Table of Contents
Introduction
Philosophy defines the study of fundamental and general issues that concerns matters like knowledge, language, values, reason, mind and existence. The word was coined by Pythagoras. Philosophical methods involves questioning, rational argument, systematic presentation and critical discussion. Philosophers pose concrete and practical questions concerning the best ways to live, about being fair or unjust, and if human beings have a free will. In this case, the present paper will discuss about the moral law by Immanuel Kant.
Immanuel Kant is well known for his philosophical articles, but in this case, the topic at hand will be about the moral laws. Kant being a Germany deontologist in the eighteenth century, had a strong believe that, the only way to prove about a wrong or right decision was to apply it to everyone thus observing the outcome and making the decision (Kant, p6). In this case, if one’s decision was right for every individual to make the same decision, then the decision should be termed as right, but if not, the decision is termed as wrong. For example making a promise as a way of making others relieved, but failing to fulfill it thus resulting to others keeping broken promises too would result to lack of trust for one another because nobody can keep their words. According to ethics, Kant came up with a way of showing how the duties of an individual consisted of following the principles that are acceptable as equally applicable to everyone.
Analysis
Kant does not support the principle that states about an individual’s happiness being of ground morality. In this case, the decision that works in favor of the majority is termed to be the just decision while the decisions that work in favor of few individuals are termed to be unjust. The moral laws helps in defining what is wrong and right thus helping in developing a good relationship between different people, races and cultures. According to Kant’s definition, the moral laws are more like commands to human beings because they are not willingly determined by practical reasons. Even though the will of imperfect and self-centered human beings has the power to act in accordance to rational principles, because its reasons do not fully control the inclinations.
127 our experts are availableright now
Kant supports that happiness plays a significant role in determining the level of good deeds or decisions, but only if the result is in proportion with morality. He also asserts that the best decision constitutes of both morality and happiness. Kant acts more concerned than Aristotle in the case of happiness that claims, happiness has the ability to corrupt the innocence of human nature. Henceforth, the aim precludes the sense of moral growth. Perhaps, the difference between the two philosophers can be summarized by stating that according to Kant, every human deserves to be happy. Happiness should come as a natural flow, but not as a motivational act.
The autonomy principle’s significance lies in the proposal that it can be considered as a supreme principle of morals. According to Kant’s argument, that can only be shown by analyzing the moral concepts. Therefore exhibiting more actions through the autonomy principle. However Kant does not support the idea of moral and good actions to be free. Kant (1724-1804) made an argument that the moral’s supreme principle was a rationality standard that he named the “categorical imperative” (CI). Kant went ahead thus characterizing the categorical imperative as an objective, rational necessarily and unconditional rules that must always be followed despite natural inclinations or desires that might be contrary. Every specific requirement of the morals according to Kant, is given full justification by the principle, which confirms that, every immoral deed is irrational because they break the categorical imperative.
Considering other philosophers like Aquinas, Hobbes and Locke, they also had arguments about the moral requirements being based on rationality standards. However the standards were either rational according to instrumental principles thus satisfying an individual’s desires as it is in Hobbes, or the standards were of external principles rationality that are discovered for a purpose as it is in Aquinas and Locke. Kant and his predecessors came to an agreement that, analyzing of practical reasons brings out the required rational agents that must be conformed in to instrumental principles (Kant, np).
Yet there was also an argument that the conformity to the categorical imperative is not an instrumental principle, hence the moral requirements can never be taken as essential to the rational agency. The argument is based on is doctrine that states that, a will that is taken free autonomous the law that makes binding. The basic principle of morality being the categorical imperative is no different from the will of the autonomous law. In the middle of Kant’s philosophy there is a reasonable conception that reaches the practical affairs thus making sure all goes well more than that of slave to passions.
Application
Considering the self-governing reasons that controls the deeds of every individual, Kant thoughtfully offered decisive base for making a view on each individual’s possession as equally worth thus deserving equal rights and respect. From a point of view, Kant’s moral laws plays a significant role in every individual’s lives. Considering that, the law mostly considers doing well unto others in an unselfish manner more than considering one’s decision first. That helps in spreading peace, love and unity among societies and cultures thus keeping the world a more peaceful place.
Even though most people break the moral laws due to their selfish demands, like most politicians who use lies to capture the people’s hearts thus getting chosen by the people as their leaders. In this case, most politicians end up not fulfilling their promises as agreed with the people thus spoiling their own images and breaking the peoples trust. In this case, politicians and the selfish individuals should be encouraged to learn about the moral laws that can be of help to them to changing their morals for the better.
Conclusion
The study aims at teaching about the importance of having morals which are the most definition of a person. A person is not defined by names only, but their characters speaks volumes about themselves. A person with good morals considers others before themselves and do not take advantage of others despite their positions in life. The good morals are termed to be good, while the bad morals are associated with lying and evil deeds. The small acts like, respect, kindness and trust among others defines one’s morals, which results to one having bigger moral values in life and to the society too.
Works Cited
- Kant, Immanuel. To perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. Hackett Publishing, 2003.
- Kant, Immanuel. ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.’
- Kant, Immanuel. On Perpetual Peace. Broadview Press, 2015.
