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 kants Deontological Theory kants Deontological Theory The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is a reductio argument. The problem with this argument is that it treats existence as a first order property. Kant picked up on this flaw, and therefore criticizes the argument. Existence can not be a first order property. First order properties describe the object itself. Existence does not add to an objects description, it can not be added to the concept of the thing. It just posits the existence of such a thing. Let us now take a more critical look at Kant's argument (some things will have to be stated again.) In the concept of God we find the idea that he is a perfect being. From this idea alone the existence of God is supposed to follow a priori. It is not so hard to say that it is impossible for God not to exist. "But this yields no insight into the conditions which make it necessary to regard the non-existence of a thing as absolutely unthinkable. It is precisely these conditions that we desire to know, in order that we may determine whether or not, in resorting to this concept, we are thinking anything at all." Through examining the ontological argument we are supposed to come to the conclusion that the judgement "God does not exist" is self-contradictory. Existence is one of the properties included in the concept of God, and if we reject that, then we are contradicting the idea of God. But Kant says that this is not so. Existence is not a property of a thing. If we reject the existence of thing, we reject the thing itself with all its properties. Therefore, there is no contradiction because there is nothing left to be contradicted. The defenders of the ontological argument have a comeback though. They say that the person who rejects the existence of God has not grasped the concept of God correctly because existence is part of the concept of God. In conclusion, the person does not understand what he is denying. But Kant comes back with an even stronger argument. As we already know, existence is not a first order property, it just says that something is actually there. In Kant's own words, "'Being' is obviously not a real predicate: that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves." Kant's argument makes perfect sense. Let us use a triangle to prove his point. Say that right now I have the concept of a triangle in my head. A triangle is a geometrical figure with three angles. Under the condition that I have the concept of the triangle in my head, it necessarily follows that I must have the idea that three angles make up the triangle. Otherwise I would not have correctly grasped the concept of the triangle. Now, regardless of whether the object exists in my reality or not, I still have the concept in my head. Regardless of whether I believe that the triangle exists or not I have not come to any contradictions. We have just proved that the ontological argument is incorrect. Again, existence can never be treated as a property which describes an object. We now come to the question of morality. How does Kant's deontological theory view morality and how does it compare to other moral theories? As we have seen, for Kant, it is the thought (concept) that counts, not the thing itself. The reason being that the objects in our world are subject to our own individual experiences. We do not see the things as they are in themselves. If we keep this in mind we see that the deontological theory tells us that the moral rightness of an action is determined independent of its consequences. Again, it is the thought behind the action that counts. As a comparison to Kant's deontological theory we will use a consequentialist theory, utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is basically the opposite of the Kant's deontological theory. It says that the moral rightness of an action depends on the consequences of that action. In defining the good, it defines it in terms of happiness or pleasure. An act can be said to be morally right so long as it provides the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. We can already start to see that this theory has many negative implications. For one thing, what if in trying to maximize the amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, in any given situation, you hurt many others in the process. There are two types of utilitarian theory, Act and Rule, but again, they are only concerned with consequences and maximizing the net utility of actions. The difference between the two though is that Rule utilitarians try to follow an ideal set of rules when trying to maximize the amount of happiness. But what if the rule doesn't maximize the net amount of happiness, then what? As you can clearly see, there are many pitfalls to following such a theory. We now move on to Kant's categorical imperative, also called the Supreme Principle of Morality. Imperative meaning that it prescribes how a moral agent ought to act. And categorical meaning that it applies universally, without exception. In order to explain this categorical imperative we must first define what a maxim is. A maxim is a rule that expresses the subjective intention of the agent in doing an action. In order to more clearly explain a maxim let us take the following example. Your will says "let me now do A." The "A" would be the maxim. Of course, maxims can be good or bad. They are just the individuals intentions. Being that Kant's moral theory is concerned with the why of the action, he tried to find a criterion for classifying maxims as either morally acceptable or not. He came up with the following categorical imperative (there is only one categorical imperative): "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law." In order for a maxim to become a universal law it has to be conceived as a universal law without any contradiction and it must be willed on a universal law without any contradiction. If any of these two conditions are not satisfied the maxim will can not become a universal law. Kant's categorical imperative can be expressed in a variety of different ways. One of these formulations makes use of the notion of an end in itself. If the end we wish to achieve is one that is formulated by desire, the end has only conditional value. It is given value only because we wish to achieve it. Thus, this type of end is subjective and has no universal value. Let us take a material object such as gold. Gold does not have any characteristic of being valuable in itself. It has value to us only because we desire it. We find it pretty and attach a certain degree of worth to it. If no one wanted it, then it would have no worth to us. Kant now says, let us try to conceive of something