Act as if the principle of your action is the universal law of nature through your will (Rohmann, 1999). This idea really sums up Immanuel Kant‘s view of ethics. Kant suspected that ethical decisions should be based more on the motivation of the decision than on the benefits or rewards of the action. I think this interpretation of ethics is completely true.
Morals and ethics tend to be diluted or manipulated when decisions are based on reward. For example, in a world like the one we live in today, most if not all major decisions are based on financial gain. Many times a religion or a charitable cause is used as a pretense to the true end of a definitive sentence. I can almost guarantee that if you walk through the surface waters and face the face value of recent decisions someone somewhere will make a ridiculous amount of financial gain. This limits, if not stifles, any motivation based on ethical decision making. I am talking about the larger decisions made by the management or the colleges (if there is a difference between the two) for the most part. Smaller or more personal decisions are more appropriate for Kant’s motivation based on ethics.
Kantian ethics can be a double-edged sword. This is particularly relevant to Kant’s fundamental notion of making things or deciding on natural or absolute laws. This is where Kant’s theories enter a gray area. The proper idea of following moral law is truly ethical practice but how is one difference between personal, moral and ethical laws and the laws of society , country, government, and religion; All laws are commanded; but like Kantian Ethics making ethical judgments, what are the reasons behind these laws? For example, the old southern Jim Crowe laws and Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg Laws are seen as completely brutal and shameful (that’s putting it kindly) . If someone was morally and ethically correct against these laws, but in the way by Kantian Ethical standards they were not (Beck, 1960).
Kant’s rationalization of this fact is quite interesting. the idea is that you follow the law to the extent that it does not conflict with your practical reason. or set of personal opinions. Another way is this: My respect for the laws of the club, state, constitution or religion guides me in my actions only to the extent that the laws passed by my own practical reason do not require me to violate them (Johnson, 2008). This is the basic way to live well, as long as you have a strong rational mindset and the laws of the land are generally considered reasonable. In these times, however, laws, rules, and regulations seem to be becoming more and more restrictive, closed-minded, and corrupt. “To live outside the law, one must be honest” (Dylan, 1966).
My criticism of Kant is only in the details, as to what laws he follows. The main ideals of Kantian Ethics are very interesting to me. Reason based on ethics must be accepted from now universal practice. It is unfortunate for mankind that we are not fully in the global consciousness that allows us to think and act with such a just mind. Other general criticisms of Kant’s work have also been particularly detailed. A lot of people find problems with Kant when it comes to the conflict of duties. For example: A friend asks you to keep a secret, while another friend asks you to tell about another friend’s secret. If you don’t tell a secret to a friend a second time, you’re doing your friend a disservice. If you tell a secret, you lose the job to the friend who told you the secret (Popkin & Stroll, 1993).
Kantian ethics is a morally and ethically appealing and fundamentally correct practice. The difficulty in it comes mainly with the corruption of the modern age. If governing bodies did not punish or imprison people for doing things against the rules, but kept true to their own moral laws, then Kant’s ethical concept could be more easily implemented. We, as humans, wish for such a world and hopefully the freedom to make ethical decisions (or inconvenience) will once again be common.
References
Beck, Lewis White. (1960). Commentary on Kant’s “Critique of Practical Reason”.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dylan, Bob (1966). Absolutely, Sweet Mary. Before Blonde in Blonde [CD]. New York:
Colombia
Johnson, Robert. (2008). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Received
October 15, 2008, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Online: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#DutResForMorLaw
Popkin, R, & Stroll, A. (1993). Chapter (2nd ed.) Simple Philosophy (pp.
40-41). New York: Doubleday.
Rohmann, Chris. (1999). Immanuel Kant A World of Ideas: The Biggest Dictionary
Theories, Concepts, Opinions, and Thinkers (pp. 217-219). New York: Ballantine Books
