1. INTRODUCTION
Down through the centuries there has been enormous number of debates about nature, existence, dignity and morality of human being. Every debate brings up new insights that explore the inexplicability of human person. In the history of philosophy Immanuel Kant not only attempted but gave an absolute system that gave a rational being its dignity. This system revolves around Kant’s categorical imperative as the absoltute moral formula. Categorical imperative is the result of moral self-legislation. In this paper we would explore in brief Kant’s moral self-legislation and see how this gives human being its true dignity. For this we shall examine the nature of practical reason (Will), legislation and human dignity and see how far Kant’s system be appealing to the intelligibility of a human being.
2. NATURE OF WILL
Will is that faculty which chooses anything that is recognized by reason as practically necessary. “The will is conceived by Kant as a ‘faculty of determining oneself to action in accordance with the conception of certain laws’.”[1] Will is self-determined by its end and this end is given by reason therefore will is nothing but practical reason and it can be found only in rational beings. In animals, it seems that the faculty that makes them to choose is not will but inclinations. Human will is determined and it has various characteristics. Let us examine in brief some of them
2.1 FREE
Human will is essentially free. This means it is not affected, caused by anything other than itself. The will does not choose anything because that thing is good in itself but wills to choose because of will’s own sake. According to Kant, if there is any extrinsic law or desire, or motivation that causes will to act, then that will cannot be free. In order that the will to be free it should have its own causal laws or intrinsic law.A will is heteronomous when it subjects itself to a law that is not made by itself or in other words when it heeds to an external law. Hteronomous will is conditioned and never can be a source of moral command.[2] Therefore it falls under the category of hypothetical imperative; a command influenced only by external causes. A will is free in so far as it is not caused by anything and it is autonomous so far it is governed by its own laws. A free will is a necessary precondition to enact a moral law; it is a person’s freedom that ensures a moral law.
2.2 GOOD
The only one entity in the world that is good in itself is ‘good will’. Will is good in itself so far it is not influenced by anything else, to be good. Even wit, judgment, qualities of temperament, courage, resolution, constancy of purpose are good things that facilitate the will to fulfill its task but never causes the will to be good.[3] In other words nothing in the world makes a will good other than itself. Will in itself can never be bad. Therefore there is no bad will. When will is affected by impulses, external causes, inclinations it belongs to the world of sense and not to the world of understanding and reason. Unless and untill will belongs to the world of reason it cannot fulfill its function proper. A thing is known by its function. Therefore the so called ‘bad will’ is not a will proper and it is reduced to the realm of sense alone.[4] The unique and absolute value of ‘good will’ consists in the employment of reason. Reason by virtue of itself produces a will that is good in itself. Only a good will can choose or a moral law that is good and commands obedience from all, and can be the ultimate source of morality.
2.3 LEGISLATIVE
Will is legislative when it formulates moral laws. The moral laws are necessary of all the rational beings irrespective of their inclinations and impulses.[5] Reason operates upon certain rules. Will makes these rules for the moral world recognized by reason as good. Will is that ultimate legislator who makes the categorical imperative; a command that is absolute and unconditioned. Any law that cannot be in perfect agreement with the categorical imperative, cannot bind anyone at all.
2.4 RELATION BETWEEN WILL AND REASON
Will always operates according to reason. When ‘will’ operates according to the laws of nature (the world of sense, inclinations and impulses), it behaves like an empirical faculty reduced to the realm of animal sensibility. It becomes a rational faculty only when it is determined by the laws of reason.[6] When will is determined by laws of reason it is known as practical reason. Kant recognizes the idea that the primary role of reason is to make possible a ‘good will’ rather than to help us satisfy our inclinations or make ourselves happy.
3. NATURE OF LEGISLATION
Legislation in its ordinary sense is the formulation and enacting of laws, regulations by any individual, governing body or a legislature. Specific characteristic of legislation is “…legislator’s enactment must create law, in the sense that it creates binding reasons for subjects to act in certain ways, which they did not have prior to the act.”[7] In our ordinary understanding there are different authorities that legislate laws. We will group them in to two and give Kant’s concept of legislation as well.
