Moral philosophy serves as a guiding light in navigating the complexities of ethical decision-making, offering us insights into how we should approach moral dilemmas. Within this realm, utilitarianism and Kantianism emerge as two prominent ethical frameworks, each with distinct principles and applications. In this essay, we will delve into the key principles, differences, applications, and implications of utilitarianism and Kantianism, shedding light on their contrasting perspectives.
The Foundations of Utilitarianism
Originating from the minds of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism stands as a consequentialist ethical theory, placing emphasis on the outcomes or consequences of actions. At its core lies the principle of utility, which dictates that the morality of an action is determined by its ability to maximize overall happiness or pleasure while minimizing suffering. Utilitarianism, therefore, prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, advocating for decisions that lead to the greatest overall well-being.
The Tenets of Kantianism
In stark contrast, Kantianism, formulated by Immanuel Kant, takes a deontological approach to ethics, focusing on moral principles and duty rather than consequences. Kantian ethics revolves around the concept of categorical imperatives, which are universal moral commands that apply irrespective of outcomes. Kant emphasizes the intrinsic worth of individuals, stressing the importance of treating them as ends in themselves rather than as mere means to an end.
Key Differences and Applications
Utilitarianism and Kantianism diverge significantly in their fundamental principles and applications. Utilitarianism evaluates actions based solely on their consequences, aiming to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. This often involves quantifying happiness, a task fraught with subjectivity and challenges. On the other hand, Kantianism prioritizes moral principles and duty over outcomes, emphasizing the importance of acting out of a sense of duty irrespective of the consequences. Kantian ethics offer a more rule-based and deontological approach to moral decision-making, focusing on treating individuals with inherent dignity and respect.
Implications and Ethical Dilemmas
The clash between utilitarianism and Kantianism becomes apparent in ethical dilemmas. Utilitarians may justify actions such as sacrificing one individual to save many, based on the principle of maximizing overall well-being. However, Kantians would likely object to such actions, arguing that they violate the intrinsic worth and autonomy of individuals. Moreover, these ethical frameworks have implications for various societal issues, including healthcare allocation, criminal justice, and environmental ethics. Utilitarianism may advocate for resource allocation strategies that maximize overall well-being, while Kantianism may prioritize individual rights and principles, even at the expense of overall happiness.
Conclusion: Bridging the Divide
In conclusion, the debate between utilitarianism and Kantianism underscores the complexity of moral philosophy. While these frameworks offer valuable insights into ethical decision-making, they differ fundamentally in their principles and applications. Ultimately, the choice between utilitarianism and Kantianism often depends on personal ethical convictions and the specific context of a moral decision. Efforts to reconcile these differences and find common ground are crucial, as they remind us of the enduring importance of ethical philosophy in guiding our decisions and shaping our understanding of justice.
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill demonstrate two contrasting moral theories. The philosophers have very different ideas about ethics and happiness. Immanuel Kant, author of “Duty and Reason”, believed in the morality of goodwill and duty. According to Kant, happiness is an emotion unable to be controlled while motive is controllable; therefore, duty is the most important aspect of leading a moral life. Conversely, John Stuart Mill, who wrote, “The Greatest Happiness Principle”, is well known as a utilitarian, who stresses the greatest happiness for the greatest amount. While they may have disagreed about what makes an action ethical, Kant and Mill are both extremely significant philosophers.
Ethics can be defined as “the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs to improve, extend or refine those beliefs in some way.” Kantian moral theory and Mill’s Utilitarianism ethics theory are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as critically discuss and compare why Kant’s theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Kant’s Deontology
Kant’s theory is what is known as a Deontological theory, which means duty in Greek. The deontological theory assesses whether actions are right or wrong based on whether they conform to our duties. For Kant what is most important in life is having goodwill, will actions that conform to one’s duty, because it is one’s duty to do so. In other words, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethical theory assesses if actions are moral based on the person’s will or intention of acting. The main idea of Kantian includes the rightness or wrongness of action as property of the act itself not as its consequences. Wrong actions contain hidden contradictions in that they depend on other people not doing them if they are to make sense for me to do them. This being said, there are two elements to having goodwill: actions must conform to the moral law. A person must choose the actions solely because it’s the right thing to do- they must have the right motive (doing one’s duty). The person with goodwill does not do the right actions because they fears punishment or hopes for a reward or any other pleasure. They do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do.
Kant’s theory can be categorized as deontological because “actions are not assessed to be morally permissible based on consequences they produce, but rather on the form of the agent’s will in acting,” (Timmons, 2002), therefore his actions are based on duty and not consequential. The Kantian theory is based on three principles: maxims, willingness, and the categorical imperative. Kant states that a maxim is a ”general rule or principle which will explain what a person takes himself to be doing and the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it” (Feldman, 1999, 201). It is important that this principle is universalized and that the maxim can be applied consistently to everyone who encounters similar situations, therefore willed as a universal law. Put differently, he suggests that we should never act instead in such a way but act on maxims which you could will as a universal law. Kant says we need to ask ourselves whether we could live in a world, where every other person acts according to the principle we act on. For example when a student cheated on a test because he did not study, according to Kant he should ask himself, would he want to live in a world, where everyone everywhere always cheated, taking an exam they did not prepare for? It seems that this will be an undesirable world, for example, the grades would not be able to be trusted, and academic honors would be meaningless and violate the moral duty and the moral law in other words.
The second aspect of Kant’s theory is willingness. This involves the agent consistently committing oneself to make an action occur. He states “In general, we can say that a person wills inconsistently if he wills that p be the case and he wills that q be the case and it’s impossible for p and q to be the case together” (Feldman, 1999, 203). In other words, the Humanity Principle is where one acts in such a way to treat humanity in your person or a person of another always as an end and never as a means. He believes that human beings have infinite intrinsic value because we are rational beings. Each person is capable of forming their purposes and goals. When acting toward another person we need to remember that each person has goals, plans, dreams, and desires just like you. We cannot reduce people to mere objects to fulfill our plans. The worth and value of human beings come solely from what they are and not from a utility or a job they do for someone else. Any act that involves using another person, or even oneself as a means, without also respecting the person as an end counts as an act that violates the moral law and one’s duty.
