Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Morals and politics
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
In Perpetual Peace, Kant writes, “all politics must bend the knee before right” (Kant, PP pg. 125). He claims that morals, in the sense of the doctrine of right, should demand more significance in political decisions, or even be the predominant consideration. To emphasize the lack of between morals and politics, Kant cites Matthew 10:16: “Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Kant, PP pg.116). Wisdom is not sufficient if it is not conducted towards a consistent purpose with an application towards morality. Kant considers the wisdom of the serpent to be used for the betterment of morality. Not only should politics be congruent with morals, but also properly conceived poli...
... middle of paper ...
...metimes it is the mechanisms that keep the political wheels in motion. If politics were absolutely subservient to morality and honesty, it would seem not only rather unrealistic but also undesirable. In the face of this problem, a challenge for Kant would be to defend the practicality and intuitive desirability of ‘honesty is better than any policy’.
Kant’s claim in Perpetual Peace supplies an inspiring vision of a just, peaceful and flourishing cosmopolitan world. It is true that morality and justice demand truthfulness, civil obedience and a full suite of basic rights and liberties; however, because human nature and emotion subsists of more than duty to moral law and there exists circumstances that demand lying, civil disobedience such as revolutions and the temporary restriction of rights and liberties, there does exist a conflict between morality and politics.
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
Recent literature has aimed to reconcile the content of Kant and Aristotle’s work on morality, or at least, to compare the theories as though they are contending. However, I shall argue that the two philosophers are answering intrinsically different questions. If two philosophers operate within a precise domain of philosophy, it can be tempting to assess their distinct arguments as disagreeable with the other. However, in some cases, their arguments may be aimed at responding to different questions. In such instances, endeavors to reconcile or compare the fabricated ‘opposition’ between two arguments can be unproductive and perplexing, ...
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.
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
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.
(6) Habermas’ claim that Kant subordinates law to morality—because the legitimacy of law is derived from the categorical imperative—can be contested. If one sees that for Kant the categorical imperative underlies both law and morality, one can object to the use of the term "subordinate" by Habermas as an inaccurate description of the relation between law and morality.
In Appendix 1 of Kant’s Political Writings, Kant addresses the dilemma of reconciling theories of political moralism with theories of political realism (i.e., between morals and politics) to achieve perpetual peace in practice. Kant explains that perpetual peace can only be reached through reason, as opposed to coercion or political expediency: “there can be no half measures here; it is no use devising hybrid solutions such as a pragmatically conditioned right halfway between right and utility” (125). The crux of his argument on the relationship between politics and morals is characterized by the claim “all politics must bend the knee before right” such that he asserts priority of morals over strategic advantage in politics (125). He further cautions against deference to practical rather than moral ends which will be discussed in greater detail later. For Kant, ideally, politics should be an application of morality and therefore no conflict can exist between politics and morality. However I will show that two problems of his stance (regarding practical applicability and universality) arise because of man’s subjectivity and natural tendencies.
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’.
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.
The sand is In his essay “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose” Kant starts with a kind of deterministic view of nature which results in a deterministic view of politics. He arrives at this by an account of human nature which suggests that autonomy arises because of the “unsocial sociability” of human beings. It is hard to deny that contemporary notions of freedom are heavily influenced by Kant, particularly in the global sphere, however it is. hard to say whether there is any real sense of political progress occurring throughout. history.
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...
Of the many intellectuals who have offered answers to questions of morality, freewill, and enlightenment, Immanuel Kant is one of the most challenging and intriguing. His writings have been used as the basis for analysis of contemporary writings of every age since first they were conceived and published. Benjamin's views on law, the ethics of J. K. Rowling, race studies, and basic modern morality have all been discussed through the use of Kant's philosophical framework. (Gray, Mack, Newton, Wolosky)
1) Feldman, Fred. ‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198.