Kant’s Ethics of Dignity and Freedom Essay

Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy contends that morality is grounded from deductive reasoning.   In his Groundwork for   Metaphysics of Morals, Kant introduced the main premise of his moral Philosophy, the Categorical Imperative (Singer, 1993).   The Rationale of Kantian ethics is to construct ethical principles in accordance with rational procedures which includes duty (Singer, 1993).  Ã‚  Ã‚   Kant grounds his moral philosophy on the question â€Å"what I ought to do?†, he then attempts to determine the fundamental principles that humans should adopt.   Kant fully furnishes his ethical claims in a subjective approach regarding what is good for man. Criticism of Previous Ethical Thories In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant primarily makes a connection between rationalism and empiricism.   Conversely, Kant counters David Hume’s empiricism, stating that although all knowledge begin with experience, it does not necessarily mean that it all comes from experience.   In his realization of Hume’s dubious conclusions, Kant dwelled on the postulation that all ideas are representations of sensory experience (Guyer and Wood, 1998).   To counter Hume, Kant attempted to find another means to derive cause and effect without dependence from empirical knowledge (Guyer and Wood, 1998). Kant grounds his perspective of freedom as autonomy, and morality from the beliefs of renowned French enlightenment philosopher, Jean Jacque Rousseau.   Rousseau believes that freedom is not simply being unbound from any law, but by the laws that are, in a sense,   made by the individual.   Hence, Kant primarily conforms to the idea that freedom bypasses the negative notion of being free from influences that are governed by elements outside the self (Johnson, 2004). Kant, although influenced by rationalist Rene Descartes, counters the latter’s perspective on the existence of God based on reason, that due to restrictions brought about by reason, no one can really know if there really is a God.   Kant solidifies his claims by stating that justifiable knowledge must be grounded from a reality encountered solely by human experience (Singer, 1993).   In his explanation, Kant asserts that all the preparations for reason in what may be deemed as pure philosophy, are directly adressed to three problems; God, soul and freedom (Guyer and Wood, 1998).   Kant neither denies nor accepts the existence of God, he, however, argues against the rationalist perspective of God and sees the Christian scriptures as a worldly narrative which can be agreed upon as a representation of morality (Singer, 1993). Autonomy and Heteronomy Autonomy and its principles are important in Kant’s moral philosophy, this is due to the fact that the basis of the actions are based on internal motives.   In this context, the one who acts (the Agent) does it in an autonomous manner since the agent is the only key holder to the basis of the action.   Heteronomy, for Kant is an element in the basis of a moral act that are driven by external factors (Singer, 1993).   A person then who acts under the influence of outside forces is not acting freely, therefore, that person is acting heteronomously. Categorical Imperative Kant grounds the foundations of the princple of his moral philosophy from the denial of principles that are non-universalizable.   Kant formulates this concept as a demand which he calls the categorical imperative (Singer, 1993).   Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative claims that Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law   (Singer, 1993).   This sentiment is the core of Kant’s ethics and is the basis for the maxims or fundamental principles an individual may advocate.    Kant’s categorical imperative may also be viewed as an end in itself, described as a means that only serves the fulfillment of the interest itself and not to any other purpose.   Immanuel Kant holds that the principles of reason governs the moral law and that irrelevant factors such as what would make people happy, is the basis of morality and the moral law (Guyer and Wood, 1998).   Kant defining Rational beings as people who are capable of moral deliberation who can choose to act by fundamental principles that have universality.   It is in this framework that Kant formulated the Kingdom of Ends and furthered his Categorical Imperative, implying the term kingdom as a group of rational beings bound by common laws. Kant argues that inclination to the categorical imperative bequeaths an individual with autonomous ethical choice.   The basis for such argument is on Kant’s assertion of the bond between moral law and autonomy.   In his presupposition, Kant suggests that practical will is bound by the categorical imperative through the simple fact of reason, and uses such thought to postulate that our wills are autonomous (Johnson, 2004). The essence of Kant’s moral philosophy is quite ironic due to the primary intentions that are never achieved. The first point of criticism is that Kant, like many other scholars are in pursuit of a universal truth, given the textual fact that Kant’s ideas are based on his own assumptions, it is unimaginable that Kant is unable to provide concrete defense of autonomy of the will in accordance to the categorical imperative. Reflection In reference to his categorical imperative, Kant provokes individuals to act according to such principles that ends to the universal law (Singer, 1993).   This categorical imperative, and his moral beliefs for that matter, are based on subjective thinking, another irony on the true aims of his moral philosophy.   In this regard, I think it is safe to connote that Kant’s undertaking of how an individual should think only provides signs of the conventional human flaw, the fear of elements and concepts that the human brain cannot fully comprehend. Personally, I think Kant’s suggestion regarding compliance to the categorical imperative provides freedom in ethical decision making is incomprehensible, since one of his underlying concepts is rationality and morality (Singer, 1993).   I feel that Kant’s moral philosophy may result to individuals to be narrow-minded since they only consider the reasons in doing actions and overlook the possible outcomes that may have destructive tendencies.   I myself cannot see how to live in a world of subjectivity and apathy.   If Kant wrote his ethical theories to burst out personal opinion, he should have been a journalist, rather than a scholar who cannot live up to the principles of his own philosophy. References Johnson, R. (2004). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Retrieved 12 February 2008 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#Aut Singer, P. (Ed.) (1993). Blackwell companions to philosophy: A companion to ethics. Malden,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kant, I., Guyer, P. & Wood, A. (Eds.). (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridgeshire:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Cambridge UP.