Kanation Theory: Reason, Duty And Human Will

Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth-century professor, guru of Konigsberg, and one of the leading philosophers in history. Kant has made many contributions in the areas of metaphysics and ontology and understands reality on another level of humans during his time on this planet. The Kanation Theory deals with multiple characteristics of human nature, including; Reason, Duty and Human will. These three areas make up the Kanation Theory along with the categorical and hypothetical imperatives that help make up Kants view on human society. A humans reason is the make up of the decision that coincides with how the individual feels towards a particular situation. In laymen's term this means that we have a reason to do what we do everyday, even
if it makes no sense to other people. Humans, do not react without a reason behind the action, otherwise they would be a systematically calculated machine that has no free will. It is our free will that gives us reason, however it is also reason that prevents us from not having faith.
Kant believes that while although humans will do what they will do, reason will still have control whether something is universally moral or not, however it is the good will that acts in accordance with reason. For example, if a person was to kill someone, he or she will know what they are doing is immoral or moral, however, they decide to go through with the action because they reasoned it to be necessary. This view goes in accordance with Kants view on ethics however, since it is entirely based on reason, Kant does not take into account feelings, desires, or any emotional feedback in moral decision making because these emotions impede in reason. To say that we were put onto this Earth for a reason, is enough to say that Humans were born with a duty. This duty, although not reveled to us, can be discovered throughout life when we learn about who were are personally and grow into the people we want to be. According to Kant to do what is right, we must “do it for duty’s sake” or be motivated solely with the respect for moral law. We as humans should know what is morally correct because all throughout our lives we are taught morally correct from morally Lee
2 incorrect and with that knowledge it is our obligation to uphold the moral standards of the universal law.
Kant then goes on to say actions that have a sense of duty behind it have ‘moral worth’ while those done with inclinations are not. Everyone on this Planet has the God given gift of free will. This is what separates humans and other living beings from lifeless beings such as robots and other technologies. A humans will is the driving force behind the human nature. Kant believes that moral decisions requires an act of free will otherwise we cannot say they are morally correct for the person acting upon the decision made. It is this act of free will that Kant thinks acting from a desire or inclination is not really a free act because according to Kant it has no ‘moral worth’. A desire or inclination, according to Kant, is said to impede in the decision of the free act because a it tends to make the decision more desirable and veer the decision in the direction of the desire. This affects decision making because although we may believe that we are making a decision based on free will, we are technically not. The final part to the Kanation Theory is the hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Kant thought of the moral laws as set of principles in the form of imperatives. The hypothetical and categorical imperatives make up the distinctions of the moral law and create the set principles. Hypothetical imperatives are based on desires and tells us that we should do based on those desires. If you want X, then you should do Y. However, categorical imperatives are based on the necessity of the situation regardless of what the individuals desires are. These are mainly based in moral law to prevent humans from performing devious acts of crime. For example, in the bible it states “Thou shalt not Kill”, and under no circumstances should you kill another human being because it is ‘morally incorrect’. Although there are certain situation that may call one to break that rule, Kant states that breaking a moral law under any circumstances is morally defunct.
In accordance with the Kanatian theory in its entirety, Immanuel Kant makes very convincing and strong points towards his beliefs on duty, reason, free will, and conceptual understanding of natural law through imperatives. These teachings are the very foundation of the Kantation theory and are what made him into the famous philosopher he had come to be. However, The Kantation theory is not perfect and contains many holes in its arguments. Regarding the concept of reason, I agree that emotional conflict can impede in an individuals reasoning skills, however, it is with this emotional conflict that the true Lee 3 reason within the individual comes into play. With emotional connection in decisions, humans would make no sort of effort into making decisions that matter. Reason requires a humans free will and I believe that Kant was incorrect to say that we cannot view a decision made on emotions, to be a true act of reason. Kants view of reason to be completely discarded when emotions come to play, is an irrational statement made with little effort to understand the humanist side of people. This goes without
saying,
Kant’s view on a humans sense of duty is also askew. A humans sense of duty belongs solely to the individual. The best way to describe a human duty that was gained through desire is to say that it was a hypothetical imperative. Kant says that a human duty must be made with the sole purpose of going through with that duty for the sake of doing it. Any humanistic desire that was wanted from completing that assignment is unjust and holds no ‘moral worth’. This statement in itself makes no sense, because without reason to what we do in life, we as humans contain no free will. If we perform a duty, for the sake of just performing the action, we will never prosper individually in our characteristics. It is our inclinations and desires that we want to perform well to achieve our goals. At the end of the day, humans have goals and desires to achieve and to say that it holds no moral value to have such goals, then it may be safe to say that the individual is not a human. However, the concept of free will must be the biggest controversy that Kant holds. It is his idea of of free will that we cannot contain free will if we are used in the world of desire. Kant says, that if desire in oneself, that becomes the driving force in a particular action that is done, is indeed the reason for an action, then the individual is not acting under free will, but instead acting under the law of temptation. Therefore, it is this temptation that is controlling the human mind and preventing us from free will. This is incorrect in the sense that humans have free will no matter what the driving force is. Although there may be inclinations that favor a particular area of why the individual has partaken in a particular action, you cannot say that the individual has no free will because at the end of the day they can still say no. Our ability to choose what we want to do, and what we don't want to do creates that gap between human and machine and gives humans the ability to make free will choice no matter what the reason behind it was. Otherwise, according to John S. Callender, humans have no free will at all and “There is no freedom; everything in the world takes places solely in accordance with the laws of nature”. If humans are not permitted to have desire in there actions when the make a choice of free will, then we must abandon the theory of free will altogether and assume that laws of Lee 4 natural necessity call in to favor of the actions we create (Callender 1). Callender was very correct to this of free will as a means of humanistic impulses as opposed to systematic responses that are already programmed within us. Yes humans are emotionally spastic, and can change their minds on a whim, whom also perform actions with no moral compass at times, however, these actions that are done by the individuals are the true acts of free will. Anything less than free or anything that restricts the human free will cannot be considered humanistic. With all this said, Kant was still one of leading Philosophers of history and his teachings are still portrayed in schools today. Although he has many hole in the teachings that may have only applied as theory, Kant is still one of the most influential humans in history and should be regarded as such.