kant2, Philosophy, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Philosophy

kant2

kant2 Kant The principle of private happiness states that an individual’s prosperity is weighed in proportion to that person’s good conduct. In short, one’s peace of mind is empirically measured by how virtuous one is towards others and to himself. Kant’s objection to ethical theories that use this idea emanates from the fact that it extends human reason, one that determines good will and good conduct, outwards instead of inwards, reason being automatic, inherent in an individual. The above doctrine puts motive on virtues, meaning that one’s good conduct is being used as a means to an end. Morality is not established because the inner self is not developed out of one’s duty but instead, the necessity to have good will is for satisfying a particular purpose. Moreover, it is superficial, centered on a human being’s feelings and inclinations rather than pure reason. If one can not exercise rational behavior, one will form one’s beliefs out of sheer feelings and base one’s opinion of others on this. Moral feeling is not an apt judge of right and wrong because it lacks that uniform standard, one that is unbiased and not easily swayed by emotion. The fact that individuals are different also implies that they have different basis and sources on morality, that they have dissimilar opinions on good and evil. It makes it difficult, then, to establish a universally acceptable set of laws if it is solely based on the dynamic nature of human emotion. Kant believes that one’s good will is inherently good in itself, and should not be measured empirically. To use one’s will as a means to an end produces nothing but unhappiness and extends only to misology, the hatred of reason. Framing one’s life to certain expectations and shaping one’s actions to the attainment of those goals can be fatal when those expectations are not met. Failure brings people down and to lack reason, one that does not conform to desires, is to lack a foundation to stand on, to enable one to bounce back from defeat. It will serve one better to have a definite belief in one’s maxim to be universally acceptable, acting only on those intentions that one believes everybody else will accept. Therefore, the principle of private happiness calls for a person to prove that moral worth within an existing situation. This theory assumes that one’s will can not stand independently without it being tested or challenged. One’s prosperity is within the human being. All moral conceptions, according to this philosopher, originate not from empirical evidence, but only reason alone. Ends do not justify the means all the time. One can contrast Kant’s beliefs on private happiness to that of Bentham’s utilitarian principle. The latter defends the fact that actions are moral to the extent that it maximizes happiness. There is a functional aspect to morality in this sense because one’s actions are judged good or bad according to how it makes the individual happy or unhappy. Kant opposes this idea because happiness, in his view, is strictly empirical. What brings a person satisfaction is subject to one’s experiences, it involves comparisons to certain events in one’s life. And for this, he explains that there is no definite principle to secure happiness, there is no imperative or law that can make anyone happy anytime. Prosperity is often a sign of happiness, and happiness, in Kant’s belief, is more of an issue of human imagination, rather than human reason. Still according to private happiness, good conduct determines peace in one’s life. It can be assumed in this principle that one can only act morally when one wishes to live in prosperity. Kant, on the other hand, reiterates that it is one’s duty to act with good will towards one’s self and others as well. It is only in this manner that moral worth can be allocated to one’s actions. Private happiness tends to be a belief that is very selective on its character. Individuals that agree with this perspective will tend to follow it whenever they see it fit themselves to do so. But perfectly rational beings, according to Kant, will just do the right thing, without any hidden agenda whatsoever. I believe in some of the areas on private happiness. Like the fact that having good conduct does increase the chances of one having peace of mind. Having a society that still does good things rather than one mired in chaos and lawlessness, I’d take that in a heartbeat. I can sleep well at night knowing that there are still people who believe in their values and act on them, regardless of why they choose to do so. But the idea of a good will serving a particular purpose does sound hypocritical. Kant’s notion of doing the right thing because it is one’s duty to do so is part of his philosophy that I believe in. But how do you know that there is no hidden agenda? How do you distinguish an act done out of duty and one done out of personal gain? I mean we have to be omniscient, God-like, to be able to separate these two things. And that is my beef with Kant’s idea of pure reason and pure good will. It is difficult to filter out the purity of another’s intentions. It does seem to be paranoia, or a severe case of distrust on my fellowman, but in order to believe in something, you’ve got to test its strength across different situations. Only then will you know that you’re defending the right ideology. Kant, on account of the above reason, now says that one should act only on those intentions that can be universally