NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Kant (1). It has been rightfully suggested that the philosophy of Immanuel Kant revolves around his unique understanding of notion of morality. According to philosopher, morality has universal properties, which cannot be discussed within the context of their practical utilization, because otherwise, morality becomes subjected to perceptional subjectivity. Kant believed that every individual is being psychologically divided between two realms that are essentially opposite the realm of pure ideas and the empirical realm. Therefore, he suggested that it is only logical to conclude that one of those realms is more objective than the other. Individual is ontologically dualistic being, which means that every person is affected by both the idea in itself and physical manifestations of this idea, which are associated with distorted understanding of ideas essence.
The empirical being and transcendent being cannot be using the same approach, when it comes to figuring out what represents the best course of action, under different sets of circumstances. This serves as a premise for suggestion that the concept objective morality has nothing to do with perceptional empiricism. The rationalism of Kant's ethical code implies that it is unacceptable to discuss the notions of good and evil, while remaining overly emotional. The ethics that use persons emotional needs as their metaphysical foundation cannot be objective, because they are not universally applicable. Only rationalistic mind, which operates with ideas in itself, has the right to apply the notion of morality, when it is required to evaluate peoples existential stances. Kant's ethics are autonomous, in the true sense of this word, because they are independent of subjective reasoning.
This provides us an insight on how Immanuel Kant could have justified its own ethical principles in times when their practical application might appear as being counterproductive. (2) One of individuals greatest virtues is his ability to stick to the principles that he associates with morality, regardless of external circumstances. We commonly refer to such virtue as sense of duty. For example, many people do not think of having to get up every morning to go to work as something enjoyable. Nevertheless, they continue with their daily routine on permanent basis, because they rightfully think of it as executing their social duty. This is exactly what enables the existence of civilization, as we know it buses arrive on schedule, offices open at certain time in the morning, cops catch criminals and stores are being continuously restocked with new products.
Executing ones duty, on the part of every citizen, is the most important precondition to social order. In its turn, the sense of duty is highly abstract category that is not associated with receiving immediate benefits, on the part of those who know to adjust their act so that it corresponds to their understanding of categorical imperatives. Thus, we face paradox majority of people associate their existence, as social beings, with executing some unpleasant duties. At the same time, they benefit from it immensely, in social context of this word. This allows us to conclude that, to act responsibly and therefore moral, is not always the same as to act in the way that makes most sense at any given moment. If we allow maniac to kill orphans, this might appear as being immoral, on our part.
However, this might not be the case if we analyze larger implications of our decision. Even though that remaining loyal to the moral imperative of always saying the truth, on our part, will have fatal consequences for the well-behaved orphans, it would actually benefit the humanity, because it is peoples ability to stick to the their understanding of morality as thing in itself that allows cultural and scientific progress. The ability to operate with abstract categories derives out of peoples sense of idealism. In its turn, this ability serves as foundation, upon which empirical sciences are based. Thus, by telling maniac the truth, we will be able to remain truthful to our essence, as people who are capable of applying abstract principles in practice. For example, Germans are commonly referred to as cruel people, because they wanted to physically eliminate Jews, during WWII.
We think of it as something utterly barbarian. Yet, this does not prevent us from considering Germany as one of the most civilized countries, which contributed to cultural and scientific progress more than any other nation in the world. How can it be possible in the first place? The answer is simple the majority of Germans proved themselves as being capable of suppressing their emotionalism, when it comes to dealing with highly emotional matters. The experiments on concentration camps inmates were highly immoral, yet, 60 % of empirical knowledge, with which we associate modern medicine, was gained as result of these experiments. Nowadays, many people that should have been otherwise dead, are able to enjoy life, because of medicinal breakthroughs that were made possible by Nazi doctors sixty years ago.
These doctors knew how to set their priorities straight, as they were not subjected to conventional morality, which considers human life as such that has universal value. Therefore, the situation presented in case study cannot be thought of as being overly complicated. The ethical paradox, found in it, is based on the wrong premise that human life has a value of thing in itself. This point of view, of course, cannot have academic validity.
The sanctity of human life is nothing but a chimera. Jack London in his novel Sea Wolf talks about human life as something that only has a relative value: I held that life was a ferment, a yeasty something which devoured life that it might live, and that living was merely successful piggishness. Why, if there is anything in supply and demand, life is the cheapest thing in the world. There is only so much water, so much earth, so much air; but the life that is demanding to be born is limitless (London, Chapter 6).
Can we really believe that the life of cannibal from Papua New Guinea, whose vocabulary consists of 100 words, has the same value as life of Mozart, for example? Thus, it would be wrong to suggest that allowing crazed maniac to kill orphans would represent a highly immoral act in a priori. We simply lack information, in regards to these orphans, as well as we lack information about maniac. What if orphans are being burdened with their own existence, because they are mentally retarded or affected by some incurable disease? In any case, it is wrong to suggest that preserving ones life, at any cost, represents the greatest virtue. Morality has transcendent essence and as such, it cannot be affected by emotional considerations: Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature (Kant).
