Morality or Mush

Satisfactory Essays
Immanuel Kant suggests that actions are preformed out of either inclination or reason. Inclination being desires, feelings, and so on down the line of subjectivity, requiring only seemingly action pertaining to “self-love”. Or actions are preformed out of reason, including objective reasoning’s such as duty, goodwill, and respect. This in accordance with reason, it seems, one must act when the action is “right”, stressing that these actions are universal in nature. Kant suggests that one can tell if an action is “good” or moral by specifically focusing on motives rather than outcomes.
He states there are two imperatives by which to judge an action. The categorical imperative is stated throughout the text, notably in section 2, “ Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law (p30)”. In short, one must act according to objective behaviours. The second is the hypothetical imperative, “… an action is good for some purpose, either possible or actual”. Therefore the motive is subjective as it is adhering to inclinations of achieving a specific outcome.
The flaw I find with this train of thought comes in the form of analysis of motives, how can one truly “know” the motives of an action? Kant does address this at the beginning of section two, “We like to flatter ourselves with the false claim to a more noble motive; but in face we can, even by the strictest examination, completely plumb the depths of the secret incentives of our actions (19)” He goes on to say furthermore that one must be a “cool observer” and not take into consideration personal experience (p20). Having reason said to be universal, this means subjective inclinations are not needed to examine actions because ...

... middle of paper ...

...a poor example for the universality of Kant’s theories due to the fact murder is wrong yet countries are constantly going to war. Regardless he truly believes that an individual could have universally moral actions and act in accordance with reason if their maxim is that of the intention to be moral.
Though I may not agree with Kant’s theories as a whole, I can appreciate his willingness to make reason a universal quality in people as well as rising the so-called bar of what is considered moral. Religious undertones and subjective, as I see it racist, comments slightly discredit his objective understanding of morality I do understand the time in which it was written. Immanuel Kant’s views allowed for a strict moral code to form, not dismissing inclinations but rather placing them in their own category. Separating feelings from logic isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Get Access