Kantian Perspective Kant

Kantian Perspective
Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher lived from 1724 to 1804 and during his lifetime created many theories on ethical conduct and human motivation. Unlike consequentialism which believes the morality of actions depend on the best actual or expected results, Kant believes the morality of our actions has nothing to do with the results but has everything to do with our intentions. For Kant, “it has everything to do with our intentions and reasons for action, those that are embedded within the principles we live by” (Shafer-Landau). According to Kant, moral judgment comes from a person’s own reasoning. When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our actions is sometimes beyond our control and the morality
of our actions will not depend upon the outcome. The only thing we can control is the will behind the action and the morality of the action must be evaluated based on the reason of the desire. Kant theorizes the reason is not based on factual knowledge but reasoning by itself can identify the morality principle. Kant developed a certain formulas of guidelines that will help decipher or identify the logic behind your moral or immoral action. Ideas and theories developed by Kant to identify the morality of the action include the categorical imperative, principle of universalizability and the concepts of good will.
To better understand categorical imperative, it is important to understand what a maxim is. According to Kant “a maxim is simply the principle of action you give yourself when you are about do something.” A maxim has two parts which describes what you are about to do and the reason you are doing it. It is the decision behind the action that moves a person to act based on their own special circumstances and perspective. For example every year around Christmas time you make a twenty five dollar donation to the Salvation Army’s red kettle holiday drive. Your maxim or duty might be that you contribute money to help provide shelter and food for the thousands of homeless people or families living in your city. The theory behind categorical imperative is that every person has the ability to determine their maxim through reason. Kant also argued that a person cannot use an action to judge whether the action is good or bad because sometimes good actions may be an opportunity to commit an unethical act. For instance compare the following two examples that have the same result.
Nurse A is only employed because she knows that her salary, employment and lifestyle depend on her ability to take good care of her patients in the hospital.
Nurse B is employed because she believes it is her duty to take good care of her patients in the hospital.
In both of the above cases, the nurses have the same result which is to take good care of patients but is it the motive behind the action that is very different for each nurse. Nurse A’s motive is somewhat self-centered supported by a motive to increase her salary, employment or life style. Based on Kant’s theory, Nurse A’s motive has no moral worth because the motivation behind the action is self serving. Unlike Nurse B’s motive is more about principles of value, dignity and respect which can be traced back to the motivation of duty.
Categorical imperative “is a command of reason. It does not depend on what we care about. Categorical imperatives command us to do things whether we want to or not, with the result that if we ignore or disobey them, we are acting contrary to reason—i.e. irrationally” (Shafer-Landau). Category imperative is a method to determine morality of actions and is motivated by pure reason. According to Kant, reasoning will always allow us to know what our maxim is when we decide to take action.
One method to determine morality of our actions is to decide if our maxim follows the formula of the principles of universalizability. The principle of universalizability standard states “an act is morally acceptable if and only if its maxim is universalizable” (Shafer-Landau). Since category imperative is a law of reasoning, Kant believes the reasoning behind the maxim must apply to everyone regardless of preference. One way to think about the importance of the universalization test is to test your own reasoning and see if it is a reason you would accept for everyone. In other words, you do not make an exception for yourself. “How can we tell if a maxim is universalizable? Kant uses the following three-part test
1. Formulate your maxim clearly—state what you intend to do, and why you intend to do it.
2. Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim.
3. Then ask: Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world” (Shafer-Landau)?
Formulate your maxim clearly by stating what you intend to do and why ((Shafer-Landau). For example, if you are out of work and need to borrow money. Your maxim would be to borrow money from a family member or friend with a promise to pay them back when your financial situation improves. Or another maxim would be if you are a nurse facing a distraught family who child was killed in a horrific car crash by a drunk driver. If a family member asks did they suffer? Since the family member is traumatized by the accident, your maxim might be to always be compassionate to family members to help minimize the suffering or pain. Once the maxim is clearly defined of what you intend to do and why, Kant believes the intention must be universal so every rational individual can always act upon it.
“Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim” (Shafer-Landau).
In the first example when you borrow money from a family member only promising to reimburse them as soon as your finances improves. If everyone who borrowed money told the truth and reimbursed the lender, your relationship with family or friends would be built on trust and honesty for telling the truth. If you lied by saying you would reimburse them with never having the intention of paying them back would be immoral behavior according to Kant. The second example is nurse facing a distraught family who just lost a child in horrific car crash caused by a drunk driver. If the nurses’ maxim is to always be compassionate when answering difficult questions, leaving the gruesome details out of the conversation would help minimize the pain by bringing comfort to the family during this difficult time. What would happen if the gruesome details were shared instead? Some family members might experience cardiac arrest or faint from the stressful experience and incur additional injuries in the hospital. The hospital would be liable for the injuries or even worse, another death in the family caused by the graphic details of the accident. According to Kant, it would be immoral to cause additional pain or harm to a person who is already grieving due to a senseless and horrific accident caused by a drunk
driver.
The last question in the test is “can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world” (Shafer-Landau)? If your maxim can not be universalized then we are making an exception of ourselves. By making an exception of our self, we are perceived as being more important than others because we are not following the same moral standards. If the answer to the question is yes, then the maxim is universalizable and Kant believed the action is moral. “The importance for this three-part test serves as the real way to determine whether we are being consistent and fair” (Shafer-Landau).
Another method Kant used to determine morality of our actions is good will which is the principle behind common sense morality. “There is only thing that is valuable, no matter what—only one thing whose presence in any situation is bound to add value to it. That one this is the good will” (Shafer-Landau). Kant believes the only thing that is good without exception is a good will because it is the only good without qualifying your actions. The term “will” is an individuals’ ability to act from principle. Good will knows what your moral duty is and it will be able to distinguish it from actions performed for the sake of duty. For example, two sales people working strictly on commission during difficult economic times and selling product warranties. Sales Associate A convinces the customer to purchase the most expensive warranty even though the product parts are covered under the manufacturer’s warranty. Sales Associate B convinces the customer to purchase a less expensive warranty to cover labor only because the product parts are covered under the manufacturers’ warranty. Both Sales Associates are responsible for selling the same product warranties but each had a different reason. Sales Associate A does his job but there is nothing moral about the behavior of cheating customers. Unlike Associate B who is treating the customers with honesty by recommending the correct warranty. Kant believes we should be able to distinguish what is right and what is wrong with our ability to rationalize our decision without adding desires or feelings to the decision making. Kant believed “actions done solely from desire or emotion cannot possess moral worth” (Shafer-Landau). The most important thing to understand is that good will is not evaluated by the results it achieves and the results has nothing to do with the good will. Immanuel Kant provided a theoretical point of view on the morality of the society with categorical imperative.
According to Kant, categorical imperative is the basis of morality which is determined by a persons’ intent rather than their action. It is motivated by pure reasoning and must apply to everyone regardless of preference. For this reason, Kant introduced the principle of universalizability. It is a three part test using questions to determine if our actions are being universally consistent, fair or selfish. Kant also believes the only good without qualification is good will and only the action performed for the sake of duty are moral. Kant was committed to treating everyone with value, dignity and respect. Even today, Kant’s theories still have a direct impact on how morality is
viewed.