yes. It is wrong to lie, even to a murderer. For it is the murderer who is responsible for his own crimes, not you, even though you may have aided him indirectly. Also, Kant argued in his response, entitled “On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives” that if one attempts to lie to the murderer, saying “the man you are looking for is in his house,” while believing this to not be true, and yet the man for some reason did happen to be in his house, thus enabling the murderer to kill him – well, in this situation, according to Kant, the person lying to the murderer would be indirectly responsible for the death.
While to many this defense of the categorical imperative may seem rather illogical, it seems difficult to argue with a man such as Kant, who spent the course of an entire, very prolific career in formulating these philosophies and all of their consequences.
Truly accept it or not, in creating the Categorical Imperative Kant’s heart seemed to be in the right place.

Conclusion
The use of reason leads to the necessity of some supreme cause of the world. The practical use of reason with respect to freedom leads to absolute necessity.but it is applicable to only rational beings. Reason unrestingly seeks the unconditional necessary and sees itself compelled to asume this without any means of making it comprehensible. Unwillingness of particular action depend on different conditions in that case there is no moral law, that is no supreme law of freedom. Thus we can conclude that any principle forward to the action is limited of human reason.
BIBLIOGRAPHY


Immanuel, Kant. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton. New
York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964.




.

THE GOOD WILL ACCORDING TO IMMANUEL KANT

THE GOOD WILL ACCORDING TO IMMANUEL KANT

Introduction
The opening statement from Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics says, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called “good”, without qualification, except a good will.” According to Kant, “Intelligence, wit, judgment, and the other talents of the mind, however they may be named, or courage, resolution, perseverance, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects; but these gifts of nature may also become extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them, and which, therefore, constitutes what is called character, is not good.” Good will is the first and foremost of the ethics of Kant. Without good will , whatever we do collapses as not a good character. It is very difficult to identify the character of a person. In virtue ethics we see that the concern was many upon the action which leads to achieve the highest goal. They call it highest happiness- eudaimonia. Unlike Aristotle and Greek philosophers who thought the practical aspect of the virtue, Kant has a stand different from them. When the Greek philosophers thought the practicality and were insisting the regular practice of virtue to attain the highest good, eudaimonia, Kant looks for the intentionality and the motive behind the particular action.

Aristotle and Kant on Morality
When we consider the famous philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Aristotle, there comes an old saying into the mind: "You're either with us, or against us!" Both had very strong viewpoint to enhance their stand regarding human good. Kant's conception of the good was found to be more compelling than Aristotle's, in that Kant's view addressed the good in a universal sense through the categorical imperatives of man. In his book Nicomachean Ethics , Aristotle asked the reader what he considered good. Aristotle listed some common examples such as, having friends, experiencing pleasure, being healthy, and being honored. Aristotle furthered his argument by getting to the root of every good action. He remarked that if a man kept questioning various actions he deemed “good”, he would find that every good action lead to some form of happiness. It is for this reason that man often associates happiness with different needs in his life. For example, if a man is ill, he wishes for good health, for it is what he believes will bear happiness. Although there are many intermediate forms of good, Aristotle believed that there must be a highest good. A good is desirable in itself and not for some other end, and that where all intermediate goods point. All the other “so called goods” should be able to enhance the highest good, or they are to be leading us to achieve the highest good, happiness. As Aristotle consumes virtue is habit, which is acquired through regular practice of good actions and avoiding the evil ones.
Kant’s position to the morality is based on the goodwill. According to him, the intention of the action is important rather than the practicality and the consequences. Kant pointed out, have value only under appropriate conditions, since they may be used either for good or for evil. But a good will is intrinsically good; its value is wholly self-contained and utterly independent of its external relations. Since our practical reason is better suited to the development and guidance of a good will than to the achievement of happiness, it follows that the value of a good will does not depend even on the results it manages to produce as the consequences of human action. According to Kant, the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances. So the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality, the fact that it has the formal property of universalisability , by virtue of which it can be applied at all times to every moral agent. From this chain of reasoning about our ordinary moral concepts, Kant derived as a preliminary statement of moral obligation the notion that right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law.