Kant came up with another test to see if actions are in accord with duty or fit with the moral law, known as the categorical empirical states. The importance of the categorical imperative is that one must act in such a way that one can ensure that the maxim behind one’s actions can be conceived as part of the universal law. The maxim has to be consistent and able to be applied to every situation, for every person. The other main point of Kantian moral theories is the differences between imperfect and perfect duties. Perfect duties are those duties that one must always perform in a particular situation, whereas imperfect duties are those that one must perform only when the situation arises.
Mill’s Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism theory was applied by Jeremy Betham, who was born in 1748, and John Stuart Mills, born in 1806 with the principle: ‘the best for the most. Together, they arrived at the idea that “what is right is whatever produces the right outcome for most people, what is wrong is anything that fails to do that. Put differently, Utilitarianism is based upon utility or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to this theory, the morality of an act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.
Some of the strong points of this theory include that it makes ethics practical by equating what is morally right with the producer’s beneficial outcomes. In addition, it corresponds with the wide standpoint that rationality is the preference of the best means to reach our ends. Finally, it also maintains that happiness is the highest good. However, on the other hand, utilitarianism also supposes that we can see ahead into the future, gauge consequences impartially and calculate which continuing consequences are not important. It does not take into account the matter of intention and cannot account, unlike Kant’s theory that some actions are not permissible.
Similarities between the theories
Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to explain how one can go about acting ethically, however, they differ in areas of measuring morality and their usage of rules. While there are many differences, they are both objectives, looking for the greater good. Both can have very different paths, however, in the end, they are looking for the greater good. With Utilitarianism: one may be promoted by many other people, supporting them to go in one direction, while Kantian it may be a single person, being supported on the other side of the worst path to follow.
Both Kant and Mills measure morality in different ways. Kantianism says that an act is deemed moral for two reasons: if it is done for the sake of duty and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. If one completes an action based on their duty to perform, they do the right thing because it is what they feel they ought to do as their duty. Therefore, this act would be considered morally just. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved.
Differences between the two theories
The two theories also differ in how rules are applied. Both follow paths to the good, but Kantian theory suggests that humans are free rational beings capable of rational behavior and should not be used purely for the enjoyment or happiness of another. It basically can be argued that I am not going to steal because I don’t want someone stealing from me. Kantian moral theory values the universal law and maxims as its guide for how people should act in a given situation. Maxims “describe some general sort of situation, and then propose some form of action for the situation. To adopt a maxim is to commit yourself to act in the described way whenever the situation in question arises.” (Feldman, 1999, 202) Maxims are also used consistently throughout and therefore are a valued guide because they apply universally. For example, Kant made a moral rule for lying which says that if one person can make a lying promise, then it should be said that everyone can do the same and therefore it being a universal law trust would be self-defeating. By saying that it is not a perfect duty to lie, the universal law or rule, states that no one can under any circumstance lie. Kant has also developed similar moral rules for rusting of talents, helping others in distress, and suicide. Kantianism can therefore be seen as a rational and logical theory in which decisions can be made.
On the other hand, with utilitarianism, we should do actions, which produce the greatest amount of happiness. Utilitarianism would say, “I am not going to steal because everyone would be happier if I don’t steal.” In comparison, Utilitarianism has no universal set of rules on which morality is based; therefore it judges each situation individually. Because of this, weighing consequences to determine if an action will maximize utility can become a lengthy, time-consuming process. Not to mention the fact that you will never clearly know if your decision will in effect truly promote the most utility.
In assessing the two moral theories, I believe that Kantianism provides a more plausible account of ethics even though from the outside it seems as though Utilitarianism would be the more ethical theory because it looks to maximize utility. Utilitarianism refers to moral theories that maintain that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Therefore, correct moral conduct is determined solely by analyzing an action’s consequences. Utilitarianism requires that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action; we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper. It seems as though this process is more subjective and can not be universally applied whereas Kantianism can be. Also, one’s determination of what produces the greatest utility may not be consistent with another person’s, therefore this theory is inconsistent and a universal law cannot be applied to it. Kantianism is by far more consistent of a theory and can be universally applied to all beings. It is more plausible because even if the consequences of actions aren’t necessarily the best, the agent is still obligated to act. After all, they must do so. Therefore, ethically and morally they are doing the right thing.
In conclusion, this paper has discussed two main theories regarding the ethical behavior of human beings. Kantianism is a theory based on duties, maxims, willingness, and the categorical imperative. Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Both theories, although similar in some ways, possess clear differences. Kantianism focuses on the motivation of actions, has a clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.
Bibliography
Lecture notes, ‘Utilitarianism.’
Lecture notes, ‘Kantianism.’
Fred Feldman, ‘Kant’s Ethics Theory: Exposition and Critique’ from H. J. Curzer, ed Ethical Theory and Moral Problems, Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999.
J.S. Mill, ‘What Utilitarianism Is’ from Peter Y. Windt, An Introduction to Philosophy: Ideas in Conflict, St Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1982.
Immanuel Kant believed that morality is doing the right thing just because you know it’s the right thing. His theory contradicts other theories of thought such as utilitarianism. Utilitarians argue that the most moral action is one that fashions the greatest amount of good or happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory concentrates on the consequences of one’s actions rather than the intention. Kantian ethics, however, is fixated on the notion of duty and acting on that duty because it is simply the right thing to do. The core of Kantian thought is acting with the motive of duty rather than acting on desires, wants, or self-interests. In addition, Kantian ethics is centered on the idea of not treating others are a mere means to an end. This categorical imperative must also be applicable to all rational agents as a ‘universal moral law’. For a rule or duty to apply, all persons must be able to participate in the behavior.