acceptable, to act only on those intentions that everybody else will accept. But again, how do you know what is agreeable to others and what is detestable? Except for the so-called “psychics”, last time I heard, no human being can read minds…so I hope. So, do I agree with the principle of private happiness? I do, when it comes to exhibiting good conduct, that it does determine, among other things, how safe and comfortable one is with his or her life. I don’t, because it does lose moral worth when it’s a means to an end. However, Kant’s supposition is not that clear either to make me embrace his teachings. I’m left in what others often call a conundrum, stuck with no absolute explanation to the nature of human reason and good will. Maybe that’s why they teach these things… The categorical imperative is a better guide for moral reasoning because it can be applied by the individual with a clear, understandable reverence for the morality of the whole community. Mill’s utilitarianism is also concerned with the whole, but the mechanism by which one can judge the worth of his or her actions is quite a leap. When a utilitarian makes a moral decision about an action the primary concern is individual happiness. The agent must then consider the consequences of this action within the extent of his or her influence. While there is little argument we all want to be happy, we can not assess the moral worth of our actions on consequence. It is much too difficult to assimilate individual actions and consequences with the welfare of humanity as a whole. Conversely, Kant’s categorical imperative gives an individual a more reliable mechanism by which to judge his actions. The test begins with intentions rather than consequences. It is easier to assess intentions than consequences, because intentions are not as specific to situation and reliant upon outcome. Instead, good intentions are simple moral intuitions that tend to produce good. If the whole of humanity shares good intentions, acting only upon those intentions which the individual would will for everyone produces the greatest good. the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law." Therefore, before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by everyone all over. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be moral; if you are not, then the act is morally impermissible. Kant believes that moral rules have no exceptions. Therefore, it is wrong to kill in all situations, even those of self-defense. This belief comes from the Universal Law theory. Since we would never want murder to become a universal law, then it must be not moral in all situations. Kant believes killing could never be universal, therefore it is wrong in each and every situation. There are never any extenuating circumstances, such as self-defense. The act is either wrong or right, based on his universality law. For example, giving money to a beggar just to get him to leave you alone would be judged not moral by Kant because it was done for the wrong reason. With Kant’s belief in mind; if the consequence of immoral behavior were dealt with in a legal structure, people would be prosecuted for EVERYTHING since there are no extenuating circumstances. Kant's categorical imperative is a tri-dynamic statement of philosophical thought:(1) "So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle establishing universal law."(2) "Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.'(3) "Act according to the maxims if a universally legislative member of a merely potential kingdom of ends." In other words, Kant argues that particular action requires conscious thought of the rule governing the action. Whether if everyone should follow that rule, and if the rule is acceptable for universal action, it should be adopted. If the rule is unacceptable, then it should be rejected. In order to understand whether or not an action follows Kant's "categorical imperative," we must prescribe those norms that we wish to be universal laws. These norms are created through value judgments based on issues of justice between persons or groups (nations, etc.) of persons. Kant's theories discuss the ethical questions that determine impartial consideration of conflicting interest in issues of justice. Kant also states that because we must believe that all things develop to their fullest capacity, then we can theorize in summary, through cognitive processes we can create communities, based on moral (ethical) action towards every person, thereby creating universal ethics throughout the community or "republic". With that in mind, it appears that Kant makes statements that assume all people within like "republics" can achieve a level of cognition equal to one another, for without that equanimity of cognition and judgment, then the conflict issues cannot be rationalized through creation of universal law. The statement that all people can achieve a similar level of cognition seems preposterous in our modern world cognition in the sense of like thought. Because we need the principles of Kant's categorically designed thought and action to have universal acceptance; we must be willing to accept the undesirable psychological deviants within the "republic." If we can't accept that a person’s cognition is capable of universability, then we must dominate that person by removing them from the republic. This in itself contradicts Kant's theory because in order to end domination, we must yield to and follow our cognitive thought and this cannot be done because the deviant doesn't achieve