Good Will Discussion
We have seen already for a moral judgment good will is essential and inevitable for Kant. A good will alone is good in all circunstances and in the sense is an absolute or unconditioned good. It is the only thing that is good in itself, good independently of its reaction to other things. We may consider many things as good. There are various things and happenings good, provided they give us happiness and brings cheer to our face and smile to our lips. But is it real happiness? Or is there anything as virue in it. What we see as good may not be virtuous, provided it may be the out come of some actions or the pleasure it produces in us. When we perceive the “so called good things,” we see they are not good in all circumtances, and they may be thoroughly bad will. They are only conditioned goods.
Good will can be understood as the right motive. The right motive is “to do the right thing”, “to do one’s duty”, “to respect the moral law.” A rational being who consistently has the right motive has what Kant calls a Good Will. Nothing is more important for morality than having a good will. According to Kant, a rational being with a Good Will automatically does its duty. The will of man is intrinsic and so original without any polution.

Rational Being with a Good Will is Never Bad
According to Kant, desires for pleasure, happiness, or self-interest are impediments to perfect rationality. It is through these external interests of man, there comes malice in the rationality. But a Good Will has been “purified” of such inferior motives. A Good Will has no such inferior motives. A Good Will thus never falls into the fallacy of special pleading. A Good Will’s maxims are invariably universalizable without contradiction, because the Good Will has no impediments to reasoning well. So a rational being with a Good Will always acts rightly, in accordance with the Categorical Imperative, and thus in accordance with duty. This is to sat that, for a rational being with a Good Will, being moral and being rational and being fully human – are the same thing.

Conclusion
It is through the faculty if good will, one can respect the human beings without any researvation. We get the respect due to this good will. Most things have only conditional value. It is true that in every humanbeings the good will is prevailed. But the fact that every human beings are different from another. So there are different views upon the value system each one holds. The value one person thinks as higher may not be or is not the greatest value for another. This is all because we are not only the rational but there are many elements which make a great contrudiction as well as uniqueness in human beings. Will is struggling with the instincts, desires and interests of human beings. That is why Kant suggests the categorical imperative. The first formulation of the CI, tells about the will and say that it is to be universal whatever we consider as maxim. It is through this, we are able to give respect to the fellow beings and the same is our duty. At the same time we need to keep in mind that since the good will is there in all the human beings, being rational, we have the right to receive the respect. Thus good will plays very importance role in the development of the dignity of person.



Bibliography

Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics. Trans. Lewis
White Beck. Berlin, 1932.
Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Sir David Ross. Oxford University Press:
London, 1959.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. trans. Thomas
Kingsmill Abbot, Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, 2005.
Kant, Immanuel. The Moral Law. trans, Herbert James Paton. London, New York:
Hutchinson’s University Library, 1948.

PURE FORM OF MORAL DUTY AS CATEGORICALLY NECESSARY

PURE FORM OF MORAL DUTY AS CATEGORICALLY NECESSARY


Introduction
Immanuel Kant sought to isolate the pure form of moral duty and to account for its possibility. Since the pure form of moral duty turns out to be identical with the form of pure duty, it makes little difference whether one begins with duties in general or with moral duty. Duty in its pure form is categorically necessary and further that moral duty alone represents duty in its pure form. The moral duty is different in kind from all other types of duty and logically prior to each of them.

Moral duty
Not only are all alleged duties subject to the canons of morality but they have their ultimate foundation in the moral will. This is not to say that every specific duty is a moral duty, it is to assert that since every duty of whatever sort derives ultimately from the will of the individual, even hypothetical duties have a moral significance. There is one and only one will even as there is only one self, it is the source of the necessity of all imperatives .
Kant assumed from the first that duty is essentially a phenomenon of volition. Duty expresses a command and implies a being capable of issuing such a command. From his meticulous analysis of the nature of imperatives Kant became convinced that no command issuing from an external source could be unconditionally binding upon the human will.
The first step in Kant’s argument is to show that duty is the central concept of morality and that moral duty is distinguished from other forms of duty by the fact that
it is categorical. If there were no categorical imperative there would be on Kant’s view no such things as morality.

