Are We Duty Bound or Bound to Duty?

“Kantianism is rooted in reason” (Palmer, 266). According to Kant, any attempt to justify an act causes the moral worth of the act to become null and void.

Kant’s reasoning behind the categorical imperative shows that if the principle behind an act or proposal is universalized and the outcome is affirmative then the action is right or moral. If the outcome of the action cannot be universalized then its illogical.

I find Kant’s moral principals too strict to be universalized. Human behavior cannot always be universalized without contradiction (Palmer, 269).

Kant believed that we are bound by duty to adhere to moral principles. “According to Kant, the only thing which is good without qualification is the good human will. Will for Kant, means pure practical reason. ‘Pure’ means detached from all ulterior motives and desires” (Ziniewicz). For example: this morning we get up and during breakfast we decide that we should feed a hungry person each day. We believe that it is our moral obligation to do this, so according to Kant’s categorical imperative we should ask ourselves, “What if everybody fed one hungry person each day?” We could answer, “Eventually there would be no hungry people in the world!” This could be a universal law. But, if we decided to feed the hungry because we wanted to run for mayor and this would make us look good in the public eye, and besides it will help out our fellow man; according to Kant our ulterior motives make our act no longer a moral act. According to Kant’s theory we should do what is right, simply because it is right. There should be no goals or excuses connected to our decisions (Ziniewicz). Also, what if we decide this morning as we are driving our car to work, since the road is too busy we are going to drive our car on the sidewalk to try and save time. We would ask ourselves, “What if everyone drove their car on the sidewalk?” If everyone drove on the sidewalks pedestrian would not be safe and would be running for their lives, children would be crying and screaming. You would probably run into other cars that are also driving on the sidewalk. It would be complete chaos, and you would not save any time. It would probably take longer to get to work driving on the sidewalk, than it would have taken to have continued driving on the road. This act would definitely be illogical.

Kant’s ethical principles seems good to follow. Basically Kant is saying “It is good to help one’s fellow human in distress” (Palmer, pg 267). Kant believed that the purpose of human life is not happiness, which amounts to the fulfillment of our desires and the satisfaction of our inclinations. The purpose of human life is to develop a good will, and this is done by adhering to moral law and doing our duty (Ziniewicz).

Kant’s principles are cut and dry–too absolutistic. For instance: it isn’t good to shove an old lady down on the road, but what if you had to push the little, old lady down on the road to get her out of the way of the big truck she didn’t see? According to Kant’s categorical imperative how would you make the rule? For example: do we only push little, old ladies that don’t see big trucks, or do we only push little, old ladies that are wearing hearing aides? In most cases the act of pushing a little, old lady would be unethical and morally wrong, but in this case the act of pushing the little, old lady then becomes a good act. The little, old lady is bruised up, but she is alive.

There is another problem with Kant’s ethics theory. Are we really obligated to perform all acts whose purpose can be generalized? I am very proud when my daughter brings home an assignment with an A on it, so I hang it up on my refrigerator. It’s good to express my pride for my daughter’s accomplishments, but does everyone have a moral obligation to hang their child’s assignments on their refrigerator if they receive an A?

If everyone believed as Kant did, that we should not act on our feelings but only on our moral duty–doesn’t this really go against Kant’s theory. Because if we follow Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative and ask ourselves, “What if people only did their moral duty and never acted on their real feelings, then wouldn’t this be a very depressed world? Eventually no one would do their moral duty, because it would just be an obligation. No one wants to live everyday only fulfilling obligations.

Kant also believed that it is wrong to exploit people for one’s own purpose. When we go to work, aren’t people being exploited so they can make a living? We are making money by supplying a product or performing a job for someone else. We are all basically exploiting each other so we can make money to buy the things we want or need. Is it logical for everyone to quit their job so we are not exploiting anyone?

Kant’s ethics are based on good intentions but they fail to take into account that sometimes our decisions must be made on our rationality of the situation. Occasionally we must use our freedom of thought and decide for ourselves if the good of an action outweighs the bad.

Works Cited

Palmer, Donald. Does the Center Hold? “Thou Shalt Become Perfected: Ethics.” Mayfield Publishing Company; Mountain View, California; 1996. (266-269).

Ziniewicz, Gordon L. “Kant: The Ethical Imperative: The Good Will and Respect For Others.”

Date Viewed: 17 May 2000. http://www.fred.net/tzaka/kant2.html.