Kant’s “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals”

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Humanistic ethics should be discussed as a type of ethics that is focused not on moral laws and principles, but on a human, as well as on his or her existence and well-being. In his work, Fromm explains human ethics as “the art of living” and opposes it to authoritarian ethics (18). However, there is a question about the position of Kant’s ethics in the paradigm of authoritarian and humanistic ethics. On the one hand, Kant’s ideas presented in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals can be viewed as related to authoritarian ethics because of the accentuation of moral laws, universalism, and persons’ duties.

On the other hand, Kant’s visions are directly connected with humanistic ethics and the role of a man in the world from the perspective of a giver of moral norms (8). Furthermore, there is also a question about the connection between Kant’s ethics, whether humanistic or not and Fromm’s specific humanistic system of ethics. Although the principles from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals can be considered as associated with authoritarian ethics or reflecting other views on humanistic ethics, Kant’s work presents a system of ethics that is similar to Fromm’s humanistic interpretation because Kant promotes the idea of human dignity and freedom, an individual is discussed as a norm giver, and criteria for virtues and the good are determined by persons.

In order to discuss similarities in Kant’s ideas regarding human dignity and freedom and Fromm’s vision of a man, it is important to define these concepts from the perspective of Fromm’s humanistic ethics. According to the philosopher, the focus should be on the human existence that should be respected, and a person’s freedom is not in being free as opposed to being enslaved, but in being free to become happy and live following ethical norms that reflect the good for this person (Fromm 27).

These ideas are also reflected in Kant’s work as he accentuates that an individual is free to assess his or her actions and evaluate their value while discussing ethical laws as not imposed by other persons, but included in the human nature and developed by this individual (42). In addition, according to Kant, “man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will” (43). As a result, Kant’s man is as free as Fromm’s man, and the necessity of respecting human dignity is emphasized in both works in spite of differences in reasoning and arguments to support these ideas.

One of the key statements that allow for speaking about Kant’s ethics as humanistic is the idea that an individual is a norm giver. In order to understand this concept, it is important to discuss providers of norms and laws in authoritarian and humanistic ethics. According to Fromm, in authoritarian ethics, the good for individuals is determined by authorities, and in humanistic ethics, “man himself is both the norm giver and the subject of the norms, their formal source or regulative agency and their subject matter” (9).

This idea is also reflected by Kant in his categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (36). Thus, in spite of the fact that the actions of a person should be universally ethical, the morality of these actions is still determined by that individual who performs them. From this point, Kant’s human is also a norm giver, but the ethical character of his or her actions is explained through the lenses of universal moral laws. In this context, a person is not restricted by norms proposed by authorities, but he or she is limited by one’s own visions of morality, which are expected to reflect the universally accepted visions.

As a result, the following fact also allows for comparing Fromm’s and Kant’s ideas: specific criteria for morally accepted actions, virtues, and the good are determined by individuals as norm givers. According to the principles typical of Fromm’s humanistic ethics, “only man himself can determine the criterion for virtue and sin, and not an authority transcending him” (12). This humanistic ethics is “anthropocentric,” and men’s “value judgments … are rooted in the peculiarities of his existence and are meaningful only with reference to it” (Fromm 13). Finally, Fromm’s virtue is the “responsibility toward his own existence” (20).

This idea is directly reflected in Kant’s ethics because his vision of virtues is associated with duties and the concept of the universal good. Criteria of this good are developed by persons and their own views regarding moral laws. Furthermore, while determining personal criteria for ethical actions, individuals make sure that these norms are rational and rather universal: “to whatever laws any rational being may be subject, he being an end in himself must be able to regard himself as also legislating universally in respect of these same laws” (Kant 54). As a result, Kant’s individual independently determines moral laws to follow in his or her life, but these imperatives as so strong that they can be followed by other humans to guarantee their well-being that is the concept of humanistic ethics.

Nevertheless, opponents of the idea that Kant’s ethics is correlated with Fromm’s vision of humanistic ethics can state that Kant’s ethics is rather authoritarian in its nature. The reason is that it is possible to interpret the philosopher’s focus on universal moral laws as imposed on individuals by authorities because these norms are expected to be followed worldwide. On the contrary, it is important to note that Kant’s ethics is humanistic because moral laws are determined by individuals’ inner visions of the good and the bad. These views are associated with human nature, and they are not formulated under the impact of external factors.

One more opponents’ view is related to the idea that even if Kant’s ethics is humanistic, it is not similar to Fromm’s ethics. Thus, Fromm is focused on a human being’s free will when Kant accentuates obedience to laws. Still, it is possible to state that Kant’s vision of an individual’s freedom is also important because he proposes persons to evaluate virtues and the morality of actions through their own beliefs. In spite of the fact that individuals are expected to follow universally appropriate ethical laws, they formulate these rules independently and freely.

Furthermore, they formulate these laws in order to contribute to a person’s happiness, and this aspect is part of an individual’s moral duty. As a result, this idea is correlated with Fromm’s one because of his focus on making people happy in the context of his ethics.

Humanistic ethics differs from authoritarian ethics in terms of being concentrated on the interests of human beings rather than authorities and their laws. Therefore, in a humanistic system of ethics, moral laws are determined and formulated by individuals for their benefits and happiness. People determine what is good and what is bad for them according to the idea of their dignity.

Their existence is viewed as critical to determining ethical norms. In spite of the fact that these ideas seem to be opposing to Kant’s ethics, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals represents ethics from a similar perspective. Although Fromm is focused on the self, he promotes the ideas of human dignity and freedom, the importance of an individual as a norm giver, and the significance of determining criteria for the good and the bad by individuals, not by authorities.

It is important to note that, in his work, Kant is concentrated on the same visions. A human being’s dignity and his or her importance are close to the idea of absolute, and therefore, individuals can independently determine moral laws to make them universal without depending on authorities. Furthermore, the criteria for moral or good actions, as well as virtues, are developed by persons with reference to their internal visions and feelings.

From this point, both philosophers reject the necessity of involving authorities in developing moral rules that should be based only on human visions of ethics and good, which seem to be inherited by all people. As a result, the development of universal laws is possible for the purpose of guaranteeing that all people can reach their happiness and harmony while following these rules.

Works Cited

Fromm, Erich. Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2013.

Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, Classic Books International, 2010.

Click Here To Order Now!

Kant’s “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals”

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)