3.1 GOD AS LEGISLATOR
An appropriate example in the human history upholding God as the legislator is Judaic tradition that maintains that laws, statutes, commandments and regulations of conduct, which would guarantee happiness both in the temporal realm and spiritual realm, were given to them miraculously by Yahweh through Moses. They consider these laws as immutable, perennial and absolute. These laws are to be obeyed by all the human persons who belong to that community; disobeying them would be detrimental to their existence, happiness and prosperity. These laws eventually led the community to a static society (God’s laws are perennial, immutable and absolute) that did not give freedom to the individual person.
3.2 STATE AS LEGISLATOR
State formulate laws and regulations for the entire country and its subjects. Before any formulation becomes a law it is known as ‘bill’ and is debated by groups of people in legislature and after sufficient debates it is approved and enacted as a law. We have many examples of such legislation like Indian Constitution, civil laws and criminal laws etc… These laws, though they are deliberated by a group of individuals they enforce the law rather than each individual recognizing the law and obeying it unconditionally.
3.3 KANTIAN CONCEPT OF LEGISLATION
According to Kant the ultimate authority in legislating a law is the ‘self’. Law is always a moral law as it regulates human behavior. It is rational will that legislates the moral law unto itself and in that way the will is subjected to that law that is legislated by the rational self. He maintains that human being is subject to only those laws that are given by itself and at the same time universal. The self-legislated law of a human person has to be intelligible to all rational beings and binding all.[8]
Kant’s conception of moral agents giving laws to themselves have many nuances. Since moral principles are universal, moral agents give laws not just for others but for oneself too. The moral agents who are subjected to the moral laws are rational and has legislative capacity as legislator himself or herself. Therefore, though the deliberated moral law is enacted by ‘self’ all the other rational agents have a share in it.[9] Rational agents legislate moral laws for themselves. Even when one person legislates the law, it is legislated by all rational beings. This has another implication. Since rational agents legislate laws for themselves then disregarding the same law would amount to disregarding one’s own rational ability and subjecting oneself to that law would amount to affirming one’s own rational freedom. In this way a rational agent has to always and everywhere behave according to the moral law. It becomes his prime duty as a rational being.
This calls forth another consideration. Though moral agents are necessarily rational they are constantly influenced by other incentives such as inclinations; laws of nature. There is a pull between sensible incentives and reason. “But since they have an interest in acting from moral principles [a must disposition to be human], they may assume that they have a capacity to act from reasons that make no reference to empirically given desire-based interests…they ascribe transcendental freedom to their personality”.[10]
Nature of These Laws:When a will legislates a law rather than proposing a law, that law has to meet some unavoidable conditions. Then any law legislated in that way binds all the ratio nal beings irrespective of geographical, cultural and temporal differences.
Universal: When a ‘self’ legislates a law, it has to be conformed to the universal law or be suited to serve as a universal law for a community of rational agents.[11] “A law…is an objective principle valid for every rational being; and it is a principle on which he ought to act-that is an imperative”[12] The universal validity of the law rests on the fact that it is reason that recognizes the law and will that legislates. When will is free from all external causes such as inclinations and impulses then the will is enacting the law for itself and by itself on behalf of all rational beings. All moral laws shall be universal laws, which apply to everyone under any circumstance without any exception.
Necessary: The laws are also necessary in so far as without them morality would be impossible. A moral law that is legislated by reason has an unconditional force because it derives its authority from reason that is not corrupted by nature. This law commands from all rational beings obedience. This unconditional force can be described as necessary and the laws are known in Kantian system as rationally necessary laws.
3.4 AN EVALUATION
In this section, we analyzed the notion of legislation and nature of varied laws according to popular understanding as well as Kantian understanding. In the popular understanding, legislation has been done either by God or by State or any governing body. The laws that are given by these legislators are known as positive laws. They are particularly so because they were given from someone else than the one who obeys it. The subjects of the law have to abide by the law without any reflection. These laws are in a way forced to the subjects. When something is forced upon anyone that does not agree with its true nature then it becomes offensive. Thus when a human person is forced to obey a law that is not in accordance with his reason then it is an immoral law that dehumanizes the person.