The laws of nature have objective essence not only because they define seasonal changes, but also because they are inseparable from the idea of progress, which in its turn, is not possible without continuous improvement of all aspects of human life. It is very hard to talk about progress without understanding that it is based on the objective principles of freedom and truth. Therefore, any categorical imperative that strives to have moral implications must have these categories incorporated in its very essence. The protection of human life can never become a categorical imperative, because life is a biological phenomenon that is limited in space-time continuum and as such, it cannot have universal properties, in principle.
Life is only the mean that allow us to realize certain aspects of abstract ideas that exist independently. Thus, allowing maniac to kill orphans will constitute a moral act, for as long as we use the protection of individual freedom as main motivational factor that prompts us to open up the door for this psycho. Telling him the truth about the orphans will prove that we are truly committed to practicing an objective morality, which has nothing to do with religion or with emotional sentimentalism. The core of objective ethics consists of metaphysical morality, which is meant to explore the existential possibilities, associated with persons will, without relating it to socio-political realities. People might have different opinions of whether it is acceptable to allow maniac to kill orphans, but they all would agree that the idea of truth and freedom has a transcendent value. Therefore, we simply cannot go wrong if we adjust our act to be associated with promotion of transcendent values, even though that we might be branded as immoral individuals, as result: If then there is no genuine supreme principle of morality but what must rest simply on pure reason, independent of all experience, I think it is not necessary even to put the question whether it is good to exhibit these concepts in their generality (in abstracto) as they are established a priori along with the principles belonging to them, if our knowledge is to be distinguished from the vulgar and to be called philosophical (Kant).
The problem is that, even though most of people agree with the fact that moral imperatives have objective nature, they somehow relate them to existential subjectivity. It is easy to say that the practical application of moral imperatives must be deprived of purely emotional considerations, on our part, however, as practice shows, we usually have problems, when trying to act according to our abstract beliefs. This is because, as human beings, we are not perfect. Peoples imperfection comes as the result of their inability to realize the full potential of their minds, as something that elevates them over the set of bodily functions, maintained by the blind instinct, which we call life. Thus, every time when we challenge the notions of conventional morality, which is based on Jewish religious tradition, we bring ourselves closer to God.
Majority of people hope to achieve immortality, without understanding that they can never qualify for it, unless they prove themselves of being able to fit in the immortal world of pure ideas. If we allow maniac to kill orphans, it would signify out willingness to put abstract ideas of objective morality above everything else. As such, it will automatically make us highly moral beings, in the eyes of history. This is exactly the reason why we tend to remember historical figures that are associated with behavioral non-conformity.
It is not the fact that they simply wanted to make mark in history at any cost, but because they existed in the realm of abstract ideas, which nevertheless were being perceived by such individuals as absolutely real. In its turn, this proves once again that ideas in itself really do exist and, in order for us to understand their true significance, we must be willing to adopt an inquisitive, rather then dogmatic attitude, when it comes to discussing ethics. (3) In order to summarize this paper, let us mention the main points of our argumentation once again. First of all, moral imperatives have nothing to do with emotional perceptions of objective reality, which allows us to conclude that killing orphans cannot be considered as definite evil. Second of all, even though that serving abstract ideals often contradicts conventional ethics, it cannot be considered as such that undermines the objective value of such ideals. There can be no excuse for lying, because lies constitute metaphysical transgression against categorical imperatives of morality. Killing people, on the other hand, is the subject of ideological interpretation; therefore, saving peoples lives can never be a good enough reason to alter ethical code, which is objective in its essence.
Third of all, since it is in human nature to refer to subjective emotionalism, as such that can serve as foundation, upon which the code of ethics must be based, we need to constantly train ourselves to remain rational, especially when we are required to evaluate different aspects of peoples behavior. We can say that orphans happened to be in the wrong place in wrong time, however, saving their lives with the mean of lies would be morally inappropriate, because it would prove that we do not truly believe in abstract ideas that we never get tired of promoting. Sentimentalism corresponds to mental weakness, just as overeating, corresponds to the weakness of ones will. It can be tolerated, but we can never adopt it as something that defines or existential mode. Bibliography: Kant, Immanuel Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. 2007. Athenaeum Reading Room. 21 Nov. 2007.
web London, Jack Sea Wolf. 2007. JackLondons. Net. 21 Nov. 2007. web Outline: Introduction Main part Conclusion
Free research essays on topics related to: categorical imperative, majority of people, sense of duty, immanuel kant, conventional morality
Research essay sample on Sense Of Duty Majority Of People