Duty and Imperative
The language of duty is the language of imperatives. An imperative may be hypothetical or categorical. If hypothetical, the necessity it expresses is only relative; if categorical, it asserts an unconditional necessity. Since duty involves a practical necessity and pertains only to the volition of free subjects. It is fundamentally reflexive in character . It is the essential reflexivity of duty to which Kant appeals in arguing that duty implies autonomy.
Duty can be analyzed in any one or more of the following ways. We might view it: (a) as a command deriving from a source beyond the self or another person, (b) as a demand laid upon the subject through its own act and hence reflexive in character, and (c) as involving the reciprocal demand response of a subject and one or more beings to which it is related. The first alternative (a) would regard duty as essentially heteronomous in point of origin, the second (b) as basically autonomous and the third (c) as a combination of the two. The last alternative would allow for the possibility that moral duty can be based upon contractual relationship.Kant rejects the first alternative and by implication the third in arguing for the unqualifiedly autonomous character of moral duty.

Divine Imperative
Kant’s reasoning seems to be that an imperative can be no stronger than the end to which it is related. If the end is either arbitrary or only contingently necessary, the imperative that enjoins us to promote it cannot be unconditionally binding. He rejected a theocentric ethics for the twofold reason that (a) God’s existence is problematic, (b) the force of a divine imperative depends upon the acceptance of
God’s authority . The second reason is the crucial one since it denies that a categorical imperative could issue from God even if His existence were absolutely certain. A divinely instituted imperative must be regarded as hypothetical rather than categorical.
The divine imperative must be regarded as hypothetical primarily because its validity depends upon our volition. No matter what a possible divine being might decree, so Kant argues in effect it could not give its commands the force of law for our will. Thus, either God’s commandments take effect independently of human volition and hence are natural rather than moral ordinances or they depend for their validity upon human assent. In the former case they are not properly to be regarded as imperatives and surely not as moral imperatives and in the latter case, they are clearly hypothetical.
We must be careful not to confuse the hypothetical status of a possible divine command with the contingency of its recognition. An imperative might be objectively necessary even though its observance were highly problematic and uncertain. Moral law is the validity of the imperative and not its acceptance in actual practice that is at issue.

Validity and Free Response
A divine imperative depends for its validity upon our free response that it cannot be credited with unconditional necessity. Our response to a possible divine command might be optional: (a) it might be our decision whether to acknowledge the sovereignty of God or (b) it might be our option whether or not to honor God’s commands. Since the latter option would hold independently of the first our freedom to repudiate possible divine commands does not in and of itself make their validity problematic. Nor does our acceptance of them necessarily establish this validity .
In referring to the unconditional necessity of the moral imperative it is clear that Kant meant to emphasize its status as an objective limitation on our freedom. The categorical imperative is unconditional in that it is inescapable. It expresses the law of our being as free subjects. To violate the imperative is to set ourselves in opposition to the law of our own freedom. As an a priori condition of our freedom, the law is not itself subject to free choice . As rational and responsible beings we are liable before the moral law as the inexorable demand of our own rationally informed wills.
The categorical imperative must have a metaphysical foundation. As the supreme law of freedom it conditions all choice and thus is objectively necessary. There is more than a tinge of the classical view that rationally is intrinsically good and to be followed for its own sake. Man is a creature under law . All men are subject to the moral law willy-nilly. If this were not so the moral imperative would be hypothetical rather than categorical.