According to Kantian understanding, legislation has its source and end in will itself. The self is the sole authority and agent that legislates the law primarily for itself according to the dictates of reason. The reason is the absolute confirmer of a law and this reason recognizes only those laws that can be universally applicable. Since the self legislates for itself, fulfilling those laws would be its true duty. When positive laws that cannot be conformed to the dictates of reason and universal law they become tyrants that enslave human beings. On the other hand rationally necessary laws exhibit freedom of the individual.
4. NATURE OF HUMAN DIGNITY
To be fully human is the dignity of a human person. Anything that makes a human being less human mars the dignity of a person. There are so many things interlaced in the constitution of the human person that guarantees his or her dignity. When all these elements work a s a whole can it be considered as being worthy of dignity.
Human existence: According to Kant the empirical status that consists of natural feelings, inclinations or passions cannot be considered as essential to the human nature though they are part of humman life. “By nature a human being is endowed with three original drives (Anlagen) or predisositions [and] the fulfilment or realization of which would be the key to truly human existence and the attainment of the highest good in the moral world”.[13] The three predispositions are animality to determine physical beings, humanity to determine human being as social and rational beings and personality to determine the rational being as capable of adapting a moral law as its end and obeying it without any constraint.[14] Though human existence is marked with empirical reality, its true existence transcends the empirical reality to the realm of humanity and to personality. The realm of personality is the unconditional demand of human existence where the himan being without force, without doubt and without inclinations but spontaneously observe the moral law.
Human morality: Morality is the sign of true existence of a human person. “Humanity so far it is capable of morality alone has dignity…the incomparable worth of a good man springs from his being a law-making member in a kingdom of ends.”[15] Morality essentially calls forth legislation of moral law by human reason and the unconditional observance of them. This self governing reason in a human person is the absolute ground that demands respect and equal moral worth from all rational beings. In other words if a person is not able to legislate for himself and thus to the entire community of the rational community then the person is not worthy of dignity and self worth. The worth or the dignity of human person is a necessary precondition for rational volition. “If being an end in itself constitutes the worth of humanity – in the technical Kantian sense, which is the capacity to set ends according to reason – then having dignity constitutes the worth of personality – which is the capacity to give oneself moral laws and obey them”.[16] The obeying of moral laws result in moral actions. In all of the universe the fundamentally valuable thing is a rational being, a person who performs moral actions. “Human actions are considered to be worthy of our humanity only when they are performed according to the objective moral demands of a given situation, in which the role of moral motive is of vital importance”.[17] Thus “[w]hether it is gradual progress or a revolution, good moral life is ultimately an attempt to realize the dignity of moral worth”.[18] The vocation of humanity is to “…satisfy the commands of the categorical command of morality…”[19]
Autonomy: A thing “…has dignity or worthiness if it admits of no equivalent”.[20] Human dignity cannot be compared to any other thing because of its rational nature. Dignity, according to Kant, is coupled with autonomy and reason. Reason makes the human person to concieve its ends and autonomy enables human person to legislate the ends as the ultmate ends. These ends are not recognised by the self from outside the person but within the person. The autonomous will has nothing else but itself that wills the moral law to be absolute and categorical.[21] Human person is essentially autonomous in this way and being autonomous is the perfect example of his inner worth and dignity.
An Ultimate End: When humanity left to itself it can use reason at the service of inclinations. Humanity needs something as its end and this something cannot be inclination for inclination is an externally proposed end. “Kant holds that the characteristic of humanity is the power to set an end to work towards its realization, which involves our capacity to choose and to desire.”[22] The choice of moral ends marks one’s personality. The predisposition to personality is our power to adapt a moral law as the end. So human person is not merely a rational animal but a responsible moral agent.[23] Reason concieves and will chooses the rational or moral end. Humanity can be defined in terms of its ends. Humanity is dignified only when it formulates its end. Humanity aims at not any other end than its true worth, dignity and duty and therefore realising the humanity is the ultimate end of humanity or human person; a “…rational nature exists as an end in itself”.[24]
5. CRITICAL APPRAISAL
So far, we have been analyzing the dignity of the human person as someone who legislates moral laws for his or her own moral life. We have seen how human reason and will play the ultimate role in making the moral laws. The unconditional force of self-legislated moral law has its origin solely in the reason. Will is free when it excludes all kinds of external forces in choosing the moral law for highest good. Will is autonomous when it legislates those laws as originating from the human self. The ultimate value of a rational being is grounded on reason and will of a person who considers itself as an end.
