Arguments Against Kantian Ethics

Better Essays
Kantian ethics and the ethics of Kant are fundamentally separate ideas. The ethical framework Kant laid out in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals can be interpreted in a way which Kant himself would not adopt. This framework is based upon his three categorical imperatives, which Kant suggests our synonymous with each other. Later however, I will show how through a different application of Kantian ethics, one can radically diverge from his viewpoint, to disagree with Kant’s argument that it is morally wrong to make a promise one has no intention of keeping.

Kant uses the first formulation of the categorical imperative as a way of justifying how false promising is morally wrong. He brings up this particular ethical statement as a way
…show more content…
This is however slightly too simplistic, relying too much on a subjective application of the first categorical imperative. Hegel criticises Kantian ethics on such grounds, stating that by rephrasing the rule, it appears possible to universalise almost any statement. ‘Whenever someone is dying from want of money, and the sum is small enough to bear little burden on the lender, then we can make a promise we have no intention of keeping.’ One might argue that under such circumstances, the concept of promise keeping is not entirely contradicted, and the rule is universalisable. Indeed, it appears that by making a universalised principle at least partly specific to circumstance or group, one can very easily circumvent the problems of contradiction which Kant outlines. There still however appears something wrong in doing so. Clearly Kant’s intention was not only to universalise, but to generalise the situation, to be able to compare one moral action to another. By introducing specificity into such rules, even if they allow us to get around Kant’s absolutism, we kill the ethic through an overburdening number of exceptional instances. This seems distant to Kant, such criticism should only require one to state that there is in fact a right and wrong way to rephrase an argument, and any way which includes specificity doesn’t follow the correct …show more content…
One of these is his second formulation of the categorical imperative, to not treat people as means to an end, but as ends in themselves.1 One cannot use another being for personal gain or collective reward. Instead, we must leave the option for each person to apply their own rational will. In Kant’s example of the borrower who knows he cannot pay the money back, yet still does so pretending that he can, it’s the act of promising that treats the loaner as a means, and not an end in himself. The loaner is not in a position to use his reason, and his own dignity is not being treated with respect by the false promiser. The act of false promising appears to always have this inherent personal link: there is always one who comes off badly from it, and is being treated as a means to an end, no matter the example. It is therefore Kant’s concept of dignity and views on humanity which make the action wrong. By treating humans as a means, we are negating their rationality, their ability to make a freely informed decision, and descending them to a position in which, in Kant’s eyes, one should only reserve for objects and animals. For Kant, such treatment infringes upon their very right to property and freedom, and that can only occur if one was willing to liken humans to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Kant pronounced the need of the set of tenets of behavior and regulations which would give us the chance to settle on the right decision. This capacity to choose which looks like freedom from the first site swings to be a liability on the shoulder of the humankind as opportunity means obligation. Kant states that better or more terrible, activities can be performed to accomplish the more terrible or better result and this places us in the position of good situation where picking worse, one can hurt others and the other way around. Also, the activities we perform after these reflections and contemplations are resisted as moral activities by Kant. Moral activities for him are the activities, where reasons stay sooner than takes after and…

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In the second chapter of Groundwork For the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant aims to move from the popular moral philosophy in order to establish a metaphysics of morals. Kant 's main opponents in this chapter are the philosophers of self-love. These philosophers argue that everyone is motivated by their rational self-interest. This viewpoint is dangerous to Kant; both supposedly moral acts and immoral acts come from the same source and are therefore indistinguishable. This viewpoint is also dangerous to him as it implies that reason is entirely slave to the passions; we can only act in a certain way if we have an interest in doing so.…

    • 775 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, both are flawed in my opinion. David Hume’s belief that morality is based on emotion and Kant on his belief that morality is based on the categorical imperative. I believe these two ideologies lie at both ends of the extreme. Nevertheless, given only the two arguments, I must say that morality must be determined more on reason that emotion. Therefore, I would have to side with Immanuel Kant.…

    • 1013 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their…

    • 1253 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It seems that to be moral in the Kantian sense, one must be going against their own desires. In the aforementioned case, this is the point of contention between Barry and Harry. In fact, in the Kantian sense, it would seem contradictory for one to gain satisfaction from being moral because then one would be pursuing morality for a desire rather than a sense of duty. In this way, it seems that Kantian morality is treated as a burden rather than an enjoyable endeavor. In the end, I think this gap leaves one question that goes unanswered by Kant’s approach: why should man behave in a moral…

    • 1283 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Mill's Utilitarianism

    • 725 Words
    • 3 Pages

    But this cannot be right; the fact that he promised to his friend puts an obligation upon him and a little increase in utility cannot exempt him from it. The crux of the argument is that backward-looking considerations are also important in defining the morality of an action. So, Mill’s argument that consequences are the only thing that matters, is again seems incorrect. Mill is not incorrect in assigning the importance to the consequences of an action. Consequences of actions play a crucial role in determining the moral permissibility and prohibition.…

    • 725 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    When he [Kant] begins to deduce from this precept [i.e. CI] any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur. Here Mill considers of consequences in moral action, as we will see, Mill’s consequentialism rather than Utilitarianism is the direct charge made to Kant, these two notions are not same, the utiitlirms principle is seek happiness and avoid pain, precisely moral action would be conducted on maximizing happiness and minimizing…

    • 1235 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Self-denial is the epitome of the removal of freedom, which is one of the key aspects that Kant points out as being necessary for morality. However, why does Hill believe this about servility? Hill supports his argument with illustrating three patterns of servility through the lens of three personas that he created; “Uncle Tom” “The Self Deprecator” and, the example which mirrors our situation, “The Deferential…

    • 1460 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If someone asked a friend to loan them some money but knew they could not ever repay their friend, is it ethical to make a personal exemption? Kant says no. To be moral, one cannot make special exceptions for themselves regarding ethical issues. If everyone, in this instance, made the same false promise, no one would ever lend anyone any money. The second component of the test is whether or not actions are respectful to other people.…

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant Vs Utilitarianism

    • 1790 Words
    • 8 Pages

    If need be, then one can tell a lie. Kant would however disagree to this and would call the act immoral. Kant would say that one has to tell the truth whatever the consequences and have to deal with it later. The difference between Kantian and Utilitarianism is therefore based on such argument. The Kantian would not be interested on the consequences while the utilitarian would first look at the consequences of an action and would therefore base the morality of an action on its consequences.…

    • 1790 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays