Act as if the principle of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature (Rohmann, 1999). This idea really sums up Immanuel Kant‘s view of ethics. Kant surmised that ethical decisions should be focused on the motive for the decision rather than the benefits or rewards of the action. In my opinion this interpretation of ethics is fundamentally correct.
Morals and ethics tend to get blurred or manipulated when decisions are based upon reward. For example, in a world such as the one we live in today, most if not all major decisions are based on financial gain. A lot of the time religion or a charitable cause are used as guises to mask the true purpose of a particular decision. I can almost guarantee that if you wade through the surface waters and face value facades of most modern decisions someone somewhere is making a ridiculous amount of financial gain. This limits, if not strangles, any motive based ethical decision making. I am talking about bigger scale decisions made by governments or corporations (if there is a difference between the two) for the most part. Smaller or more personal decisions are more susceptible to Kant’s motive based ethics.
Kantian Ethics can be a double edged sword. This particularly pertains to Kant’s basic idea of doing things or making decisions based on natural or absolute laws. This is where Kant’s theories dive into a grey area. The idea of following one’s own moral law is a truly ethical practice but how does one differentiate between personal, moral, and ethical laws and the laws of society, country, government, and religion. All laws are manmade; but in the same way that Kantian Ethics views making ethical judgments, what motives were behind these manmade laws? For Example old South Jim Crowe laws and Nazi Germany Nuremberg laws are perceived as completely unethical and morally wrong (this is putting it kindly). If a person went against these laws they were being morally and ethically correct but in a way by Kantian Ethical standards they were not (Beck, 1960).
Kant’s rationalization of this fact is quite interesting. The idea is that you follow laws insofar as they do not conflict with your own practical reason or set of personal beliefs. Another way to say this is: My respect for the laws of my club, city, constitution or religion guides me in practical affairs only insofar as they do not require me to violate laws laid down by my own practical reason (Johnson, 2008). This is a fundamentally good way to live provided that you are of a strong rational mindset and the laws of the land are generally considered reasonable. In these modern times however, laws, rules, and regulations seem to be becoming more and more restrictive, closed-minded, and corrupt. “To live outside the law, you must be honest” (Dylan, 1966).
My criticism of Kant is only with small details such as what laws should be followed. The main ideals of Kantian Ethics are very agreeable with me. Rational motive based ethics should by now be a universally accepted practice. Unfortunately for mankind we are not quite at the level of global consciousness that allows for us to think and act on such a righteous mindset. Other general criticisms of Kant’s work lay mainly in detail as well. A lot of people find problems with Kant when it comes to a conflict of duties. For example: A friend asks you to keep a secret while another friend asks you to tell about the other friend’s secret. If you do not tell the secret to the second friend you are betraying a duty to that friend. If you do tell the secret you are betraying a duty to the friend who told you the secret (Popkin & Stroll, 1993).
Kantian Ethics is morally and ethically a very appealing and fundamentally correct practice. The problem with it mainly comes with the corruption of the modern era. If governing bodies did not chastise or incarcerate people for doing things that went against their rules but kept true to the individual’s own moral laws then Kant’s idea of ethics could be more easily practiced. We as humans desire such a world and hopefully the freedom to make unbiased (or unforced) ethical decisions will be a common practice once again.
References
Beck, Lewis White. (1960). A Commentary on Kant’s “Critique of Practical Reason”.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dylan, Bob (1966). Absolutely Sweet Marie. On Blonde on Blonde [CD]. New York:
Columbia.
Johnson, Robert. (2008). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Retrieved
October 15, 2008, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Online: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#DutResForMorLaw
Popkin, R, & Stroll, A. (1993). Chapter 1: Ethics. (2nd ed.), Philosophy Made Simple (pp.
40-41). New York: Doubleday.
Rohmann, Chris. (1999). Immanuel Kant. A World of Ideas: A Dictionary of Important
Theories, Concepts, Beliefs, and Thinkers (pp. 217-219). New York: Ballantine Books
