Lately, I have been struggling to grasp the moral absolutism found in Kant’s philosophy on freedom, morality, and goodness. His ideas rest on the notion that humans are rational, autonomous beings by nature who have the “capacity for reason [that] is bound up with [the] capacity for freedom...[which] sets us apart from mere animal existence” (108). Our greatness as a human species comes from the fact that we have the ability to make moral choices independently of any inner initialization or social influence. Kant goes as far as to suggest that our rationality is wholly distinct and superior to our sensory and instinctual experiences, creating a divide between the mind and the body (118). Because it is our reason governs our will alone, he
…show more content…
Kant defines freedom as acting always in accordance to self-dictated rules instead of the laws of nature or social convention as well as choosing to complete actions for their own sake instead of egoistic ulterior motives. Furthermore, Kant’s emphasizes that “a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes...it is good in itself…[and] be done for the sake of the moral laws” (111). His emphasis on the intention rather than action when making moral decisions can become dangerous quickly depending on the person considering and carrying out actions. Consider the rise in visible white supremacists during recent years, the “Stop White Genocide” and “Save the Aryan Race” stickers plastered by many onto our trees, buildings, and subway cars, the prevalence of hate crimes against marginalized groups in society, and the deranged media and politicians that foster it. One can easily see this phenomenal as a result of fulfilling personal desires to preserve the long-held status quo which places white people in power at the expense of others. Many white supremacists, nevertheless, can still consider them to be following universal principles, calling their heinous ideology a form a maintaining traditions by remaining true what they genuinely believe is correct. They can consider their beliefs to be their own conclusions that they have chosen to follow, or they can be a result of their education, implicit bias, and exposure to racism, which is the exact opposite. Although white supremacy benefits them, they are also not respecting people as ends in themselves by treating them as a means to maintain control, the second moral force of Kant’s categorical imperative. Their actions align with their intentions and protect their individual freedom of choice as Kant wanted, but this is not to say that they are somehow moral or that their choices are protective of everyone’s
Kant defines freedom as acting always in accordance to self-dictated rules instead of the laws of nature or social convention as well as choosing to complete actions for their own sake instead of egoistic ulterior motives. Furthermore, Kant’s emphasizes that “a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes...it is good in itself…[and] be done for the sake of the moral laws” (111). His emphasis on the intention rather than action when making moral decisions can become dangerous quickly depending on the person considering and carrying out actions. Consider the rise in visible white supremacists during recent years, the “Stop White Genocide” and “Save the Aryan Race” stickers plastered by many onto our trees, buildings, and subway cars, the prevalence of hate crimes against marginalized groups in society, and the deranged media and politicians that foster it. One can easily see this phenomenal as a result of fulfilling personal desires to preserve the long-held status quo which places white people in power at the expense of others. Many white supremacists, nevertheless, can still consider them to be following universal principles, calling their heinous ideology a form a maintaining traditions by remaining true what they genuinely believe is correct. They can consider their beliefs to be their own conclusions that they have chosen to follow, or they can be a result of their education, implicit bias, and exposure to racism, which is the exact opposite. Although white supremacy benefits them, they are also not respecting people as ends in themselves by treating them as a means to maintain control, the second moral force of Kant’s categorical imperative. Their actions align with their intentions and protect their individual freedom of choice as Kant wanted, but this is not to say that they are somehow moral or that their choices are protective of everyone’s