Conclusion
The moral imperative derives its authority from man’s nature as a sensuous though rational being. It is objectively necessary in that it is a condition of man’s existence as a free subject. Moreover, the primary condition of its validity is metaphysical rather than axiological. It is not the case that man should be a rational being but that he is a moral being. Either the moral law is not valid or it is in fact a condition of all human volition. Kant was primarily concerned to delineate the conditions of responsible existence and tended to look upon the moral life as essentially the responsible life, his rationalistic predilections sometimes prompted him to equate responsibility with rationality. The fact that reason is an essential vehicle for the discovery and promulgation of the moral law does not mean that it is the sole author of the law. If the primary requirement of the moral life is to be responsible, rationality is neither the sole nor the decisive ethical category.
BIBLIOGRAPHY


Schrader, George A. “Autonomy, heteronomy, and moral imperatives” in Critical
Essays, ed. Robert Paul Wolff. USA: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1969.
Immanuel, Kant. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Lewis White Beck.
USA: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1969.

GOOD WILL; THE SOURCE OF MORALITY

GOOD WILL; THE SOURCE OF MORALITY

Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Konigsberg. Kant was the last influential philosopher of modern Europe in the classic sequence of the theory of knowledge during the Enlightenment beginning with thinkers John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

Kant created a new perspective in philosophy which had widespread influences on philosophy continuing through to the 21st century. He published important works on epistemology, related to religion, law, and history. One of his most prominent works is the Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation into the limitations and structure of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and the epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgment, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.

Critically speaking he was an opponent of Utilitarianism. Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (like murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the other alternatives. For Kant, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? That means my subjective maxim can accept universally. If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent).
Kant’s theory is an example of a Deontological moral theory. According to this theory, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. It speaks about the moral obligation.

Good Will

The morality of Kant is focused on good will which is the essential faculty of human beings. “Reason, whether it is empirical or pure (practical), has goodness as its fundamental element: a conditioned good on happiness in the case of the former, and an unconditioned good in the good will on the case of the latter. In its primary employment in the practical sphere, Kant presents reason as good will, which is accepted as the as the principle from which, moral actions come forth.”

Kant in his writings always keeps consistency to bring forward the importance of ‘good will’. “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 good will….. Good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of our very worthiness to be happy.”

The good will is a power of intentional action, as it is good not because of what it produces, but only by virtue of volition. In the critique of Practical Reason Kant holds the t “practical reason….deals with the grounds determining the will, which is a faculty either of bringing forth objects corresponding to conceptions or of determining itself, i.e., its causality to effect such objects (whether the physical power is sufficient to this or not).” From this perspective “the moral worth of an action does not lie ion the effect expected from it, and so too does not depend on any principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from expected result.” So for Kant, the source of a moral action is nothing but the good will, which has universal application in the practical realm.

The moral value attaches only to willing itself, to the extent that even of the will lacks the power to carry out its intention, and accomplishes nothing through its utmost efforts, “even then (the good will) would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself.” “Then nothing outside the will, not even the end to which it is directed, can be considered to bestow the good will with goodness; that is, whatever action is being performed which is of immense value from our common point of view of morality, cannot impart any goodness to the will, which is good by itself. Willing, as the activity of the good will, which is good by itself. Willing, as the activity of the good will aim at the realization of a particular end, is the core of moral action and, hence it is the unconditional good.”

The stress on the good will as the source of morality is the basis of humanity, i.e., that which makes man worthy of happiness, by being prone to good. “the will is conceived as a power of determining oneself to action in accordance with the idea of certain laws. And such a power can be found only in rational beings” these laws gave to be those that do not result from any inclination and, thus, nothing which rests on the production of something in the natural world. For Kant, that which exclusively determines the will is “objectively the law and subjectively pure respect for this practical law.

The will is said to be rational and, hence, law-abiding so much so that it is reason in its practical employment: “Everything in nature has the power to act in accordance with his ideas of laws- that is, in accordance with principles- and only so has he a will. Since reason is required in order to derive actions from laws, the will is nothing but practical reason.”

