Kantian Morality and the “Deferential Husband”
Imagine the following scenario: A man does everything his wife wants and only considers her preferences, often disregarding his own in the process. He is a “deferential husband” and frequently inconveniences himself to fulfill his wife’s desires. Seemingly noble, the man’s behavior poses an interesting question. Is he behaving according to the Kantian model of morality by treating his wife so well? In this paper, I will argue that the husband does not live by the principles of Kantian morality in the sense that he does not treat all rational beings equally as “ends-in-themselves”. Although he treats his wife as an end, he treats himself and potentially others as a means for her. Therefore, he creates
…show more content…
a contradiction between the maxim underlying his deference to another person and his own treatment of himself, violating the categorical imperative. Immanuel Kant argues that the fulcrum of true morality is the concept of the “categorical imperative”, which is the requirement for one to act as though the underlying maxim of their behavior were to become universal law.
He posit that in order for one to fulfill the categorical imperative, one would have to treat all rational beings as “ends-in-themselves”, or the purposes for all actions. That necessitates that one cannot treat themselves or others as “means” for some other purpose. If they did, they would contradict the maxim of treating everyone as “ends”, which obviously bears more pleasant consequences for society and is a much more desired rule than the possible maxim of treating everyone as “means”. In the case of the deferential husband, the categorical imperative is violated because the husband views himself as a means and his wife as an end; the proper application of Kantian morality mandates that he view both his wife and himself as ends. It is exceedingly evident that he perceives himself to be a means for his wife - he causes himself hardship as he buys her roses, leaves his job to take care of her, cooks her favorite dishes, cancels his plans for her, and fulfills her desires in general, despite having completely different preferences from those of …show more content…
her wife. Buying roses may not be a great trial, but one could imagine his cumulative displeasure in having to leave his job, cancel all his plans, and eat food he doesn’t like. In addition, it is not particularly difficult to imagine that this husband potentially disservices others as well in the process of pleasing his wife. What if he had previously run a charity? By leaving his job, he treats those whose lives are benefited by the charity as means for his wife since he no longers helps them. The scenario also clearly establishes that his wife as an end by offering no evidence that she is a means. The deferential husband does not honor his wife’s preferences for any apparent ulterior motive. In fact, he has difficulty valuing his own desires and does not respect himself enough to consider himself an end. Consequently, the inequality between his wife and himself conflicts with Kant’s theory. Despite the evidence upholding the husband’s failure to abide by Kantian morality, I can identify and defend a compelling objection to the primary argument. The husband fulfills the categorical imperative, using the interpretation that one should behave as though the maxim behind their actions were to become universal law. The logical result of the categorical imperative consists of maxims and rules that are beneficial to all people and uphold society. Through the omission of an ulterior motive or external purpose for the husband’s extraordinary measures to please his wife, the scenario implies that he acts out of a sense of duty. That sense of duty drives him to ignore his own impulses. The maxim underlying the husband’s behavior appears to be the following: “You should please your wife by doing whatever she desires, even if it requires personal sacrifices”. Since the husband obeys this maxim in all situations to his own detriment, it can be assumed that he feels this is the proper way to act and is the rule everyone ought to follow. Hence, he acts as though the maxim he obeys should and will become universal law. Furthermore, the husband follows the maxim out of moral duty and nothing else; therefore he is acting with “a priori knowledge”, or knowledge that doesn’t depend upon experiences, as opposed to using knowledge from past experiences for personal benefits or selfish purposes. For instance, he would not be acting with a priori knowledge if he did performed good deeds for his wife to get her to love him more strongly or have sex with him more often, as knowledge of these things can only be derived from past experiences and can be exploited for some purpose other than his wife. A key component of Kantian morality lies in the universality of a priori knowledge. In conclusion, Kant argues that morality only arises from duty, and nothing else. By this metric, the husband is indeed acting in a moral manner. Although the objection reinforces the fact that the husband treats his wife as an end as well as explains how the husband may seem to fulfill the categorical imperative, it does not address the treatment of oneself as a means or an end.
The original argument emphasizes the husband’s perception of himself as a means, which opposes Kant’s view of morality as the treatment of all rational beings as ends. In order for the husband to behave morally, he must treat both himself and his wife as ends. By considering himself as a means for his wife, he breeds contradiction between treating his wife as an end from a moral sense of duty and making an exception for himself. The former suggests that he recognizes the importance of universal morality and viewing all people as ends, but the latter suggests that he applies a different standard to
himself.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Immanuel Kant defines his second formulation of the Categorical Imperative as knowing the value of a person. It is demeaning to use a person without his or her consent for self-gratification, especially sexually. Kant describes this as using a person simply to serve a means rather than an end, simply put rather than being a concrete loving act with the end of creating new life sex treated as only “scratching an itch”. The idea that Kant, “must take on the other’s ends for their own sake, not because that is an effective way to advance my goals in using the other,” is a way of saying that a man must care enough about the other person treat them as fairly and justly as he wants to be treated (Soble 228). To Soble the “Kantian sex problem” is at the root rather or not all of Kant’s requirements can be met at all in sexual activity¬¬. As Kant lays out all that goes into the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative he describes taking on one another’s ends, but also what it means to make a person simply an end to one’s own needs.
Kant’s Formula of the End in Itself, with its conception of treating persons as ends and not simply as means, has had enormous influence in the history of ethics. In this talk, I shall discuss an objection to it, namely, that it is overly demanding. To begin with, let me state this objection more fully: Suppose that, in obedience to the Formula, you want to treat your friend as an end (and not simply as a means). Your action of treating her as an end can be either a positive one or a negative one. When it is positive, she is (in some way) the object of your agency — for example, you might treat her as an end by saving her life. In contrast, when it is negative, she is not the object of your agency — for example, you might treat her as an end by refraining from lying to her.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s moral philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Zalta, E. (Ed.). Retrieved online from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-moral/
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.
Under what circumstances would it be acceptable for a teacher not to report cheating? As we have learned there are more considerations than a yes or no when it comes to cheating, reporting and ethics. Teachers and students are impacted by cheating. Cheating gives advantage to some and not to others; cheating disrupts the learning process.
If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do.