which has intrinsic worth. "Something which as an end in itself could be a ground of determinate laws." He comes to the conclusion that such a thing has to be a rational being. Rational beings have the ability to be ends in themselves because they posses a will. This will allows them to determine which maxims they will follow. And because they are rational beings they command respect, they should not be used as a means to an end. They are an end in themselves. Being that they are ends in themselves, they have absolute worth. A worth of a person is not relative to what we think of them. To sum this all up, I shall state this formulation of Kant's categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." Even though this version does not speak of maxims and universality, it is the same thing. By subjecting yourself to the maxims which can only be universalized, you are at the same time respecting the dignity of others because you will not be treating them as a means to an end. "You are respecting them as equal sources of the moral law." The formulation of this categorical imperative leads us on to Kant's notion of the kingdom of ends. Every rational agent formulates his own moral law. If a moral agent acts according to the categorical imperative, then his moral laws will become universal laws. If every moral agent acts according to these universal laws then we will have the kingdom of ends. In the kingdom of ends each rational being legislates his only moral laws. But being that these moral laws are universal, they apply to everyone in the kingdom. Therefore, we achieve a kingdom in which we govern ourselves with our own laws, while at the same time governing everyone else. To put it in another way, we are each guided through the same common objective laws. We now arrive at the question, has Kant successfully managed to combine the categorical imperative with the notion of the kingdom of ends? I believe that he has. In the categorical imperative we find that we should only act according to those maxims which can be made into universal laws. By acting in such a way we will never treat a person as a means to an end. If we did treat the person as a means to an end, then we would not be following the categorical imperative. The kingdom of ends can only be achieved if everyone follows the categorical imperative. Thereby, treating every other individual as an end in themselves. As we can clearly see in this brief proof, Kant has successfully managed to combine the categorical imperative with the notion of the kingdom of ends. We have yet arrived at another question, is the notion of treating persons as ends clear enough to be a significant guiding action? It is a significant guiding action, but it is not very clear in so far as knowing when we are actually using somebody. It is common sense that we should not try to use people to our own benefit. They are no there to be used by us. But the thing is, how can we know for sure that we are not treating a person as a means to end? We may ask somebody for help without the intention of just using them as means to end, but we may actually be doing just that. So, how can be sure that we will not use them? That is something that we will never know for sure unless some very specific laws are formulated. Kant has failed to do this. But we can still say that the notion is clear enough to be a significant guiding action. This notion is supposed to cover only rational beings. But does this apply to other intelligent animals, retarded people, or infants? Yes and no. I believe that other animals posses the ability to reason, and some of them even do a very good job of it. Now, the thing is, do they posses the concept of morality? I do not believe they do. To me, morality is purely an invention of the human mind. A construct of our social systems. But, if I am wrong, and morality is a universal concept which applies to every single being (animal) that possesses an ounce of reason, then Kant's notion does cover them. We now turn to infants and retarded people. Retarded people can be rational, but they may not be able to grasp the concept of morality. I am not a retarded person and I can not know this. If such a person is able to grasp the concept of morality, then he is automatically bound to act by the categorical imperative. Once you have the concept in your head, Kant says, your reason should lead you to act by those maxims which by you can at the same time will that they become universal laws. Insofar as infants are concerned, I do not believe that the notion of treating persons as ends applies to them. They may be rational beings, but they are not fully developed rational beings. The concept of morality is an altogether higher concept in of itself. In order to have grasped such a concept, your reason has to be developed at least to a certain extent. Their reason has not been developed to that extent, and therefore this notion does not apply to them. Not only has their reason not been developed fully, but they have no language. In order to understand the concept of morality you must first have a language by which to understand it through. Let us now proceed to the criticisms of Kant's arguments on morality. He has been criticized for emphasizing the will too much and for rejecting the place of character and feelings in moral actions. I do not believe these criticisms to be correct. Morality, in itself, is independent of human emotions. The entire purpose of morality is to try to have people act by certain principles instead of by their emotions. Not only is this so, but Kant, by his categorical imperative, has proven it to be so. It can be said that whomever criticizes Kant's view on moral actions has not grasped the concept of morality firmly. Morality is a set of objective guidelines. If we base our moral actions on our feelings then we are not following the moral principles as they should be followed. We are subjecting morality to our own beliefs, therefore making it something else. Let us take the Golden rule as an example. The Golden rule says "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." The Golden rule is supposed to be moral, it implies that you should treat others in a good way. Now, let us say for example, that you are sadistic person and like to be treated harshly. If you take the Golden rule literally, you will treat others harshly so that you can be treated that way too. You have just taken the Golden rule, which is a moral law, and warped it according to your own beliefs. As you can see, moral laws can not be subject to your feelings. Again, if we subject them to our feelings we make them into something else. Bibliography: Word Count: 2587
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.