Comparing Kant And Gun Control

There are multiple examples of contemporary ethical problems that we face in our day and age. The issue that presents a consistent and constant problem within our nation is the issue of gun control. Situations such as Sandy Hook and Columbine school shootings cause people to raise doubts about gun control measures and what restrictions should be emplaced on gun ownership in the nation. There are multiple questions that constantly are associated when addressing this issue. These questions usually involve different aspects such as; Who should own guns?, How to deal with those who have them?, etc... The issue of gun control in this country is very divided, there are those who through and through believe that they should own guns and it is their

Kant’s idea of the hypothetical imperative is, the idea of what someone wants and how they should achieve that want or what they need to do in order to get what they want. The categorical imperative on the other hand is Kant's idea of what must be followed regardless of our own personal interests. When using both of these types of imperatives to analyse the gun control issue, the ideas must be viewed separately. A hypothetical imperative in this situation could be if a person wants to own a gun then they have to make the conscious decision to be responsible with that gun. The individual knows that in order not to be in trouble or have their freedoms taken away they have to exercise responsibility. The categorical imperative that could be applied to the situation is the idea that humans should not kill one another, this idea of not killing someone is an absolute law. The categorical imperatives determine whether something is right or something is wrong for instance killing someone is inherently wrong so Kant believes that no one should do that. This incorporates the idea of Goodwill meaning that down to everyone's fundamental core people are naturally good willed and will do the right thing. If they don't do right the right thing then they are justifying that everyone is allowed to kill and there is nothing wrong with that. Todd Calder Professor of philosophy for the University of Victoria, analyzes Kant’s ideas of imperatives and associates them with degrees of wrongness. Todd described that Kant implied, varying degrees of wrongness when he was thinking of his theories, the degree of wrongness is fitting the crime with punishment. Todd states, “Kant believes that one reason we should mete out punishment according the principle of retribution is that only then will punishment be in proportion to the inner wickedness of the criminal.”(Calder 232) This