Phil’s Blog

It seems evident, following the foot steps of the previous paper, that the theory this humble writer will choose, is Kant’s theory of obligation. In an attempt to present a personal view about the theory, this paper will refute the arguments presented against the theory in the book by Thomas F. Wall, Thinking Critically about Moral Problems. The first objection brought forth, is that the theory violates the criterion of universality; since it requires all moral rules to be absolute. The second objection is that it violates the criterion of external consistency, because the only worthwhile motive for an action is duty (p. 43).
To bring forth a counter argument, it must be shown that Kant’s theory explains more facts than its antagonist. Furthermore, it will be shown that Kant’s theory not only does not contradict the moral beliefs hold as true by most, but is a priori for all morals to be.
The basic concepts within the theory are that man is a rational being with free will, and that he has a duty to use that rationality and will, in the development of its human identity. To be moral is to be rational, and the only necessary motive to be moral is the duty, or the obligation that ensued from rationality. All members of the human species are obliged by the sole fact that they are human. This fact does not change, because of time or surrounding, it is universal.
Rational thinking is a priori for moral decisions. A rule is said to be ethical, not because it appears to be so, but, because reasoning led us to that assertion. It is therefore to say that strength in simplicity is found when a rule is absolute. It does not give way to misinterpretation. It is also just, since it applies to all alike. To say that a rule has a priority over another and that the secondary rule could be violated, so that the primary rule could be fulfill; violate the criterion of internal consistency. Is it morally right to break a rule? If a rule could be broken, it implies that the reasoning that established that rule is faulty. And, if one would ask the many, which will be more just, a rule with exceptions to the rule, or, a rule that applies to everyone no matter the occasion. The answer may show us that the majority believes that a rule should apply the same for everyone.
By creating reasons for the superiority of an ethical rule over another, one is saying that there are good reasons to break an ethical rule. So, if one would make a rhetorical argument in favor of overriding a rule with another, and if the argument appeals to the majority of the people (if it is an accepted fact), then the actions that follow the rule would be moral. All are aware that one rule say “thou shall not kill”, this fact is accepted by all. However, one reasoned at time that one can override that rule; such is the case in time of war. That action is viewed by the majority as just, and right. Was not “do not kill” a moral rule? Was it not wrong to kill? How one would go and do which he knows to be wrong, and argues that now it is right? According to our book, war is a moral act, since the killing in war is morally right. The absolute rule states that killing is morally wrong, and that at no time could it be morally right. Kant’s theory accounts for all possibilities, since it does not change according to the situation. And even if the many see fit to violate a moral rule and use reason to justify their deed, it does not imply that the action is right. The many could be wrong. Kant’s reasoning stays firm in asserting the validity of the moral absolute. The moral is based on rational thinking, and it fulfills the criterion of universality.
Furthermore, if one is not in the development of oneself, how one would know the reasoning behind his or her actions? Could one be call free, if rationality does not lead him or her? And is it not the desire of all to be at peace with oneself? Does any one wish for conflicts, and distress? To be a rational man is to seek to be one with oneself. According to Kant, the only reason for following the path of rationality is duty. This assertion bring the objection that it is not consistent with the accepted believe of the majority. Most believe that the motives for being ethical are numerous, and that the important factor is that the result of the action is good. Simply said, the result justifies the means. Kant rejects that assertion by declaring that the only motive for ethical behavior is the duty that ensued when one decides to be ethical.
The decision is neither based on the emotional whim of the moment, nor, because it feels good, but on the understanding of one’s identity. If one follows the desire to do good, even for altruistic reasons, does his or her feelings encompass all being? If one views the motive as a duty, then one must be ethical with all. As a member of the humankind, one is obliged to be rational. One is obliged to act ethically even toward one’s enemy. One is ethical because one is rational. Moreover, will not the majority agree that with status come obligations and duties? And, is not to be human a status amidst species? Then, obligations and duties ensued from being human. Furthermore, is not the duty to act in accordance with one status a priori to fulfill the status? If so, than Kant’s theory does not violate external consistency. The majority of people will agree that mankind is a status, and that one must live in accord with one’s importance. One is ethical because one has the duty to be human.
This paper has shown that Kant’s theory of obligation does not violate the criterions of universality and external consistency. It is true that by establishing moral absolute, the theory does not consider various alternatives to a situation, but it is more consistent; since, if one knows the moral absolute, one knows how to act, no matter the situation. Therefore, the theory answers all facts. It has been shown that human are rational entities, and with rationality come obligations. Within the same format of an absolute, the sole obligation worth considering is duty, since it is an elementary part of being a rational being; a status that requires an ethical behavior, and as shown a fact agreed on by the majority. Those two aspects of Kant’s theory are appealing to this writer. They create a simple theory to follow, however difficult it might be to implement. It can be argued that Kant’s theory is not practical, since it requires that man be always at his best, and that one’s individuality converges with the collective. To be rational, and to live a moral life, one must make many sacrifices. As Pythagoras said: “Reason is immortal, all else mortal.”