the same level of cognition as the rest of the republic. This example seems to point out a flaw in Kant’s reasoning and his belief of achieving similar or same ethical norms to follow. We must make the judgment on whether or not universal ethics is possible. I believe that a bit of universability exists in certain social mores and norms throughout the world; don't kill your neighbor, be kind to animals, incest is wrong, etc. yet, individual perception of the world by people prevents the possibility of an all-encompassing universal code of ethics. Furthermore, we have no way, to prove that our principles based on perception can be rationally applied. Because of this inability to prove rational application of perception and thus moral principle based on that perception, we are unable to demonstrate the rational justification of any universal principle or ethic. Application of the principles is central to creating universal ethics, yet it seems that we cannot prove rational application of the principles and thus fall short of gaining universal consensus on what those should be. To Kant, these principles can be made applicable through his transcendental arguments, but there remains the fact that he agreed sensory (and thus transcendental) experience couldn’t be accepted as empirical givens. This leaves the sensory or transcendental experience open to interpretation. Empirical evidence creates responses that can be repealed time and again with identical or nearly identical results. Kant does make arguments for empirical thought in his, "The Postulates of Empirical Thought" Section of the book Critique of Pure Reason, but his questions of an event "what became of that?" and "What brought that about?" fail to argue concisely about real and logical possibilities. Because of his lack of definite statement, Kant fails to prove through his empirical thought arguments that empirical thought or action can be universal. Kant followed his book, Critique of Pure Reason, with Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he argues at length on moral judgment, practical reasoning and the like. Without having read the book in its entirety, it seems that Kant provides example upon example on the possibility of universal ethics. People attempt to describe good based on virtuous thought. Virtuous thought supposes that a virtuous person has a fairly explicit conception of what is called happiness. Kant’s perception skews the person's thought because each person perceives an event (whatever the event may be) differently. It is this difference in what people perceive that creates opposing viewpoints on "good" whether virtuous or not. Any attempt to provide a universal ethic to the community is impeded by the community itself. Not only was it an impossible task in Kant's time, but it is still impossible today. John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such is, "Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved." However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject. Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own. Each person's happiness is equally important.Mill believed that a free act is not an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person performing the act. Either external or internal forces compel an unfree act. Mill also determined that every situation depends on how you address the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and actions. You decide how you feel about what you think you saw.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.Kant described two types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law." Therefore, before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by everyone all over. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be moral; if you are not, then the act is morally impermissible. Kant believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself, as stated in the Formula of the End in Itself:Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.Kant believes that moral rules are exceptionless. Therefore, it is wrong to kill in all situations, even those of self-defense. This is belief comes from the Universal Law theory. Since we would never want murder to become a universal law, then it must be not moral in all situations.So which of the two theories would make a better societal order? That is a difficult question because both theories have "problems." For Kant it is described above, his rules are absolute. Killing could never be make universal, therefore it is wrong in each and every situation. There are never any extenuating circumstances, such as self-defense. The act is either wrong or right, based on his universality law. Yet, Mill also has problems. If properly followed, utilitarianism could lead to obviously wrong actions being considered right because the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the net consequences. Therefore, conceivably, it would morally okay for a very large and powerful country that was desperately in need of food or else all of its 3 billion inhabitants would starve, to overpower an island of 1000 people who had an overabundance of food and steal their food. In stealing all their food, the larger nation is condemning all the inhabitants of this island to a very slow and agonizing death. Is this right? Of course not. Yet under Mill's theory of consequences, since the greater good was served, then the act is morally okay. Mill's theories could also bring about unjust rules, if the rules served the greater majority. Suppose