The Implications of Kant Moral Theory Towards Human Conduct

Humans are fragile creatures that are bestowed with the ability to think that makes them
different from any other creatures that walk this earth. With the mind, human began to
understand human relationship and acted in a civilised manner. In shaping the character of a
civilised human being, ethics is one of the many traits that help to shape a better man in terms
of character and morality. As morality and ethics is something that is synonym with the daily
life of a man, the discussions around it never cease. Various theory and philosophy have been
introduce which some theories are acceptable by some while some theories are not suitable
due to various things such as the execution of the theory, the idea itself, religion, culture or
many more. But that is a discussion for another time, due to the fact that there are various
theories that needed some evaluation to understand it further. The main focus of this
discussion is the Kant Moral Theory in regards to the criticism about it.

First thing first, to evaluate the theory, one must know what the theory is all about.
The theory is introduced by a Russian scholar known as Immanuel Kant, a central figure in
modern philosophy which focuses in ethics. The gist of the theory is that Kant said that an
action is considered ethical when a person have a good motive and doing a right thing. It can
be understood as ethical actions are only actions that are right and just with the addition of
good motive. With the two components, only can the action considered ethical. Kant also
discusses on the idea that the good motive and right thing to do will produce a result, which
according to Kant, can either be good or bad which is uncontrollable whatsoever. This means
that Kant does not exclude the idea that any external force can cause unexpected things to
happen. In simpler words, as long as the action is right and there is a good motive, the person
is not blamed if things go astray. Due to this, the theory is introduced under the large branch
of a largely accepted theory which is Nonconsequentialist or Deontological Theories of
Morality (Al-Aidaros, Shamsudin, & Idris, 2013). As the introduction of the theory has been
establish, one can learn to understand the Kant Moral Theory through the advantages and
disadvantages of the theory. The advantage is mainly found in the idea of the theory while the
disadvantages are found through analysing and criticising the theory.

The first and foremost idea of Kant Moral Theory is that is on the basis of the idea
itself. Kant describe that his idea focuses on the basis of morally actions is done based on
good will and duty. But he disregards any consequences that happened, either good or bad.
The main focus of the first point is that he does not care about anything happened after the
moral action is done on the basis that the consequences cannot be controlled. That is the main
reason why Kant Moral Theory falls under Deontological Theories of Morality. The idea
itself invites many question and disagreement as how can an individual acted, even on good
intention, but end up causing miseries to others. This is clearly wrong as it can be seen as
promoting self-interest due to not cared about any consequences of the action towards other.
This also goes against the duty of an individual as the duty of individuals is surely to take
care about other, which goes against the idea of duty as a priority by Kant (Yount, 1993). For
example, the act of a government servant acting on the duty to take the land of a person for
development purposes. The act is morally lawful but end up causing misery to individual as
they end up with no land and only being paid compensations for their land taken by the
government. The government servant acted based on his duty and with good intentions but
end up causing people their misery.

The second idea of Kant Moral Theory is in this theory, the Good Will. Kant believes
that the will is the ability for humans to act in any situation. The difference from one person
from another is that the action is only considered ethical if the action is done through good
will. Kant introduce the idea that people have the tendency to follow moral rule and it is done
through good will and reasoning, at the same time, in order to fulfil their respective duty
which will be elaborated latter in regards to duty of a person. Without good will, Kant
considered the act to be morally unethical. The advantage is that with good will, people will
do good actions and will do any actions without any self-interest. Those who follow the Kant
Moral Theory will end up being selfless and acted for the benefit of the people (P. Thiroux &
Keith, 2014). But, the concept of good will can be considered as weak and can be exploited.
One of the major flaws and criticism of the theory is that it deals with something that is
intangible and cannot be seen or touched. Good will, or simply will, is intangible. One person
cannot measure and identify it if a person acted with good will or not. How do we know if the
person acted with good will? How will we know if the person does not have any hidden
motives? This creates a problem as Kant introduces an idea which ends up with more
questions than answers.