However, Kant’s views on morality and doing the right thing are rigorous and impractical in nature, as they do not enable any exceptions. Kant argues that certain actions – such as lying, cheating, and stealing – are inherently immoral in principle. One general example of this would be to steal the plans of a terrorist group and alert proper individuals to stop the group from committing catastrophic deeds. Kant would argue that this is a morally wrong action because the motive of the action was to steal and treat terrorists as a mere means to an end. Examples can be made for the shopkeeper as well. For instance, if one of the customers was extremely poor and the shopkeeper decided to tell him that his product was already paid for by someone else so he wouldn’t receive any credit or praise, Kant would still say this action is morally unworthy. The stringent and narrow stance that Kant orates lacks the true essence of human nature. Although outcomes are not the only determinant for evaluating a moral action, consequences remain relevant in principle.
Kant would also have taken into serious consideration situations when two duties conflict with each other. Doing the right thing just because you know it’s the right thing and acting on the motive of duty does not give a clear position when two duties conflict with each other. For instance, what does one do when a situation arises where the duty to not break a promise comes to a crossroads with the duty not to lie? In Kantian ethics, all duties are absolute and, thus, do not give resolutions to conflicts of duty.
Another point Kant would have to take into consideration is the notion of being a shopkeeper, or business person, in itself. Businesses that pay employees to run their stores are treating those employees as mere means to an end. Owners of businesses pay people to get work done for them in an effort to receive profit in return. The employees, then, are treated that way in return for a profit – an end. This has strong implications for society as a whole. Paying people to pick up trash, having lawyers represent individuals in court, and officers to protect the streets would all be considered to treat people as a mere means to an end. This idea undermines the modern society of money and jobs.
Ultimately, rigid ethical structures that contain particular decision procedures tend to be impractical in certain situations. Kant’s belief that morality is doing the right thing just because you know it’s the right thing is too simplistic and encompasses too many exceptions to fully work. Kant has several objections to take into serious consideration for theory on morality.
Human beings live by a set of rules and standards which dictate how people act or relate in given situations. These well established norms are known as ethics and they are important for harmonious coexistence in the society. By definition, ethics can be termed as a system of moral principles by which social conduct is judged as either “right” or “wrong” (Chryssides & Kaler 1993).
Even so, what is deemed right in a given situation might vary depending on the point of view from which one is viewing the issue. For this reason, application of ethical theories is important to resolve issues. Ethical theories are the criteria that we use to make judgment as to the fairness or unfairness of actions undertaken regarding problems (Johnston 2009, p.90).
These theories provide the basis on which an ethical decision can be reached in a situation (White 2008). In this paper, I shall attempt to resolve an ethical issue that appeared in the news by utilizing two ethical theories: Utilitarianism and Kant’s categorical imperative theory. A conclusion shall be reached concerning the ethical issue by performing a thorough analysis using the two theories.
Ethical Issue in Question
The ethical issue in question pertains to the sale of human organs. In the article “Sale of human organs should be legalized, say surgeons” appearing in The Independent, Smith (2011) reports that some surgeons in London are calling on the government to create a legalized market for organs.
The surgeons state that the lives of thousands of people are at stake since they may die if a suitable donor is not found in good time. To reinforce the claim, it is revealed that 8000 people are on the transplant waiting list and of this; over 500 will die annually due to lack of organs (2011). These deaths are seen as unnecessary since the technology necessary to treat the patients is there and all that is missing is organs which would be easily obtainable if a legal market existed.
An important issue raised in the article is that due to desperations, there has been a rise in “transplant tourism” which involves patients traveling to countries where organs are more readily available (Smith 2011). In most of these countries, the organs are obtained through the black market. Lack of a legal market is therefore blamed for benefiting the black market which is mostly run by criminals. In addition to this, transplant tourism results in shoddy operations which necessitate further medical attention for the patient.
Facts Relevant to the Analysis
There are a number of factors which have ethical implications. The first one is whether it is justifiable to allow people to continue to suffer and die, as a result of the shortage of organs for transplantation currently experienced in Britain and many other countries all over the world, while there is a feasible solution to this problem.
The second issue under consideration is the consequence of legalizing sale of organs to the population. A legal market in organs will have an impact on the population and in particular, the attraction of a small fortune for the sale of a body organ will be most appealing to the poor. It can therefore be expected that they would sell parts of their body with little regard of the health implication of the procedure to them.
The third issue raised is that a lack of a legal market has led to the growth of the black market. Legalizing organ sales is seen as the only way that black markets which are characterized by extortion and crime can be eliminated. Gray (2001) reveals that as the transplant organs have become more desperately needed, there have been reports of mass murders to provide the black market with organs.
Analyze the issue using Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism dictates that the collective welfare of the people overrides the individual’s right and as such, the theory advocates the maximization of happiness for the greatest number of people (Thiroux & Krasemann 2008). Using this theory, the net benefit is calculated and the net consequences are evaluated and from this, a decision is reached as to which acts have the most “productive” result.
Positive Consequences
The primary objective of all organs transplantation endeavors is to restore health or extend the life of an ailing patient (Matas 2008). However, there is a great scarcity in the number of organs available which means that most patients lack access to the organs in spite of their dire health conditions. The lack of a legal regulated market for body organs has resulted in the increased suffering of patients as well as the rise in their hospital bills.
Mclaughlin, Prusher and Downie (2009) reveal that as a result of organs shortage, many patients are forced to bear with painful medical procedures such as dialysis as they await organs for an indefinite period of time. Some of this patients end up dying due to complete failure of their organs while others have astronomical medical bills. It is therefore in the best interest of the society to legalize organ sale so as to save the patients from untimely deaths and high medical bills.
