1. AUTONOMY AND MORAL LAW: By Juvénal SIBOMANA
Autonomy is one of the key concepts of Kantian ethics . "Autos" means self and "nomos" means law. For Kantian doctrine of autonomy, the rational being 's will be regarded as the author or the legislator of the moral law, or the law itself as objectively binding on the same will. For Kant, "Every rational being , as an end in itself, would have to be able to regard itself at the same time as universally legislative in regard to all laws to which it may be subject." (G 4:438) Autonomy of the will is the properly of the will through which it is a law to itself (independently of all properties of the objects of volition).
For Kant, since all human beings are rational beings, then man can be the author and self legislator of moral law. This is the ground of his concept of autonomy. Another idea about moral law which Kant calls "morally practicable law" which should contains an order or command is called categorical imperative. For Kant moral law lie in the nature or essence of things. " a morally practical law is a proposition that contains a categorical imperative (a command). One who commands (Imperans) through the law is lawgiver (legislator). He is the author (autor) of the obligation in accordance with the law, but always the author of the law. In the latter case, the law would be a positive (contingent) and arbitrary law." Metaphysics of Morals 6: 227). Those philosophers who are sympathic to Kantian ethics usually are so because they regard it as the ethics of autonomy, based on the respect for human capacity to govern his own life live according to rational principles which can be summarized as following in terms of maxims: 1. Think for yourself 2. Think from the standpoint of everyone else. 3.Think consistently with yourself.
However, the self legislation, self-esteem which appears to ground Kantian morality can begin to seem (as it does to some of Kant's critics) like a kind of arrogance or even a perverse self-deification, in which each person blasphemously usurps the traditional place of the Deity as the giver of moral laws. Alternatively, even where moral law's claim to universal validity is not given up, stress on the "autos" has led to the thought that the moral law's validity must arise out of my own will. Then we can say that there are tensions within the idea of autonomy itself and in man as his own self-legislator.
In conclusion, I can say that since the doctrine of autonomy is then seen as the proclamation of human-made morality" there is some incompatibility in claiming objectivity and realism. It seems to me that in Kantian Ethics, man becomes the Superman of Nietzsche and his self legislator. Practically, it is difficult to be at the same time the Author and the Legislator of the Moral Law. My question to is how free is the will to legislate to itself? This is an idealistic view of human without taking into account his limitations. But Kant's credit and major contribution in Moral Philosophy and in Philosophy of Law, is the universal validity of moral principles. Moral truths have to be constructed by people (democracy), and every law must be constituted by our volitional act in legislating it.
2. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: By Juvénal SIBOMANA
Kant concern in his book Groundwork is "the search for and establishing of the supreme principle of morality" called categorical imperative. For Kant, a moral imperative is categorical because its function is not to advise us how to reach some prior end of ours that is based on what we happen to want but instead to command us how to act irrespective of our wants or our contingent ends. Its rational bindingness is therefore not conditional on our setting any prior end. The supreme principle of morality admits of no conditions or exceptions, of course, because there is nothing higher by reference to which conditions or exceptions could be justified. His search culminated in formulating the principle called "Categorical imperative" in three ways.
1. The Formula of Universal Law
Kant says: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law".
All moral statements should be general laws, which can be applied to everyone under all circumstances. There should be no occasion under which an exception is made. In this first formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant's attempting to put forward the supreme principle of morality, the categorical imperative, is normative but can me permissible if everyone had to act according to that maxim. According to my humble understanding, it is impossible for everybody to adopt the maxim which I act on when I infringe a imperfect duty; it is merely impossible for me to will that everyone should adopt this maxim, even though it is dear to me.
2. The Formula of the End in Itself : Treat humans as ends-in-themselves. (sometimes it is called the "principle of humanity") Kant stipulates: "So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." Kant argues that man should never treat people as a means to some end. People should always be treated as ends in themselves. This principle promotes equality and humanity.
3. Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends. Kant assumed that all rational agents were capable to deduce whether an argument was moral or not through reason alone and so, all rational humans should be able to conclude the same moral laws. Kant sought to create a framework by which one could discover which moral statements were true and which were false. Kant believed that we are free to make rational choices. Reason is what distinguishes us from animals. We have to be free to do our duty. But if we can't be free then we cannot truly be moral agents. 'Ought' no longer implies 'can'.
3. DUTY: By Juvénal SIBOMANA
Kant said that we all experience an innate moral duty. The existence of the conscience and feelings of guilt and shame tell us when we violate this moral duty. He believed that our moral duty could be revealed to us through reason, objectively. His theory was based solely on duty. He said that to act morally is to perform one's duty, and one's duty is to obey the innate moral laws. Acting out of duty and for duty sake is an imperative and the first proposition of morality.
For Kant in order to have moral worth, an action must be done from duty, not merely in accordance with duty. Kant makes a distinction among acts that are carried out because of our inclinations and those who are carried out because of their necessity to humanity. The first ones are actions that violate duty or actions that accord with duty, but for which we have no immediate inclination; but we do them anyway because of some other inclination (such as self-interest or love of fame). E.g., the prudent merchant. Obviously, they are not actions done from duty.