handicapped people were not allowed to be seen in public, ever, except in doctor's offices. Is this benefiting to the small number of hand!icapped? No it is not. However, the greater majority, throws up when they see a handicapped individual, it is beneficial. So, perhaps the right question to as, is, which of the two theories is the lessor of two evils? I would have to argue for Mill (that is, unless I was one of the 1000 on the island or handicapped) - on a limited basis. I if I, a Bill Gates type rich person, gave a small amount of money to a stranger whom desperately needed it, just to get him to leave me alone, Kant would judge it not moral because I did it for the wrong reason. Mill would examine the consequences of my giving money away. Did it hurt me? No. Did it help the stranger? Yes. Therefore, the net consequence is good. Whether or not I truly felt the act in my heart does not make it any less "good" than the person that gives all his money away to charity because he feels so deeply about it. I also see cons to taking Mill's values on as societal ethics - they could conceivably give rise to the next Hitler. But with Kant, people would be prosecuted for EVERYTHING since there are no extenuating circumstances. Think of the court system - innocent men who had to protect their family and home alongside hardened serial rapists, both receiving the same sentence. In my personal opinion, Kant may go as far as to say to the starving nation "Starve equally." And then, the nation slowly starves equally when they could have killed 1000 people to save themselves. Therefore, in my humble and limited opinion, which is merely based on the limited scope of my perception and that which I draw out of that limited scope, Mill's theories would make a better societal order.Discuss the possibility of using concepts, either from Aristotle or Kant, to create universal ethics. (I went a bit over the top on this one)Universal ethics is a system of beliefs that all persons throughout the community (however large that may be) readily accept and use to govern their lives. In modern society this seems to be an oxymoron. Therefore, in the following essay, I will attempt to prove through logical argument that universal ethics are not achievable using the doctrines of either Immanuel Kant or Aristotle.Kant's categorical imperative is a tri-dynamic statement of philosophical thought:(1) "So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle establishing universal law."(2) "Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person in in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.'(3) "Act according to the maxims if a universally legislative member of a merely potential kingdom of ends."In other words, Kant argues that particular action requires conscious thought or the rule governing the action, whether that rule should be followed by everyone, and if the rule is acceptable for universal action it should be adopted -- if not, then rejected. Kant makes these statements of theory in myriad books, articles, and lectures - each very convincing as to the possibility of universalizability of the stated "categorical imperative." In order to understand whether or not an action follows Kant's "categorical imperative," we must prescribe those norms that we wish to be universal laws. These norms are created through value judgements based on issues of justice between persons or groups (nations, etc.) of persons. Kant's theories discuss the ethical questions that determine impartial consideration of conflicting interest in issues of justice. Kant's theories rest entirely, however, on the ability of competent social actors with an intuitive grasp of normative social interaction - apparently he chooses to ignore the crazies or supposes that the will be controlled by the more competent of social actors! This statement obviously relates to domination of one person over another, to which Kant suggests that "the faculty of cognition yields knowledge about how this conflict can be avoided." He further states that through this cognitive development of peaceful interaction and building of republics; we create a "community [as] a natural result of the unimpeded development of human facilities." Kant further states that because we must believe that all things develop to their fullest capacity, then we can theorize that, in summary, through cognitive processes we can create communities, based on moral (ethical) action towards every person, thereby creating universal ethics throughout the community or "republic" (depending on! scale). With that in mind, it appears that Kant makes statements that assume all people within like "republics" can achieve a level of cognition equal to one another, for without that equanimity of cognition and judgement, then the conflict issues cannot be rationalized through creation of universal law. That all people can achieve a similar level of cognition seems preposterous in our modern world cognition in the sense of like thought. Because we need the principles of Kant's categorically designed thought and action to have universal acceptance, we must be willing to accept the undesirable psychological deviants within the "republic." I can think of no person that would (Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, Zodiac Killer) a universal law. Yet, if we can't accept that Dahmer's cognition is capable of universability, then we must dominate that person by removing them from the republic. This goes against Kant's theory because in order to end domination, we