Kantian Morality


     Kant's theory of morality seems to function as the most feasible in

determining one's duty in a moral situation. The basis for his theory is

perhaps the most noble of any-- acting morally because doing so is morally

right. His ideas, no matter how occasionally vague or overly rigid, work

easily and efficiently in most situations. Some exceptions do exist, but the

strength of those exceptions may be somewhat diminished by looking at the

way the actual situations are presented and the way in which they are

handled. But despite these exceptions, the process Kant describes of

converting maxims to universal laws to test their moral permissibility serves,

in general, as a useful guide to and system of ethics and morality.

     The Kantian Theory of Ethics hinges upon the concept of the

Categorical Imperative, or the process of universalization. Kant describes

taking a possible action, a maxim, and testing whether it is morally

permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be

morally permissible for all people in all times to act in that same

manner. Thus, Kant says that an action is morally permissible in one

instance if the action is universally permissible in all instances. In fact, parts

of the theory even say that it is one's moral duty to act on these

universalizable maxims, and that people should only act on those maxims

that can be universalized.

     The stability of Kant's theory rests not only on the fact that it is

completely objective-- every action is definitely either morally permissible

or not-- but also on the fact that the theory is non-consequentialist. Kant

truly does not look to the consequences of an action to see whether the

action is morally permissible, but rather to the morality of the action itself.

Kant assumes that universal morality is inherent in being, thus avoiding

complications in trying to determine which actions lead to better

consequences. However, Kant does not speak of perfect and imperfect moral

duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to

the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue.

     Several objections can be raised to the theory Kant sets forth, but each

of them seems to stem from the thought that the theory cannot account for

all actions and situations. Certain moral duties, for instance, are brought

about by relying on more than just the Categorical Imperative and process of

universalization, specifically on the subjective definitions of certain terms

and ideas about what is and is not and of itself moral. Also, one might say

that in some situations a maxim that can be universalized is still not morally

permissible, while one that cannot be universalized is indeed permissible. In

all these situations though, it seems at least somewhat possible to lessen

the objection by taking a closer look at the situation, perhaps by changing or

reexamining the maxims behind it.

     An example of one of these moral duties not derived entirely from the

Categorical Imperative is that of the "rugged individualist" who refuses to

help as much as he refuses to be helped. The universalization applicable in

this situation relies on the assumption that not helping is definitely immoral,

which may or may not necessarily be true. This rugged individualist seems

to follow a maxim to the effect of "I should refuse help and refuse to help."

However, had the universalization of this maxim- 'everyone refuses help

and refuses to be helped"- been followed by all people up to this point,

society would not have been able to function, and because of that people

would have been directly harmed, a fairly immoral result. Thus, it can be

said that not helping is then not morally permissible. So, although the

morality of not helping when help has always been refused may in and of

itself be open to moral debate, the universal would be immoral as it still

harms people. Looking at the situation differently allows the principles to

work. Kant thus seems to be more interested in doing what is morally right

rather than deciding which actions are necessarily moral in and of

themselves.

     A second criticism raised would be that certain maxims cannot be

universalized, yet it does not seem morally wrong to act on them. For

example, using contraception during sexual intercourse and removing money

from the bank to buy gold at a fixed price; if everyone used contraception

there not be any procreation and if everyone removed his or her money from

the bank, the economy would collapse. Thus, the process of universalization

fails, since using contraception or withdrawing money is not immoral.

However, aside from the fact many consider the use of contraception to be,

in fact, immoral, the original maxims in either case focuses on a goal- either

on not having a child or on making money. Thus, these issues are contingent

on their consequences. A non-moral choice is involved, thus making the

issue as a whole not necessarily a solely moral issue. While a maxim such as

"I will not murder anyone" rests on morality alone and holds true under the

Categorical Imperative, these two examples both require non-moral

conditions and choices to be made.

     The corollary to the previous objection is that while some maxims can

be universally applied, acting on those maxims would not be permissible. An

example would be allowing anyone with a star shaped birthmark on their

back to steal. Universalizing this seems to be possible, at least at first glance.

However, universalization implies that a maxim be applicable throughout

time. No matter how unlikely, perhaps the future will contain nothing other

than birthmarked clones. In that case, the maxim cannot be universalized.

And again, the conditions presented do not affect the morality of the

situation, but rather to whom the morality is applied, thus contradicting the

idea of an objective, universal morality.

     The main issue with these objections seems to be that Kant's theory

breaks down to some extent in certain situations. However, it becomes

possible that by further analyzing the situation at hand, certain allowances

can be made. Perhaps then the most convincing argument for the theory is

that on a day-to-day basis. Kantian Ethics provides a method for deciding

the best and most moral course of action. Perhaps this is the purpose of

moral theory in the first place.