The third main idea introduce by Kant Moral Theory is the two reasoning used by
Kant in order to identify morally accepted behaviours. But before delving into the two
reasoning, one must understood that Kant reject any ideas or moral actions that came from
supernatural being. Every action must have its reasons and logical explanation. To gained
logical explanation, Kant introduces two reasoning which are Categorical Imperative and
Practical Imperative. For Categorical Imperative, it is a concept where it identifies a moral
action by asking two questions which are is there any law that allows the action to be
performed and can the law be universally accepted and implemented? The question begs
the idea that a moral rule must be something that can be implemented to everyone. It shows
that humans are the equal yet unique to their own(Heidt, 2010). They are special individuals
which cannot be used and manipulated by others. This brings to the second reasoning used by
Kant which is Categorical Imperative. The concept reinforces the idea that a person cannot be
used by others and unique to their own. They must bring benefit to themselves and not being
used for the purpose of others. Both reasoning seems logical and acceptable, but every theory
has its own strength and weaknesses. The strength of both the reasonings is it provides the
idea that human is equal and moral laws must be universally accepted. This is in line with
human nature, as humans wanted to be treated equally and laws executed must be fair to all
as everyone can follow it and can be punished equally. But this can also be a weakness and
problem too. One glaring mistake can be seen and criticise is that moral laws are difficult to
be universalise. This is due to the fact that moral laws are culturally dependent. Different
cultures have different laws. An act that is considered lawful in some places may be an
offence at another place. For example, bribery is a norm in western countries but in Islamic
countries, they despise bribery thus the culture or making bribery into law cannot be
universalise due to culture and religion differences among the respective countries.

The fourth idea of Kant Moral Theory is the idea of duty over inclination. Kant puts
every good will and action on the idea of duty. Every action is based on the sense of duty and
only actions done in compliance to the duty of the individual itself is considered morally
lawful. Kant describe the idea of duty is rational and with reasoning but Kant goes against
inclinations. Inclination or in simpler words, emotions are considered immoral. Actions done
based on feelings are considered irrational and ethically unlawful. The idea is that duty is put
over feelings as duty is rational while feelings are vice versa can be seen as an advantage as
any actions are not done on a whim or based on feelings. Every action is based on the idea of
duty at the same time, have rational reasons behind it. People will not do the wrong actions
due to the fact that every action is carefully calculated and on the basis of duty. But with an
advantage, surely there will be disadvantages too. The first criticism is that the idea of
introducing duty is that Kant does not specify which duty should be the main priority. Each
individual have their own set of duties but if there is a conflict of duty, Kant does not provide
any specific guideline in solving the problem. For example, the duty of a son to his mother is
in conflict with his duty as an employee. It begs the question which duty should be prioritise?
The second disadvantages in regards to duty over inclination are when the idea of duty is in
line with their inclination. Sometimes there will be moments that the feeling, inclination is
the same as duty. This begs the question, if both of it is the same, does the duty is considered
immoral? A petty question but it can be understood that Kant does not specify the idea behind
it, as if duty and inclination is the same, what should be done and does the duty can be
considered as immoral and morally unlawful.

In conclusion, Kant Moral Theory is a theory that revolved around the idea that
human have the tendency to do good and this is done through good will and good actions.
Various ideas are used to enforce the concept but in every theory, surely there will be
loopholes and flaws as the human faculty is never perfect. Each have its pro and con but Kant
Moral Theory can be understood as a moral principle that is hard to be practiced due one sole
fact, that is the concept of not caring about the consequences of human conduct due to its
nature on being uncontrollable which is a glaring and obvious flaw that goes against the
nature and moral of being a human and individual to care about the impact of one action
toward others.
References

Al-Aidaros, A.-H., Shamsudin, F. M., & Idris, K. M. (2013). Ethics and Ethical Theories
from an Islamic Perspective. International Journal of Islamic Thought, 4, 1. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=edb&AN=93517717&site=eds-live

Heidt, M. R. (2010). Moral Traditions: An Introduction to World Religious Ethics. Retrieved

from http://anselmacademic.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/MoralTraditions.pdf

P. Thiroux, J., & Keith, W. K. (2014). Ethics Theory and Practice (Eleveth Edition). London:
Pearson Education Limited.

Yount, D. D. (1993). EMMANUEL KANTS ETHICAL THEORY: RIGHTS AND DUTIES,

15.