The good according to Kant is “a power to choose only that which reason independently if inclination recognizes to be practically necessary, that is, to be good.” The necessity referred to the nature and action of the will means that when an action is required by appropriate rational principles, the agent has to choose- by necessity – those actions dictated by the principles of reason, regardless of whatever other motives may try to compete with the former. As Paton said, “Reason must also seek a greater good which is unconditioned by our desires and needs, and only so can it be adequate to its purpose in spite of its inadequacy for the pursuit of happiness. Such an unconditioned good in so far as it aims at satisfying certain desires or at attaining the objects of these desires.” So the power to act in accordance with a conception of laws is the practical reason the objective content of which is the good will itself, its form being the a priori law. Will acts from a motive of duty, which is considered to be the highest order desire. It leads us to take an interest in acting from the moral law for its own sake or to further the realm of ends as required by the moral law for its own sake or to further the realm of ends as required by the moral law. The good will is the only unconditional good from a moral point of view as it results from the disposition to act from a sense of duty, from the willing of the good will without any other motive.

“Actions from other motives even where ignorance is absent can lead to bad results. Thus sense duty of duty is the only motive which has a direct conceptual tie to the categorically valid end of moral conduct. In this sense a good will is a categorical ought-to –be. Thus the sole motive of the food will is to do its duty only for the sake of doing its duty; in other words, what it intends to do, it intends to do, it intends because it is its duty, and it does it despite certain subjective limitations and obstacles.”

Conclusion

According to Kant will is the basis of all moral understanding. Although we have inclinations we have to avoid all such inclinations with our pure practical reason. Then we can filter the things around us and receive only what our reason commands us to do. This should be done by using the virtue of freedom. By virtue we are endowed with rationality. A moral person according to Kant is the man who exercises this reason in his actions. And morality is based on this reason and it is objective in nature and that is called categorical imperative. An agent’s subjective maxims which are derived from the good will are also objective in the sense that they are valid for every rational being, regardless of inclination or particular subjective constitution. In other words each subjective maxim should be an objective maxim or every individual maxim also applicable for all universal beings. As human beings are not free from other inclinations, those subjective maxims have to assume the nature of imperatives. So that they would direct the will to conform to principles valid for all rational beings. It is the only in this manner that the goodness of the good will can be realized in the case of an agent whose choices are affected both by reason and other interests.



BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crane Brinton. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 2, p. 519. New York: Macmillan, 1967.
Chackalackal, Saju. Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2002.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H.J. Paton. London: Harper & Row Publishers, 1964.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason, trans. and Introd. Lewis White Beck. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merril Educational Publishing,1956.
Paton, Herbert J. The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. London: Hutchinson and Co., 1947; 3rd Edition 1958

MORALITY ACCORDING TO IMMANUEL KANT

Morality According To Kant

According to Kant actions can be divided into two groups, firstly, those actions which are performed in accordance with duty, and secondly, those actions which are performed for the sack of duty, i.e. out of the respect for the moral law. Further, Kant explains this distinction with an example. Let us suppose that a shopkeeper is always careful not to overcharge his customers. Here, his action is certainly in accordance with duty, but it does not necessary follow that his action is done for the sake of duty. He may be guided by his inclinations. Or he may be simply acting on the basis that honesty is the best policy. Thus we can say that most of our actions performed in accordance with duty are much wider than the actions performed for the sake of duty.

For Kant, the morality of an action is decided on the basis that it is performed for the sake of duty devoid of inclinations. First of all let us understand what is meant by duty. Duty is defined as the moral necessity to do or omit something. As moral necessity, it obliges and demands independently of compulsion. Duties come from law. The ultimate foundation of duty is in the very nature of man himself. For Kant morality is based on rationality. As the rationality is universal (i.e. present in all human beings) so therefore the morality is also universal. So, morality is applicable to all. For Kant only those actions which are performed for the sake of duty are moral actions. For example, preserving one’s life is a duty and, furthermore, everyone has an inclination to do so. These are the two positions. Now, if I preserve my life simply because I have an inclination to do so, my action does not, in Kant’s view, possess moral worth. To possess such moral worth my action should be performed for the sake of duty, that is out of reverence for the moral obligation.