As has been noted, the black market continues to thrive due to the lack of a legal forum for buying and selling organs. The black market benefits only a few people and does not contribute to the wellbeing of the society (Radcliffe 2003). The only means through which the black market would be rendered irrelevant is by creating a legitimate market for human organs.
Creating a legitimate framework for commerce in organs would lead to a condition whereby the donors would be paid their dues. The cost of the organ to the patient would also be reduced significantly since the inflated cost that is currently experienced is as a direct result of the monopoly that the black market traders hold in the human organ trade.
Negative Consequences
Legalization of organ trade would invariably lead to the poor being preyed upon by the rich in society. This is a well founded fear considering the fact that majority of the buyers in black markets are rich people. Mclaughlin, Prusher and Downie (2004) document how poverty combined with the allure of easy money make a poor man from Brazil sell one of his kidneys to a rich Israeli.
Despite arguments that the selling of body parts leads to the donors faring better as a result of the money earned, research demonstrates that the sale of organs does not alleviate poverty as proponents for the same insinuate. A study by Goyal et at (as cited by Rothman (2002)) shows that in India “87% of those for sold a kidney reported deterioration in their health status and of those who sold a kidney to pay off debts., 74% still had debts 6 years later.
Application of Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Kant’s theory of categorical imperative place emphasis on the assumed duty. This implies that duty is the basis of all moral actions regardless of the consequences (Thiroux & Krasemann 2008). This theory places greater weight on the rules rather than consequences to justify an action.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative asserts that the rightness of an action depends on “whether it accords with a rule irrespective of its consequences” (Burch 2009, p.50).The rational from Kent was that people cannot be expected to reason rationally at all times. However, the rules can be expected to remain constant and by following them the society can avoid falling into disarray.
The first issue is whether it is acceptable for people to suffer and die due to an unavailability of organs. By utilizing Kant’s Categorical Imperative, a possible maxim could be that “whenever somebody is on the waiting list in need of an organ, they should be let to suffer until a willing donor comes about.” This maxim if applied universally would result in a lot of unnecessary suffering for human beings. By applying this ethical theory, it is not right to leave people to suffer when something can be done about it.
The second issue is whether it is right to allow people (especially the poor) to benefit from trade in their organs while this may have negative impacts on their health. Kent’s theory does not consider the ends but only the means. By allowing trade in their organs, people would be rewarded for giving away parts of their bodies.
From this, the maxim “everyone deserves to be rewarded for selling property that belongs to them”. This maxim can become a universal law since all societies work with the understanding that commerce is necessary and profits are desirable.
The other issue in consideration is that of the black market which is supposedly benefiting due to the lack of a legal market for body organs. By applying Kent’s theory, trade in the black market is unacceptable. If black market operations were right, then the maxim “everyone should obtain their goods though the black market” would follow. Such a maxim cannot be made a universal law since if everyone engaged in black market trade, the world economy as we know it would collapse.
Discussion and Conclusion
There are two alternatives that can be reached in this issue: the sale of human organs can be made legal or the sale can remain illegal. Both ethical theories concede that it is wrong to let people suffer in hospitals while there is a solution available in the form of organ sale legalization. The theories also concur that the black market is evil and should not be allowed to exist.
The only means through which this can be achieved is by making organ sales legal. Even so, the two theories differ on the issue of allowing poor people to sell their organs. While Utilitarianism advances that it is wrong to let the poor sell their organs regardless of the side effects on their health, Kant’s theory proposes that commerce is acceptable and people have the right to profit from their body parts. In overall, both theories favor the legalizing of organ sale.
I agree with the conclusion reached that the sale of body organs should be made legal. This conclusion is in line with my conscience on the issue that when it is possible to alleviate suffering, the same should be done. From the discussions presented in this paper, it is clear that a legal market would benefit not only the patient but also the donor who would receive monetary benefits. From this paper, it is clear that ethical theories are important in solving real life issues since they act as the guidelines from which sound decisions are made.
References
Burch, A.H. 2009, What’s Right? : Social ethics choices and applications, AuthorHouse.
Chryssides, DG & Kaler, HJ 1993, An introduction to business ethics, Cengage Learning EMEA.
Gray, HC 2001, Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age, NY: Routledge.
Johnston, G 2009, An Introduction to Ethics, for Training Colleges, BiblioBazaar, LLC.
Matas, JA 2008, “Should we pay donors to increase the supply of organs for transplantation? Yes”, Journal of Medical Ethics; 35:558.
Mclaughlin, A Prusher, I & Downie, A, What is a Kidney Worth? Web.
Radcliffe, R 2003, “Commentary: An ethical market in human organs”, Journal of Medical Ethics.
Rothman, DJ 2002, Ethical and social consequences of selling a kidney, The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Immanuel Kant’s moral theory can effectively support and justify animal research as it suggests that autonomy determines whose interests should be considered while morally assessing various actions. Kant emphasized that humans and animals possess desires that force them to act in different ways; however, only humans can stand back from desires and choose the course of action to implement, depicting the absence of intrinsic value in animals. Since animals lack inherent value, humans can use animals for their benefit. Kant’s theory is surprising similar to Cartesian theories, which argue that animals do not warrant concern because they are unconscious (Pohl, 2019). As a result, they do not consider the outcomes of their actions. The animal rights theory assumes that animals have rights similar to humans. The theory relies on the inherent value concept to demand equal respect for animals and humans. However, Kant explains that animals do not have intrinsic value since they lack the will to restrain their desires and choose appropriate actions to pursue. In addition, if animals have equal rights, should humans be used in first-stage drug trials? Using mice, fruit flies, worms, and rats in biomedical research is morally permissible when the benefits outweigh the costs to humans. For example, mice and rats are frequently utilized in Alzheimer’s research, which, if successful, can bring invaluable benefits to the world. In addition, testing experimental drugs on humans for the first time is unsafe and could lead to the loss of human lives (Fiala & Mackinnon, 2018). Regarding pain, researchers should consider ensuring animals feel no pain or do not experience unnecessary discomfort throughout a study. Ultimately, the animal rights theory fails in convincing people of equal rights between humans and animals.
