Reaction to Kant

6/25/2014
Philosophy 201
Reaction to Kant
Kant

Kant first draws close to differentiating between a moral choice and a prudent choice. A prudent choice is a choice used in good judgment and is rational. Kant has no interest in morality being rational. A law is a law and thou shall obey it. The moral law is absolute. Thou shall not lie, means exactly what it says, thou shall not lie. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There is no reason why a person should lie because it is our duty as moral human beings to tell the truth. One might argue, what if it is in the best interest of the other person for me to tell a little white lie? No, Kant argues that morality cannot be grounded in happiness only grounded in moral law. It is our moral duty to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is no way around it and no reason that can justify telling something false. No matter what the consequences are. The will of humans, as rational beings, contains within it “the idea of the law in itself”, which leads Kant to formulate the principle that “I ought to never act in such a way that I could not also will my maxim should be universal law” (14)A maxim is the subjective principle of power when using one’s will. This train of thought leads to the conclusion that a choice must be based on a person’s moral duty alone and not subjected to reason.
According to Kant, moral truths are not received from on high through divine revelation or inspiration. Rather, they are based on reasons that make sense to all people who bother to think about them. All rational beings have a moral law to abide by. Kant argues that, the moral law is not subjected to reason. It is a concrete law, like those of physics. These principles apply perfectly anywhere in the world. Your principles should act in a way, in which you benefit absolutely nothing from it. Take yourself out of the equation and act based purely on your moral duty. Moral law never looks to consequences. Something can be rational to do but make you miserable at the same, hence, not grounding morality on happiness. But is this even possible in reality? Kant argues that it is possible because ordinary humans know their duties and moral laws. He gives no lee way for any emotion in human morality to come into play. He believes a prudent choice is one that applies to moral laws.
A prudent or wise choice can distinguish from good, bad and also foresee the hidden consequences of one’s actions. It is rational, wise and human. A prudent choice can act accordingly when faced with a question. Whether it be questioning to tell the truth or questioning to lie, whatever the case your prudence always acts accordingly. It adheres to the wisdom of human emotion and experience. If a person has experienced a shock from a wall socket, he is likely to learn from his experience and never get shocked again. Although, It is good to be moral, adhering to moral duties in difficult situations may not hold morally true to some. Therefore making a more prudent choice according to their maxim is a better option for them.
The principle at which you choose your maxim must be moral according to Kant. In which is a logical requirement. But not logical in the sense that he takes little to no consideration to humans natural emotions and feelings. Hence, the golden rule, do onto others as you would have done onto you. With a statement like that it is hard not to adhere to moral actions. Leading a moral life does not have to bound with endless amounts of duties, in which a person is not allowed to have any joy or happiness. Kants view of morality comes off as torture. His view of morality seems faultless and if he would allow some flexibility with human emotions, then I think everyone should live according to his moral law.

.