According to Kant, morality consists of categorical imperative rather than hypothetical imperatives. What are imperatives? Imperatives are instructions which tell us what to do. There is difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are those imperatives which tell us what to do in order to achieve a particular goal. For example, “if you want to be honest, do not cheat others.” It is always a conditioned one. Categorical imperatives are those imperatives those tell us what we ought to do irrespective of our desire and inclinations. It is an unconditioned imperative or command. Hypothetical imperatives apply only to those people who want to achieve certain goals, to which they refer. If I don’t care about being honest, then, “if you want to be honest, do not cheat others”, does not apply to me, it gives me no reason for not cheating others. Categorical imperatives are applicable to all (all rational beings). Morality doesn’t say “if you want to be honest, do not cheat others”; it says “Do not cheat others!” We ought not to cheat others whether we want to become honest or not.

The moral law does not prescribe moral actions in order to achieve some end (like, making more money, becoming an honest person, etc); rather it prescribes moral actions irrespective of the ends that it achieves. This implies that we ought to obey the moral law no matter what our desires or inclinations. Kant tends to complicate matters, by giving the impression that, in his opinion, the moral value of an action performed for the sake of duty is increased in proportion to a decrease in inclination to perform the action. In other words, the less the inclinations we have to do our duty, the greater is the moral value of our actions; if we actually perform we perform what is our duty to do. This point of view leads to the strange conclusion that the more we hate doing our duty, the better moral persons we are, provided we do it. In other words, the more we have to overcome ourselves to do our duty, the more moral we are. And if this is admitted, it seems to follow that the lesser a man’s inclinations are, the higher is his moral value. For example, suppose I am a rich person and I think that I ought to make a contribution to charity to relieve poverty in the developing world, and I am well aware of this fact. Suppose further that I would like to do so, that, I care about the welfare of others and so that making such a donation will make me happy. When, actually, I make the donation, it is difficult to tell whether I am doing so out of duty (because I understand that I ought to do so) or out of inclination (because I want to do so). Kant holds that moral action must result from the respect for the moral law. If I give money to charity because I want to, but lack respect for the moral law, then in making the donation I am not acting morally. If I don’t want to give money to charity, but, in fact, I give for the sake of duty (because I have a strong sense of the responsibility of helping others) then my action is moral. At first place, my donation is a sign of my generosity but secondly, it also shows that my action is out of selfishness (because it leads to my own happiness). Therefore, only when I act out of duty and contrary to inclinations, my action has moral value.

Kant’s concern was to bring out the difference between acting for the sake of duty and acting to satisfy one’s natural desires and inclinations. Though, according to Kant, the beneficent actions have no moral worth, he does not say that it is better to have an aversion towards beneficent action, provided that one performs such action when it is one’s duty to do so, than to have an inclination towards it. According to Kant, the good will is manifested in acting for the sake of duty and that acting for the sake of duty must be distinguished from acting out of mere inclination or desire. But what is meant by acting for the sake of duty. Kant tells us that it means acting out of reverence for law that is the moral law. Duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence for the law as such. And the essential characteristic of law as such is universality, which is a strict universality which does not admit of exceptions. Therefore, a man’s actions, if they are to have moral worth, must be performed out of reverence for the law.

Finally, we can conclude saying that, for Kant, the morality of an action solely depends on duty. If an action is performed for the sake of duty, it is said to be moral, irrespective of the results it may produce. Moral duty is a practical necessity of an action which arises from reverence or respect for a moral law. Duty enables good will to determine which actions are morally necessary. Duty is a motive for the rational will. The use of reason to ground morality is that it explains the scope of morality. Rationality is definitive of human nature; it is universal among human beings. All human beings, then, because they have the capacity to be rational, ought to be moral. Only rational beings are subject to the moral law. Let us finally conclude in the words of Kant “act only in such a way that you can will that the maxim of your actions should become a universal law.”


Bibliography
Copteston, Frederick S. J. A History of Philosophy, Vol. VI: Wolff to Kant. London: Search Press, 1960.
Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. T. K. Abbot. New York: Prometheus Books, 1988.