References
Fiala, A. & Mackinnon, B. (2018). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (9th ed). Cengage Learning.
The three cultures, namely, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities, are contrasting elements that can be applied in the same setting. Namely, the segments can be integrated into the process of explaining and understanding society, human experience, and future changes. Nonetheless, all the subjects require human involvement, which is challenging as change is difficult to acquire if natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities are not effectively motivational for individuals to incorporate into their personal moral positions. On the other hand, a philosopher such as Kant aligns with the aim to better the environment through self-betterment. As a result, Kant could have provoked the population into being mindful of the social and natural setting in which each person is born in.
Evaluation
In order for Kant’s alignment with the present values to be exemplified, it is essential to evaluate the three cultures separately. As mentioned prior, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities are the elements within the framework. Kagan highlights that while the segments contrast in regards to the tools applied to understand the subjects correlating with them, the cooperation between the three is the key to understanding human experience, nature, and society as a whole (Kagan). Natural sciences align with the idea that empirical evidence is to be applied to understand the natural phenomenon.
Social sciences, while also relying on empirical data, are applied to understand human societies. Last but not least, humanities rely on theoretical information rather than empirical evidence. The field, however, takes into consideration individuality and human differences rather than a statistical predisposition or demographical differences.
The state of the three cultures can be illustrated through their appliance. For example, social sciences are commonly implemented in research to determine the variables impacting a phenomenon. Nonetheless, researchers mention the presence of a debate on whether the subject is practically important (Fecher et al.). Namely, while research often shows the societal issues and potential variables impacting them, the information is not practically applied, which is why the barrier is not addressed. However, this is why having Kant for moral motivation would be effective in generating circumstances in which specific values become paramount in people’s lives.
Humanities, on the other hand, do not have the scientific approach that individuals would find valid to incorporate. For example, the debate about whether humanities will lead to the decline of societies is well-documented in research (Ferguson et al.). Moreover, the subject itself is on the decline due to the prevalence of evidence-based ideas (Goldstein). Natural sciences have also been less widely applied.
An example is the fact that companies are less likely to invest in the conducting of research correlating with natural sciences (Arora et al. 3). All three subjects have declined either due to the need for evidence, the lack of practical implementation, or the existing information that appears to be enough for the basic human understanding of the world. Nonetheless, the lack of adherence to the basic principles correlating with natural, social, and human phenomena negatively impacts multiple aspects. On the one hand, the lack of scientific advancements hinders opportunities to continue learning about human and natural elements. On the other hand, a dismissal of humanities leads to the failure to understand different individualities.
Background
Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, introduced a concept that aligns with the importance of a consideration of the three cultures. Namely, Kant introduced the concept of the categorical imperative, which highlights the importance of acting in a way that should be included in universal law. This would benefit people as those who live destructively through the minimization of social initiatives is, by definition, self-destructive (Wallace 44).
Today’s Kant would criticize the current lack of involvement in social problems and initiatives as the universal law would require people to have a distinct moral position to defend in a public space. While being neutral is not regarded as inherently evil, a neutral general population facilitates the establishment of policies and rules that may not adhere to either natural, social, or humanities-related causes. Kant, on the other hand, held the belief that one should act based on how the entire public would act under perfect circumstances. In an ideal society, the members of the community seek to wither change or aim for development and are not passive when it comes to demanding these alterations. It is especially significant in regards to empathetic concepts as being passive towards cruelty, violence, and unfairness is, in some way, contributing to the further installment is said values.
Evidence
Current literature supports the need for change both through the illustration of public opinion as well as practical activities highlighting the necessity for establishing stronger cultures and collaborations between them. For example, it is highlighted that major corporations are less likely to invest in research (Arora et al. 3). This implies that both natural and social sciences are disregarded by some of the most significant economic drivers in the world and illustrates the need for change. Moreover, the literature mentions social sciences as not providing rigorous enough answers to questions that the general population asks (Auspurg and Brüderl).
The phenomenon may correlate with the invalidity of data or the narrow scope of the research that is being performed. On the other hand, the notion may be associated with the differences in methodology, data collection, and sample sizes, which illustrates the requirement for a more effective validity assessment to obtain a peer-reviewed status. It is also considered that such studies do not practically address societal problems (Fecher et al.). Needless to say, the authors also illustrate the current decline of the field of humanities (Ferguson et al.). Researchers mention that it may be linked to the development of STEMS disciplines (Goldstein). Currently, there is plenty of evidence portraying the negative connotations correlating with the current state of the three cultures and their role.
Analysis
As mentioned prior, Kant would motivate the masses to incorporate the three cultures when aiming for societal change and the betterment of the current circumstances. However, the analysis has contributed to the understanding that the domains are often not practically applied. For example, the transformation linked to the maximization of empathetic concern can address the environmental issues that have primarily been generated by the previous generation yet will most impact the ones to come. Such initiatives can also be addressed through medical research, yet social sciences can also be implemented to correct certain elements that minimize health equality (Greenhalgh). Thus, natural and social sciences are applied in a collaborative manner, which is what the transformation is to address.
Humanities, on the other hand, can be employed to confront the issue of communication between the different sectors and highlight the importance of empathetic concern. As a result, natural sciences are linked to research to confront medical barriers, social sciences to health inequalities, and humanities to improve communication and consider individual experiences. Kant highlighted the importance of operating based on the values that would serve as a universal law. As a result, if every person would seek justice and improvements based on the inequalities and challenges of the present day, the facilitation of all three cultures to be considered is vital. Moreover, the collaboration between the segments is not to be employed without the practical appliance of the research and concepts highlighted in social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities.
