In 1746, at the age of twenty-two, a young man from Konigsberg made a deal for himself. He said: “I’ve determined my own path. I want to keep studying and no one can prevent me from achieving that goal”.
Later, no one thinks his work will shake the entire of western philosophy. It seems his hard effort brings tremendous results.
This young man was Immanuel Kant. He was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, part of Prussia which later changed to Kaliningrad and now belongs to Russia. He came from modest family. His father was a saddle-maker.
Almost his whole life was spent in village. Kant never traveled away from his place except giving some lectures in his neighboring village.
Immanuel Kant’s ideas influenced almost modern philosopher such as Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Nietzsche, even Schopenhauer said, “Someone will remain like a child until he grasp Kant’s philosophy”.
Another German philosopher – Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel – said, to be a thinker, one must first becomes his follower. One of Kant’s most influential idea worth to be considered is morality. Let see how Kantian’s moral works.
What’s Moral?
Michael J. Sandel in his book, Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Said, in order to understand the moral definition according to Immanuel Kant’s idea is to look for the motive. An action can be morally right not because the results which come from it but in the motive from which the act is done.
“What matters is the motive,” Sandel wrote. For sure, the motive must be a good will. Even a good act cannot be morally right if it comes from some hidden intention – not from a good will.
Here is an illustration. Suppose you are an employee, one day your senior supervisor asks you to spend some funds on monthly meeting activities. And then, you realize there is a chance there which you can take advantage by cheating.
Still, you decide not to do it. Because if, later, others will discover you took advantage from this chance, word might spread out and hurt your reputation or even you will get fired.
In this case you do the right thing, but for the wrong reason. The only motive you do is to protect your honor. You do it not because it is good in itself but because you are afraid. For Kant, this act lacks moral worth.
If so, should not I just cheat? That was not the point. According to Kant, an action can be judged by three ways.
First, blameworthy (do the wrong thing) such as killing, stealing, and cheating.
Second, acceptable (do the right thing but for the wrong reason). It can be exemplified before the election is held as candidates throw a public charity to maximizing voters. Their act was actually right but the motive was wrong. In Kant’s view, this act called “amoral” (it does not consist moral value) instead “immoral”.
Third, praiseworthy (do the right thing for the right reason) alike giving hand to others as you realize it is good in itself.
Meaning that, what is good will then? Kant said, “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, it is good in itself. Even if by utmost effort the good will accomplishes nothing, it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has full value in itself”.
Kant argues motive is more important rather than result. As we often cannot control the consequences of our action. There will be good consequences even it is flow from bad intention and vice versa.
The result of an action is beyond our capability. The only thing we can keep in hands is good will; therefore, the moral value must be seen from our good will.
People will say there is tons of goodness in our life such as knowledge (any knowledge is good, said Socrates), happiness (remember Bentham’s utilitarianism), bravery (recall “the cardinal virtue” according to Aristotle), prosperity, yet, the only appropriate good thing in any condition is good will.
Kant said, “Nothing in the world–indeed nothing even beyond the world – can possibly is conceived which could be called well without qualification except a good will.”
But why only a good will? Since knowledge, happiness, bravery, prosperity, and all the other good things are conditional virtues. They will be good only in certain circumstances.
For examples, knowledge will be wrong if it is in the hands of cheater; happiness will be wrong if it is in the hands of dictator, bravery will be wrong if it is in the hands of murderer; and so on. Unlike them, a good will remains good even it is in the hands of criminal.
Kant’s Pursuit of Freedom, Respect, and Duty
We cannot set aside the other crucial things such as freedom, duty, and respect in order to understand Kant’s idea of morality. If these things are not exist, there can be no morality.
Also, these three things distinguish Kant’s idea of morality from the previous system derived from religious dogma.
For Kant’s idea of morality, freedom is substantial thing. “Without freedom,” said Kant, “morality will be meaningless”. Kant reasons as follows: Imagine one day you meet criminal. He compels you to rob a bank. If you resist, your family’s life is at stake. And then, you do it.
Later, someone asks whether you morally responsible for the robbery or not, of course Kant’s answer is “you are not”. Since there is no autonomy here, there can be no moral responsibility.
One thing need to be kept in mind: Kant’s notion about freedom is totally different from the others’. “He has a more stringent, demanding notion of freedom” Sandel wrote.
He said freedom is not only the absence of obstacles to do what we want. Since this way of thinking will not distinguish us from animals (creatures of appetite).