Kant has given absolute dignity to human person as it alone can legislates for itself and for all rational beings the moral laws that command moral behavior from all rational beings. Practical reason is considered as the ultimate judge in legislating the law. According to him nothing else but reason itself gives the practical reason the authority to do so. A question can be asked whether the authority that is given by reason to practical reason can be trusted. Just like Kant mistrusted any empirical reality as incapable of providing necessary causal connection to the will in legislating the moral law, we could suspect the ability of reason which is said to be incapable of attaining objective knowledge can know highest laws for highest good. Unless we know the highest good, we cannot legislate the moral laws in attaining the highest good. Thus, though we can subscribe to the Kantian position of moral self-legislation as an ideal in giving the best way of providing dignity to the human person we have to be slow in trusting his idea of the absoluteness to the practical reason as it can contradict with the pure reason. A basic contention of this position is because pure reason cannot know the highest knowledge even in phenomenal world.
6. CONCLUSION
The very existence of the human person presupposes his or her dignity. When a person is not able to realize his or her personhood, then that person reduces to be human. The realization takes place at the realm of living a human life. Human life cannot be lived in isolation. It is lived in relationship with others. This relationship entails community or a society.
Human dignity also is consisted in the uniqueness of human character. Each person is unique and has varying ways of acting and living in the world. No one can live arbitrarily in the world forgetting the society. This calls forth a sort of pattern of living acceptable to oneself and to others. Laws and regulations set forth the pattern of the living. These laws are not only helpful for the normal living of the human person, these are also helpful in actualizing the human self. Laws meant to realize oneself in the society.
When laws are given by any one else from an external source they are imposed. It is because the human person has to abide by a law that is not desired or willed by the human person. He loses his freedom in enjoying the law. The law enslaves him. He becomes less human.
Every person has a purpose in life and the realization of this purpose considers to be the ultimate end of the human life. When a person does not realize his or her own end then that person is not worthy of human dignity. Human dignity consists in the ability of a rational being to conceive the moral laws as consistent rules of behavior and setting itself as the ultimate end. When such an invaluable human person who follows the positive laws that do not stand in accord with the authority of reason, then such a person cannot be said to be moral and thereby rational. The morality and rationality can be attributed to those persons who follow diligently, consistently and spontaneously the moral dictates of practical reason.These laws not only bind the person negatively but also more emphatically realize the person. Thus, dignity of a human person consists in the autonomous and legislating nature of the will which declares unto itself laws that are universal and necessary over and against dehumanizing positive laws that do not measure up to the dictates of reason.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pandey, Ashok Kumar. Aspects of Rationality: Analysis of Reason and Will in Kant’s Philosophy. New Delhi: A P C Publications Pvt. Ltd., 1997.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundworks of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans., J. Paton, New York: Harper and Row, 1964.
Reath, Andrews. Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory. New York: Clarendon Press, 2006.
Chackalackal, Saju. Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant: A Paraigmatic Integration of the Theoretical and Practical. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2002.
Wood, Allen W. Kantian Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Korner, S. Kant. England: Penguin Bokks Ltd., 1955.
[1] Pandey, Aspects of Rationality, 26.
[3] Kant, Groundworks of the Metaphysic of Morals, 61.
[13] Chackalackal, Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant, 387.
[14] Chackalackal, Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant, 387.
[15] Kant, Groundwork, 36.
[17] Chackalackal, Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant, 210.
[18] Chackalackal, Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant, 384.
[19] Chackalackal, Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant, 385.
[20] Kant, Groundwork, 36
[21] Korner, Kant, 148.
[22] Chackalackal, Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant, 388.
[23] Chackalackal, Unity of Knowing and Acting in Kant, 388.
[24] Korner, Kant, 147.
No comments:
Post a Comment