Conclusion
While Kant’s philosophical ideas were intended for an 18th-century environment, certain elements can be applied during the present days to address the need for an empathetic concern with current limitations regarding natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Namely, evidence highlights that the three cultures are either not effectively employed or practically implemented in areas of life such as environmental causes, economics, healthcare, and politics.
Kant, on the other hand, would seek a societal transformation that depends on the collaboration between the three notions. Specifically, the philosopher highlighted the importance of acting according to the values that are to be considered universal law. Thus, in case the general population would have aimed for a better overall environment, considering the three cultures and being motivated to change the current circumstances through evidence-based approaches would make a significant difference. As a result, theoretical ideas would be put into practice, and barriers such as inequality, ecological problems, and a lack of equity would be diminished.
Works Cited
Arora, Ashish, et al. “The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D.” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 39, no. 1, 2017, pp. 3–32. Web.
Auspurg, Katrin, and Josef Brüderl. “Has the Credibility of the Social Sciences Been Credibly Destroyed? Reanalyzing the ‘Many Analysts, One Data Set’ Project.” Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, vol. 7, 2021. Web.
Fecher, Benedikt, et al. “Understanding the Societal Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities: Remarks on Roles, Challenges, and Expectations.” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, vol. 6, 2021. Web.
Ferguson, Margaret, et al. “Does the Decline of the Humanities Track the Decline in Civil Society?” New American Studies Journal, 2022. Web.
Goldstein, Ben. “Decline of the Humanities: Where Does It STEM From?” The Cornell Diplomat, 2021.
Greenhalgh, Trisha. “What Have the Social Sciences Ever Done for Equity in Health Policy and Health Systems?” International Journal for Equity in Health, vol. 17, no. 1, 2018. Web.
Kagan, Jerome. The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Humanities in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Wallace, Kathleen. “A Kantian Perspective on Individual Responsibility for Sustainability.” Ethics, Policy & Environment, vol. 24, no. 1, 2021, pp. 44–59. Web.
Ethics are certain criteria that we use to differentiate between good and evil. There are several ideas and philosophies in regards to ethics, which differ from one another. Kant’s deontology is a popular ethical philosophy, which states that morality is a matter of duty and obligation and that people should strive to live both morally and ethically. Kant argues that ethics should not be limited to personal beliefs and desires alone. Instead, they should extend to all parts of a human’s life, which includes work and social duties (Lacewing, 2014). Kant’s ethics can be applied to our scenario – lying robs the liar of their intrinsic goodness and limits other peoples’ freedom to choose rationally.
Implications of Lying
Lying in a questionnaire in order to be accepted into law enforcement implies that the person in question is not fit to become a police officer in the first place. In order to understand this implication, let us investigate the motive for lying in this particular case. There are two main motives – to ensure enlistment into the police force and to protect a friend from having his lie discovered.
Both of these actions contradict not only Kant’s ethical criteria of morality, but they also contradict the Police Code of ethics, which is heavily influenced by Kant’s philosophy (Torres, 2017). The code takes a form of a vow which every recruit takes at the beginning of their careers. It states that an officer must be honest in both personal and official life and that an officer must never permit personal prejudices, feelings, animosities, or friendships to influence his decision-making (“Police officer code of ethics,” 2014). Lying about the drug arrest contradicts the first vow, and lying to protect a friend contradicts the second one. Thus, lying in order to become a police officer goes against the very tenets that one is sworn to protect.
Benefits of Truth
Although telling the truth in this situation promises only hardship and trouble, there are several potential gains to doing so regardless. If I tell the truth when it is clearly not in my best interest, I will reaffirm my moral integrity and the strength of my convictions. It may be deciding factor in my favor, since there is a chance the commission will appreciate my honesty, especially considering that the old charges were dropped later. Outside of retaining one’s moral integrity and the potential for a positive outcome, there is very little gain for telling the truth in this scenario.
Truth or Half-Truth?
If I were to say the truth in the questionnaire in order to preserve my moral integrity and fall in line with the Police Code and Kantian standards for morality, I would be compelled to include the information regarding my friend. If I were not to include my friend in my response, then the ending result would be a half-truth, which also violates the Police Code of Conduct. This will create a contradiction between my personal morals and duty morals (“Consistency and ethics,” 2017). Lack of contradictions is one of the most important tenets of Kantian ethics. There would be no point in telling the truth about myself in order to preserve the moral integrity, only to have it tarnished by following it with a lie about my friend. Thus, there is no middle ground here – I tell either the whole truth or none at all.
Implications of Telling the Truth, and Possible Consequences
If I were to tell the whole truth, including the part about my friend, two implications would come into place. First, my actions would imply that I am an honest person that would put vows and duty before friendship and familiarity, which falls in line with the Police Code of Ethics. Another implication is negative – it implies that I am willing to “sell out” a friend, thus breaking our friendship and his trust. Certain ethical philosophies put duties towards friends and family at the top of the pyramid, having priority over anything else (“Acting for friends and family,” 2016). However, these philosophies are not applicable to Police duties. Having friends and family take priority before justice, and the law would mean that an officer would become susceptible to corruption and nepotism. The purpose of the Police is to ensure that justice is served and laws are being obeyed (Kokemuller, 2016). It is only possible when the concepts of justice and law prevail over personal loyalties and feelings. Removing that from the equation defeats the purpose of police.
Telling the truth in this scenario promises several negative consequences. My friendship may be ruined, and my friend may lose his job when his lie is exposed. In addition, the chances of my admittance into the Police will be diminished.