must yield to and follow our cognitive thought and this cannot be done because the deviant (Dahmer, Bundy, Zodiac Killer) doesn't achieve the same level of cognition as the rest of the republic. This example seems to point out a flaw in the universability of achieving similar or same ethical norms to follow. Furthermore, we can look at the utilitarianism doctrine (of which Kant generally is not included within) for some example of the impossibility of universal ethics. Kant, for many reasons to lengthy to describe here, can be said to have some theory and thought completely relevant to utilitarianism. As such we can look at universalistic utilitarianism from the egotistic standpoint (Kant, I might point out argued that actions must be done based on a maxim of what is good - good begets an understanding of benevolence - thus egoistic tendencies to act toward others in a way that ultimately benefits the original actor). In this light, we can state that "what is best for me, is unlikely to be best for everyone." Therefore, we can negate Kant's argument that universal ethics is possible, because we know that there is a proverbial incompatibility between the theory and what people actually think and do. Finally, we must make the judgement on whether or not universal ethics is possible. I suggest that a bit of universability exists i n certain social mores and norms throughout the world - don't kill your neighbor, be kind to animals, incest is wrong, etc. - yet, individual perception of the world by people precludes the possibility of an all-encompassing universal code of ethics. As has been argued by J.L. Mackie, we "project ethical properties onto the world." In other words, we see things as having ethical properties when in fact (empirically proven) they do not. Based on this, we can say that a conscious person will project what he interprets based on what he thinks he "saw;" because each person will manifest a different perception, then will necessarily project differing ethical properties. This brings me to the possibility of the rational application these perceptions. We have no way, empirically or otherwise, to prove that our principles based on perception can be rationally applied. Because of this inability to prove rational application of perception and thus moral principle based on that perception, we are unable to demonstrate the rational justification of any universal principle or ethic. Application of the principles is central to creating universal ethics, yet it seems that we cannot prove rational application of the principles and thus fall short of gaining universal consensus on what those should be. To Kant, these principles can be made applicable through his transcendental arguments, but there remains the fact that he agreed sensory (and thus transcendental) experience cannot be accepted as empirical givens. This leaves the sensory or transcendental experience open to interpretation. Empirical evidence creates responses that can be repealed time and again with identical or nearly identical results. Should sensation become open to interpretation by accepting that they cannot be empirical observations then we can say that the results cannot be universal even if all persons at once, observed the same even. Kant's thoughts in Prolegomena to Every Future Metaphysics on the "transcendental aesthetics" that ultimate principles can only be established by transcendental argument loses its effect and basis in the application of the theories; unless, as has been argued by man philosophers since Kant the problem of rational application fo Kant's categorical imperative can be overcome, then the idea of universal morality or ethics is impossible. Rational application depends entirely on the ability of a person to observe non-empirical action in the transcendental noumena exactly the same as his neighbor, yet, as was stated earlier, that because the action or the even! was seen in an non-empirical light then interpretation muddles the rational application of what is seen by each observer. To put it simply, because each person can see or perceive an event or situation differently, then the responses to the event or situation will vary, thereby reducing the ability for a "universal" response or ethic to the event. Kant does make arguments for empirical thought in his, "The Postulates of Empirical Thought" Section of the book Critique of Pure Reason, but his questions of an event - "what became of that?" and "What brought that about?" - fail to argue concisely about real and logical possibilities. Because of his lack of definite statement, Kant fails to prove through his empirical thought arguments that empirical thought or action can be universal. Theoretically, he suggests it is, but without empirical observation to prove universality in any action or ethic, or combination of ethics, then we can not say the universal ethic exists. Kant followed his book, Critique of Pure Reason, with Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he argues at length on moral judgement, practical reason and the like. Without having read the book in its entirety, it seems that Kant provides example upon example on the possibility of universal ethics. Yet, in reading several critiques of the book, I found that Kant could not disprove empirically my earlier statement on the universal response to an event or situation. And without the empirical evident that he himself relies on so heavily in other arguments, then he cannot prove the universality of ethics Bibliography:

Word Count: 5046