For Kant, actions that accord with duty and that we have an immediate inclination to perform. E.g., preserving one's life when life is enjoyable; not committing adultery because one finds one's spouse to be "the most desirable creature in the whole world" (Kant's own example). But even here he finds that such actions do not have moral worth. Surprisingly, Kant estimates that only "actions that accord with duty and are contrary to all our inclinations can claim to have moral worth". E.g., the person who desperately yearns for death but refrains from suicide on principle; the misanthrope who helps others purely from a sense of duty. Obviously, these last two cases have moral worth because the agents are acting from duty without any inclination. Then for Kant only very few actions indeed would have moral worth. For genuinely saintly persons, none of their actions would have moral worth.
Kant believed that we are constantly in a battle with our inclinations, our raw wants and desires. For him, man should not act out of love or compassion. Kant said that it's was not our duty to do what is impossible for us to do. For him, the fact that we ought to do something means that it is logically possible to do – 'ought' implies 'can'. Moral statements are prescriptive; they prescribe an action. If 'ought' implies 'can' then the statement, 'I ought to do x', implies that 'I can do x'.
Kant said that we should perform our duty because it is our duty and for no other reason. To perform an action out of desire, emotion, self-interest for any self indulgent consequences is not a morally good action. Duty is good in itself. Kant argues that the highest form of good is good will. To have good will is to perform one's duty. To do one's duty is to perform actions which are morally required and to avoid those actions which are morally forbidden.
In conclusion, Kant is said to have devised a system of ethics based on reason and not intuition. A moral person must be a rational being. Being good means having a good will. A good will is when I do my duty for the sake of that duty. I do my duty because it is right, and for no other reason. But what does it really mean to act out of duty? Is it because one is squeezed like a prisoner and cannot do otherwise? Kant explained that to act out of duty is to perform out of freedom actions which are morally obligatory and not to perform those that are forbidden.
4. EUDAEMONIA versus ELEUTHERONOMY: By Juvénal SIBOMANA
Eudaimonia or eudaemonia (Greek: εὐδαιμονία; Greek pronunciation: [evðaimoˈnia]), sometimes anglicized as eudemonia (pronounced /judəˈmoʊni.ə/), is a Greek word commonly translated as 'happiness'. Etymologically, it consists of the word "eu" ("good" or "well being") and "daimōn" ("spirit" or "minor deity"). Although the word is most commonly translated as happiness, or occasionally good fortune, "human flourishing" is sometimes preferred as a more accurate translation.
"Eudaimonia" is a central concept in ancient Greek ethics, along with the term "arete", most often translated as "virtue", and phronesis, often translated as "practical or moral wisdom." In classical Greek, eudaimonia was used a term for the highest human good, and so it became the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider what it really is and how it can be achieved.
Discussion of the links between virtue of character (ethikē aretē) and happiness (eudaimonia) is one of the central preoccupations of ancient ethics, and a subject of much disagreement. As a result there are many varieties of eudaimonism. Two of the most influential forms are those of Aristotle and the Stoics. Aristotle takes virtue and its exercise to be the most important constituent in eudaimonia but does acknowledge the importance of external goods such as health, wealth, and beauty. By contrast, the Stoics make a radical claim that the eudaimon life is the morally virtuous life. Moral virtue is good, and moral vice is bad, and everything else, such as health, honour and riches, are merely 'neutral'. This Stoic doctrine re-emerges later in the history of ethical philosophy in the writings of Immanuel Kant, who argues that the possession of a "good will" is the only unconditional good. One difference is that whereas the Stoics regard external goods as neutral, as neither good nor bad, Kant's position seems to be that external goods are good, but only so far as they are a condition to achieving happiness.
Kant always believed that Good will is the source of morality and consequently bears goodness in itself. On the other hand, Kant principle of morality is not Eudaemonia, the happiness principle that I explained above. For him the basic principle of morality is the Eleutheronomy (the freedom principle of inner legislation). To choose the first principle instead of the second is to do the euthanasia of all morals. Good will needs freedom in order to achieve moral actions which consists in doing one's duties for the sake of the duty itself. Kantian morality is based on freedom as self-determination in deterministic world. And this morality based on inner freedom is an important discovery which Kant calls Copernican revolution. Kant does not make a difference between moral law and freedom. He rather say that "moral law is equivalent to freedom and that freedom provides the essential content to the moral law. We need an a priori ethics because empirical motives (like self-interest, self happiness, self-satisfaction) can lead us to violate our duty. Such motives lessen our moral worth; the highest motive is to do our duty, not from ulterior motives, but just because it's the right thing to do. Instead, the supreme moral principle is based on pure reason.
In conclusion the basic of morality according to Kant is not happiness principle of Eudaemonia like in Greek Philosophy but Eleutheronomy or freedom principle. Freedom is a necessary presupposition of Kantian ethics. The "idea of freedom," therefore, is equivalent to any norm that is self-given by reason. The moral law is such norm (the highest rational norm). Thus, attempting to conform to the moral law would be a case of "acting under the idea of freedom."
No comments:
Post a Comment