Lying in this scenario would have little to no negative consequences. I will get a job, and my friend’s position will remain safe. The only price I would have to pay for it is the price of my moral integrity. However, if I compromise now, who is to say I will not do so again? I share Kant’s views on morality and integrity when it comes to police duties. Sacrificing my own integrity for the sake of benefits and comforts is a path to corruption.
It is imperative to mention that the discussion of the human mind has led to many disagreements among thinkers, and the difference between the theories that they propose is rather significant. A prominent German philosopher did not agree with the perspective of his Scottish colleague and questioned the validity of his work. It would be reasonable to review and analyze the literature on this topic to get a better understanding of the subject matter and to ensure that the statements are reasonable. The argument is that Kant’s response to David Hume’s theory of identity is appropriate, and is an outstanding alternative to the determinist perspective.
Discussion
It is necessary to note that Scottish essayist has developed a bundle theory. It suggests that the human mind is a set of particular properties, connections, and tropes. Moreover, he did not agree with the idea that it can be viewed as an independent power, and such aspects as cohesiveness should not be measured.
The philosopher states that such factors as experiences of an individual play a crucial role most of the time, and they are linked based on their resemblance to each other. He stated that one may be able to think about the self, and such thoughts can be continued. However, the statement is rather ironic and did not agree that the existence of such a principle is possible (Pitson 12). Therefore, he argued that the mind only consists of successive perceptions. The idea is quite intriguing and has challenged previous works on this subject matter.
On the other hand, some scholars believe that Hume has overlooked numerous internal and external aspects, and the theory is relatively simple. For instance, Kant’s approach consists of three primary principles. First of all, he believed that the mind should be perceived as a bundle of abilities necessary for every human being. The idea was quite revolutionary at that time but did not spread as much as it should have been. Also, he thought that all the functions are processed, and sensory input plays a crucial role.
The final concept is the synthesis, and it needs to be discussed. A thinker has described it as a process during which various representations are analyzed and combined in the brain to perform a cognitive function. He believed that the unity between these factors is crucial, and is a central reason the mind is capable of performing its job efficiently. He agreed with some of the points that Hume made, and argued that inner sense does not allow individuals to perceive the self (Guyer 242).
However, an inductive model was viewed as questionable by the philosopher, and he wanted to explain that other factors also should not be disregarded. Kant has focused on the importance of both internal and external dimensions of self. The first one consists of the human’s mental state and ability to view the information rationally. On the other hand, the second one includes human senses and the environment that surrounds them. Apperception is a term that needs to be highlighted.
The philosopher believed that previous experiences influence the way an individual perceived the new information and adapts it. The reasoning is critical in this case and has an impact on all the areas of thinking. The idea is appropriate because it is quite evident that the ability to analyze and combine available data is one of the most important functions of the human brain. It helps to make prompt decisions and is done subconsciously.
It is quite evident that Kant has acknowledged the importance of the rules of nature and has analyzed the self from this perspective. Numerical identity is another fascinating aspect, and it is nearly impossible to identify if the philosopher has focused on this concept or the idea of similar thoughts (Keller 26). Melnick suggests that Kant has argued that a person is not capable of finding an identical self because of the unique way in which it exists (125). Some of his ideas are rather hard to comprehend, and the fact that he has introduced a third type of existence complicates the situation. Nevertheless, the German philosopher made a clear statement and developed a separate theory. The biggest difference is between their views on the combination of experiences.
Conclusion
In summary, it is possible to state that Kant has managed to provide an outstanding response to Hume’s position, and has devoted enormous attention to details to ensure that his theory is appropriate. The idea that experiences and intuition are combined at the same time is reasonable and justified. On the other hand, the argument can be interpreted in several ways, and it is possible to identify some inconsistencies.
It is hard to argue with the fact that both of these theories are quite important because they have helped to facilitate discussions, and understanding of the human mind has improved significantly over the last few years. Overall, it is quite evident that Kant was concerned with the subject matter, and has provided a response to Hume’s comments.
Works Cited
Guyer, Paul. Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment: Critical Essays, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.
Keller, Pierre. Kant and the Demands of Self-Consciousness, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.
Melnick, Arthur. Kant’s Theory of the Self, New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Pitson, Tony. Hume’s Philosophy of the Self, New York, NY: Routledge, 2005. Print.
This paper is both descriptive and explanatory. It is a description of Kant’s essay about knowledge. The writer begins with a summary of the whole essay’s contents. He distinguishes between an individual and society. Additionally, he introduces the concept of a monarch at this point. This helps to set the pace of the essay. It is a good beginning, and the writer deserves credit for the introduction.
The writer needs to be confident in his argument. The use of “as Kant argues” several times is an indication of uncertainty. He sounds unsure of what his argument is and whether it is concrete. The paper quotes Kant many times, but the implications of these quotes do not come out clearly. The writer should be more specific.
Grammar and writing style also need slight improvement. The writer begins sentences with words such as “from, as, even, because, at” and “to”. This mistake is common in writing.
He should try to begin sentences with articles or pronouns. This way, the paper will sound academic. Currently, it sounds more like spoken English than written English. This is a major flaw in this paper. The following paragraph is an example of how wanting the writer’s grammar is.
Of course, while the monarch remains enlightened and the public not, the public must receive as less treatment than the monarch must. To accomplish this goal, Kant claims the monarch must have “no fear of phantoms” and “a well-disciplined and vibrant army to guarantee public security”.
Until every member of the public discovers his ability to reason, the monarch must serve as the means from which people learn. First, the monarch learns about Frederick the great and feels obligated to escape the public criticism.”
He should learn not to present is arguments as absolute truths. The use of “of course” indicates that this is an absolute truth when in reality it is the writer’s opinion. It also prevents any other opinions from being presented. Poor sentence structure impairs a reader’s ability to understand the paper.
The final sentence of this paragraph begins with a lowercase sentence. This is a minor oversight but it indicates carelessness on the writer’s side. Such mistakes can be avoided by simply proofreading the paper before turning it in.
