Kantian Morality

Kantian Morality

Kant's theory of morality seems to function as the most feasible in

determining one's duty in a moral situation. The basis for his theory is

perhaps the most noble of any-- acting morally because doing so is morally

right. His ideas, no matter how occasionally vague or overly rigid, work

easily and efficiently in most situations. Some exceptions do exist, but the

strength of those exceptions may be somewhat diminished by looking at the

way the actual situations are presented and the way in which they are

handled. But despite these exceptions, the process Kant describes of

converting maxims to universal laws to test their moral permissibility serves,

in general, as a useful guide to and system of ethics and morality.

The Kantian Theory of Ethics hinges upon the concept of the

Categorical Imperative, or the process of universalization. Kant describes

taking a possible action, a maxim, and testing whether it is morally

permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be

morally permissible for all people in all times to act in that same

manner. Thus, Kant says that an action is morally permissible in one

instance if the action is universally permissible in all instances. In fact, parts

of the theory even say that it is one's moral duty to act on these

universalizable maxims, and that people should only act on those maxims

that can be universalized.

The stability of Kant's theory rests not only on the fact that it is

completely objective-- every action is definitely either morally permissible

or not-- but also on the fact that the theory is non-consequentialist. Kant

truly does not look to the consequences of an action to see whether the

action is morally permissible, but rather to the morality of the action itself.

Kant assumes that universal morality is inherent in being, thus avoiding

complications in trying to determine which actions lead to better

consequences. However, Kant does not speak of perfect and imperfect moral

duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to

the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue.

Several objections can be raised to the theory Kant sets forth, but each

...

... middle of paper ...

...be universally applied, acting on those maxims would not be permissible. An

example would be allowing anyone with a star shaped birthmark on their

back to steal. Universalizing this seems to be possible, at least at first glance.

However, universalization implies that a maxim be applicable throughout

time. No matter how unlikely, perhaps the future will contain nothing other

than birthmarked clones. In that case, the maxim cannot be universalized.

And again, the conditions presented do not affect the morality of the

situation, but rather to whom the morality is applied, thus contradicting the

idea of an objective, universal morality.

The main issue with these objections seems to be that Kant's theory

breaks down to some extent in certain situations. However, it becomes

possible that by further analyzing the situation at hand, certain allowances

can be made. Perhaps then the most convincing argument for the theory is

that on a day-to-day basis. Kantian Ethics provides a method for deciding

the best and most moral course of action. Perhaps this is the purpose of

moral theory in the first place.