Kant’s ideas on morals improve Buddha’s philosophy by making it clearer to conceive on what is correct. By using correct morals, you will always be in the right, and since Kant’s philosophy is like a tool for Buddha’s prescription for the human condition, this enables us on how to successfully follow the four noble truths, eightfold path, and universal laws. This helpful on the ability for us to understand nothing is permanent and you can never find permanent happiness from impermeant things, and Kant helps you understand what truly makes you happy and how to cope with your decisions on happiness. Also, by learning to balance your desires with your duties to fit the moral code even when you have desires to do something against it.
Buddha’s philosophy and Kant both have an end goal. Focusing on Buddha’s end goal which is Nirvana. This is shown as a state of absence as one does not exist nor exist according to the vaccha theory. (pg. 290) To get this one must realize that all living things are tied together through dukkha or suffering. Also, to follow the middle way meaning to think in moderation. This ties in with the 4 noble truths in where everyone is suffering, and the suffering can be eased with moderation and changing our outlook on your desires. People would want to follow this if it was in their best interest to be happy. Now balance or moderation is key because acting too much on Trishna or your desires will go against the four noble truths causing your ability to reach nirvana to diminish. This is where Kant fills in to help understand why that is.
Kant’s end goal is the kingdom of ends which is part of the categorical imperative, but before we talk on categorical imperatives lets explain hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives talk on the basis of you do one thing based off inclinations to obtain a desire. The inclinations can vary changing the hypothetical imperative. While categorical imperatives are based on a moral law and must follow them based off reason. Although you could also say that in some secret way all categorical imperatives are hypothetical. (pg. 32)
127 our experts are availableright now
Kant gives an example as you must tell the truth because it is morally right, but also because if you are caught within a lie you lose your credibility which is a desire. This brings up maxims which are your reasoning or rule of your action, and if you lie for whatever reason you make it ok for everyone to lie since all maxims are universal as said by Kant, “one must be able to will that a maxim of our action become a universal law” (pg. 36). Furthermore, one cannot contradict and lying being ok is a contradiction because no one would believe that if they are morally just. Now categorical imperatives also must be acted on ends that tie within others and not just on means or selfish needs.
Only things can be acted on by means as a chair, house etc. Tying this with the kingdom of ends you should always consider your ends with other people’s ends. Your example of playing loud music while your neighbor is trying to sleep is a great example. Your end could be to listen to loud music because you enjoy it, but your neighbors’ end is to wake up well rested and cannot do that with your end. This again is a contradiction going against categorical imperatives. Kant argues you shouldn’t use people based on mere means because of people’s autonomy and that the natural end is everyone’s happiness according to Kant (pg. 42).
Kant’s morality is like a formula you plug in to reach nirvana. Think about it as Kant says you shouldn’t use others as mere means to obtain your goal. Since using people to obtain your desires would go against Kant’s morality because that would mean you were treating people as objects this is a reason not to allow your moral compass to keep you from acting on bad desires or Trishna. If you want to obtain something and the only way to do it is to borrow money from someone and you lie about it, you’re consciously breaking the categorical imperative by saying universally its ok to lie to someone to get what you want.
Knowing that this isn’t ok because you should care about everyone’s end game. This ties into the last noble truth the eighth fold path, which is doing everything right. The only way to end suffering or dukkha is to get nirvana and the only way to do that is to follow the eightfold path. The only way to follow the path is to have right intention among other things but focusing on intentions the only way to do that according to Kant is tying in your ends with others and respecting them and their ends. This shows how Kant’s categorical imperative is a formula to nirvana.
Buddhas dukkha is important as it is important to realize nothing is permeant. An example is you might own a house or say you do but eventually that house will go away, and you will no longer own it. The only thing you really own is yourself and your ability to be happy. So, with Kant if one of your ends is having a house understanding that this end isn’t permanent but the end to be happy in life is. Another main part of the eightfold path that Kant backs up is right action. Maxims are principles of actions. Following correct maxims that intertwine others maxims as a universal maxim allows there to be no contradiction which makes the maxim moral and right. Following that then allows People to follow the right action. This is important since everyone’s maxims should lead them to happiness. Acting on maxims that cause suffering would make no sense.
One argument for how Kant doesn’t improve on Buddha is inclinations can be selfishness and. Inclinations are based on your feelings at that moment and are uncontrollable things that lead you to choices. Since these are uncontrolled it’s smart to understand right thought. Right thought is another part of the path and acting on right thought is big with your inclinations. Although you don’t control your inclinations your free will decides which one you act on. So, making using your will has right thought is beneficial to Buddha’s eightfold path. A way this works is following the autonomy of a will (pg. 45). Our autonomy allows us to self-govern our choices and thought. Knowing this allows you to have right thought another step towards the end of suffering.
Nirvana compared to Kingdom of ends is different in a way that nirvana is more of a annihilation where you just cease to exist. While the kingdom of ends is more of a place of universal laws. Although Kant doesn’t tie higher deities into his morals I see the kingdom of ends as a heaven of sorts. Where time is nonexistent and people all act on people as ends themselves instead of means. Where you would finally follow all universal laws and be a part of the kingdom of ends. This is impossible with people since not everyone will agree to everything unanimously. So, using this to understand others will allow you to understand others suffrage allowing you to get that peoples and your suffrage can be different and not permanent. This allows you to also get that your person is always changing. Getting to comprehend the universal truths. Thus, meaning that the kingdom of ends helps you in a metaphorical way to get to nirvana.
This is all important if you care about ending your suffering. So, if you don’t care about ending pain then all of these morals and rights to follow will become obsolete. Kant tries to prove how everyone does want to be happy and end suffering. Hypothetical imperatives like said before have an action and a causation that someone would want. According to the universal ends, happiness is one of them. So, your actions should always have a causation of happiness. No rational being would act otherwise. The outlier of people who don’t act on rational thoughts still wouldn’t be a flaw since their actions even if harmful to them their inclinations told them to do this meaning that on some level it did make them happy.
You should never use another autonomous being for your own gain because that would mean that you as an autonomous being could be used by anyone for their gain once again causing a contradiction. So, an example I thought was interesting was what if the lie or thing against morality were you trying to help. For instance, if someone is trying to kill someone and asks you where they are, and you know where they are should you lie or tell that person where they are. Kant argues you should tell them the truth even though it could jeopardize their wellbeing which would go against the categorical imperative. He says you should tell him since your maxims can have causes (pg. 50). Let’s say that when you lie this causes the person to walk away and then see the person who he wants to kill. If you told the truth he would’ve gone inside where you were then allowing you to tell the person to run. This ties into right effort according to Buddha text, as your effort should always be in the benefit of you and others. According to Kant, that’s by never breaking the moral law. This improves on your ability to follow the eightfold path to an extent where your efforts meet no contradictions.
In all Kant improves on Buddha’s diagnosis of the human condition as giving it the formula to follow. This allows you to limit dukkha by knowing what’s going to make you happy, and not focusing on the impermeant happinesss in your life. Limiting Trishna’s allows you to have moderation and you can get moderation through maxims in a sense that you’ll understand what actions are noncontradictory with others. Acting on these also allows you to see others as ends themselves helping complete the eightfold path. By following these formulas and lining them up with Buddha ideas you can successfully enter the kingdom of ends and nirvana.
References
- https://kennesaw.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/1578951/viewContent/24598947/View?ou=1578951
- Gregor, Mary, and Immanuel Kant. Ground Work of the Metaphysics and Morals. Cambridge Press, 2012.
- Kotler, Arnold. Peace Is Every Step. Bantam Books, 1991.