Suppose we are trying to decide what color of shirt we should use for hangout; whether the red or the blue one. In the end, we prefer red instead blue because our partners love red. We have freedom to choose that, isn’t it? There is also no obstacle to choose our preference.
It seems like that, but what we are really doing is trying to seek which color will best satisfy our preferences based on our partner’s preferences.
It is not wrong to do it. The point is, when we do so, we are not acting freely, but acting according to a law given outside us. In this case, our free will to choose the shirt determined by our partner’s desire. Thus, we are not really free for the choices we make.
What’s freedom then? Kant said freedom is when your action becomes an end; not as means to achieve some other purposes or interests. By other words, a good act flow from a good will and a good will come only if you act not to choose the best means to a given end; it is to choose the end itself, for its own sake without condition.
Kant’s idea of morality also linked on what he calls duty. Our actions are morally right if we obey what duty says. What he means by duty is moral law to respect the humanity values.
Several weeks ago, your neighbor was in a car accident. Without a doubt, your conscience commands that what you suppose to do is to help him. You realize this is a good act and it is your duty. You are doing this not for other purpose instead your neighbor deserve it. Thus, according to Kant, you have respected the humanity.
“For Kant, acting freely that is autonomously and acting morally according to the moral law, are one and the same thing. In this point, Kant’s demanding notion of freedom and morality are connected,” Sandel wrote.
But where could such a duty come from? Kant’s answer: from reason. He believes if anybody put their reason in its function, not just the slave of the passions but as rational self-regulator, they will arrive at the same conclusion: an absolute value which can be used as universal moral principle called “humanity”.
From reasoning, people will realize what they should do against poverty. From reasoning, they will discover a good act is when they treat others as end not as means for some ulterior motive.
Kant called it as “pure practical reason”. This is the fundamental difference between person and things. That’s why make us more than mere creatures of appetite – rational beings worthy of dignity and respect.
Universalize Your Maxim, Never Treat People as Means
To make sense of pure practical reason, we need to understand how reason works. Kant classifies two ways that reason can command our will. The first one, “perhaps the most familiar kind” Sandel wrote, is hypothetical imperative. Here is the formula: if you want C, then do B.
If you want to be treated well, then do well to others. In other words, hypothetical imperative is “doing something in order to gain something else”. This kind of imperative is always conditional.
The second imperative is what Kant calls categorical imperative. Unlike the previous, this kind of imperative is unconditional in any state. It commands us “what we ought to do”. For example, what duty should we do if someone asks help? Give him hands because it is the right thing, just it. Not for any kind of purpose.
Kant said, “If the action would be good solely as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical. If the action represented as good in itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical.”
Kant insists only categorical imperative can qualify as an imperative of morality. When reason unleashed from passions’ bondage and commanded us categorically, it becomes “pure practical reason.”
An action whether categorical or hypothetical, can be evaluated by these following two fundamental rules:
(1) Act only that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. By “become a universal law”, Kant intend to say that if you choose an action, whoever the person will also choose that way. It will not contradict if you universalize it.
(2) 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 means, but always at the same time as an end.
Since the moral law cannot be based on any particular interests, purposes, or ends because then it would be only relative, it must be based on absolute value as an end in itself.
If someone asks what could possibly have an absolute value in itself, Kant will answer: “humanity”.
A few months ago, Marvel released his box office movie entitled Avenger: Infinity War to celebrated ten years of Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).
The story begins as Thanos – Avenger’s villain, collect the infinity stone which spread over all galaxies.
Unfortunately, one of Avenger member named Vision has the stone in his head. The only chance to stop him from getting that mind stone is to destroy it. “Eliminating the stone is the only way to be certain Thanos cannot get it” He said.
But it is too risk. As the mind stone detached from Vision’s head, his life would be ended.
Debate ensued. Vision argues it will be right to gives his own life voluntarily for the collective happiness. “One life cannot prevent to fight Thanos,” thus, his sacrifice will be useful for the sake of human beings. Yet, Captain America rejects. He said, “We will not sacrifice one’s life for others’ “.
Captain America’s dialogues, inadvertently, demonstrates what Kant means by the goal of morality. All of human beings are worthy of respect, regardless of who they are or where they live.
Human beings are not the instrument of morality but must be the goal of morality itself. In this point, Kant’s idea of morality launched devastating critique against utilitarianism which says “The highest principle of morality is to maximizing happiness”.
That’s why the goal of Kant’s idea of morality is not happiness, instead humanity.