The writer has concluded his paper in a commendable way. He states that all the paradoxes can be resolved. He proceeds to explain how they can be resolved. There is also a description of the consequences of this resolution. Finally, the writer points out that the role of the monarch ends when the people get enlightened.
The writer’s argument has developed properly from the beginning to the end. He starts by describing knowledge. The writer distinguishes the roles of doctors, clergymen and soldiers.
He also points out the monarch’s independence. He states that the monarch has no need to obey any of his subjects. The qualification for becoming a monarch is knowledge. A monarch is obligated to facilitate the rest of the monarchy’s knowledge process. When he does, he fulfils his duty.
The writer needs to address three major issues prior to submitting this paper. The first and most obvious is grammar and sentence structure. He should re-write all the sentences that do not begin with an article or pronoun. Secondly, he should capitalize the first letter of each sentence. Finally, the writer should avoid over-using the word “paradox”.
Introduction: Immanuel Kant as a Proponent of ‘Reasonable’ Philosophy
The work provides an overview of the philosophical doctrine that was expressed by one of the most prominent thinkers of all time, Immanuel Kant. Specifically, the philosopher’s idea of metaphysics is described through the review of the scientist’s work, The Critique of Pure Reason. The philosophical doctrine is meaningful for contemporary science since it serves as the first logical rebuttal of analytical reasoning.
Moreover, Kant dwelled on the conception of a priori knowledge as well as offered the first consistent doctrine of elements. The payoffs of the philosopher’s theory are still influencing the conceptions of modern science. Thus, it is claimed that the idea of autonomy concern that was made in the frames of the study is currently applicable to the concepts of teleology (Weber and Varela 98).
“The Critiques of Pure Reason” as a Representation of Metaphysics Analysis
The Critiques of Pure Reason summarized the findings of Kant’s metaphysics investigation. It dwelled on the use of reason in multiple natural sciences (Kant and Pluhar 15). The work was followed by two subsequent books, which was a consequence of the changes views of the philosopher.
Thus, initially, Immanuel Kant intended to express his opinion of the concepts of space and time as the forms of human nature. Later, he expected to move from the notion of reason, as a subject for his investigation, to the ideas of morality and taste justification. However, the author’s plans were altered with the controversies of his ‘nature and method’ theory (Kant, Guyer, and Matthews 18).
The philosophical doctrine represents a theory of human cognitive abilities. Mainly, Kant reflects on the stable categories of rationality that may be applied in diverse scientific dimensions. The philosopher addresses particular sciences such as, for instance, mathematics, and strives to outline the priorities of natural judgment with respect to the subject (Friedman 26).
The analysis is framed into the investigation of two fundamental distinctions, which are a priori in contrast to a posteriori as well as synthetic versus analytical. Thus, Kant analyzes the positioning of human experience and reason in the context of the reviewed dimensions. Due to the outcomes of his study, Kant pointed out that the human mind perceives a priori synthetic knowledge, which proves that the category of pure reason transmits the specific information.
Finally, the article reflects Kant’s contemplations on the categories of time, motion, and space, as well as their meanings for metaphysics. Thus, the philosopher acknowledges that space creates an absolute a priori category that is critical for human ideas to find their reflection in multiple practices and activities. Therefore, he concludes that metaphysics relies on a priori knowledge, which stems from the positioning of space. Moreover, the author concerns the category of time as a second a priori conception (“On Truth & Reality” par. 27).
The Discussion of Critical Points of the Theory
The critical aspects of the theory of metaphysics, which are described in The Critique of Pure Reason, are evaluated in different ways, according to the angle of the scientific approach. Thus, for instance, the philosopher is often regarded as a founder of a “non-conceptual concept,” which considers the issue of a priori knowledge (Griffith 195).
In my opinion, the theory that is described provided a successful example of the sophisticated analysis of metaphysics, except for one faulty assumption. Thus, in his study, Immanuel Kant made a mistake by identifying the notions of space and time and claiming them both to be a priori. The idea gave birth to a subsequent misunderstanding. Thus, the philosopher assumed that both categories could serve as the revelations of objective reality while the concept of motion was a posteriori and, consequently, depended on the primary concepts.
The assumption, however, disrupted the theoretical background of the study since the author had been obliged to consider the idea of space that haves its properties. It may be justified by the fact that the notion is wave-mediated. Accordingly, it regulates the wave motions that constitute the dimension of time. Thus, the objective reality demonstrates that the concepts of space and motion fall into the a priori category while the notion of time is described as a posteriori unit.
Despite a considerate theoretical shortcoming, the work established a high standard of metaphysics analysis that has not been surpassed by any world philosophers for centuries.
Conclusion: Summarizing the Principles of Kant’s Metaphysics
The work recounted the ideas of synthetic and analytical conceptions as well as the notions of a priori and a posteriori sources that shaped the cores of natural sciences. The ideas are transmitted through the theory of Immanuel Kant, who attempted to provide an elaborate account of pure objective reasoning.
The doctrine of metaphysics analysis provided a satisfactory model for evaluating the reality categories, which relate to knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, the theory contains a faulty suggestion, due to which space and time are described as a priori concepts, in contrast to a posteriori motion.
Works Cited
Friedman, Michael. “Kant, Kuhn, and the Rationality of Science.” History of Philosophy of Science 9.1 (2001): 25-41. Print.
Griffith, Aaron. “Perception and the Categories: A Conceptualist Reading of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.” European Journal of Philosophy 20.2 (2010): 193-222. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, Paul Guyer, and Eric Matthews. Critique of the Power of Judgment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and Werner Pluhar. Critique of Practical Reason, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002. Print.
Weber, Andreas, and Francisco Varela. “Life After Kant: Natural Purposes and the Autopoietic Foundations of Biological Individuality.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1.2 (2002): 97-125. Print.