Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Kantian Ethics
Kant categorically rejects that ethical judgments are based on feelings. For him,
feelings even serve as obstructions to our discernment of right and wrong. His ethical
theory instead bases moral judgments on reason alone. Reason, for him, is what
deems an action ethical or otherwise.
1.1 Good Will. Kant believes that when we wish to determine the moral status of
an action; we consult reason. An act either accords with reason or it does not. If
it accords with reason, we must do it, if not, we must avoid it.
Kant believes that one of the functions and capacities of our reason is to
produce a will which is good not as a means to some further end, but good in
itself. For him, it is the good will which is the highest good and the condition
of all other goods.
Kant teaches that only good will is intrinsically good. That is, it is the only
thing which is good without qualification.
Kant does not agree with many ethicists that happiness is the summum
bonum or the highest good. Happiness, for him, can be corrupting and may be
wotthless or even positively evil when not combined with a good will. In the
same way, intellectual eminence, talents, character, self-control, and fortune
cannot be intrinsically good for they can be used to bad ends.
. A ~ood will is one_that ~abitually wills rightly. And it is not what good
will achieves that constitutes ,ts goodness. Even if good w,·ll b f
, ecause o some
hindrances, accomplishes nothing, it remains to be something with full value in
itself. Good will is good in itself.
Normally, people perform the acts which please them or which they desire
to do in particular circumstances. For Kant, these actions determined by wishes,
passions, appetites, desires, and the like have no moral worth. He believes that
we act morally only when we restrain our feelings and inclinations and do that
which we are obliged to do. Morality, as Kant sees it, is essentially connected
with duties and obligations.
Moreover, acting morally entails acting from the motive of duty regardless
of the consequences that doing so or not doing so will bring. To perform an act
for fear of undesirable consequences of not doing it-that is, to act from a sense
of prudence-is only to do a 'prudential act', but not necessarily a moral one.
Now, contrast this with another man who gives relief to total st rangers who
are victims of a calamity. Because he accepts it as his duty to provide support to
those in need, he treats in precisely the same manner any other person whose
situation has the same characteristics. This is acting on maxim. The agent has
a reason for his action, and out of this reason, a maxim like this was formulated :
''This situation has such-and-such features, and any situation possessing these
features must be dealt with in such-and-such manner".
Now, Kant further divides the maxims of conduct into two classes, t ~e (1)
hypothetical and (2) categorical imperatives. Let's tackle first here the hypothetical
imperatives.
Now, if the hypothetical imperative states, "If you want to attain a certain
end, act in such-and -such a way," the categorical imperative, on the other
hand, pronounces, "No matter what end you desire to attain, act in such-and -
such a way." Clearly, it commands a person to act in particular ways regardless
of what goals one looks for or what one's ends may be.
For Kant, the categorical imperative ordains a rule that, if followed, will
guarantee that the person behaving in accordance with it is acting morally.
The categorical imperative thus serves as the barometer of reason determining
whether or not an action qualifies as ethical. Therefore, it is Kant's moral
philosophy that an act is morally good if it is done for the sake of a morany
good maxim; and a maxim is morally ·good if it conforms to the categorical
imperative.
As illustration, Kant takes the case of a lying promise. A person, having run
out of money, may be tempted to borrow from someone though knowing for
sure that he will be incapable td pay it back. He is thus acting on the maxim,
"When in need of money, borrow from someone by making a lying promise."
Many who have read and understood Kant's ethical system find it sensible and
plausible. In fact, when we try to prove that one's particular action is unethical and
ask him, "What if everybody behaved as you do?", we are actually advocating Kant's
'universalizability' formula_tion of the categorical imperative.
However, we may argue that the reason Kant's ethics is appealing is that it's
just another way of stating the highly accepted golden rule, "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you" and its proscriptive counterpart. Notice that the most
famous formulations of Kant's categorical imperative, especially the end-in-itself
version, instruct us to respect others because that is how we treat ourselves.
Another shortcoming of Kant 's ethks rs rt.s I.ad of sotution to instances when
there ;s conflict of duties. Suppose a person promises to keep a secret and then
another person asks him about rt. He cannot teU the truth without breaking his
promise. But Kantian ethics inftexibty demands that he ought to do both always and
in all d rcumstancesl which, in this case, is logic.ally impossible.
there would be no promises at all. Clearly, Kant here is referring to the consequences
of lying.
Concerning enjoyment in doing virtuous acts, Kant's theory differs from that
of Aristotle. For Aristotle, the genuinely virtuous person totally enjoys carrying out
moral acts. But for Kant, a moral act involves being contrary to somebody's feelings,
natural inclinations, and wishes. In fact, the distress of well-doing is even considered
by Kant as a sign of virtue.
Indeed, Kant completely removes one's taste, emotion, liking and the like
in the sphere of morality. Concerning this, we may argue nonetheless that there
are srtuations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to the rightness of our
3. Rights Theory
The principle of rights theory is the notion that in order for a society to be
efficacious, "government must approach the making and enforcement of laws with
the right intentions in respect to the end goals of the society that it governs. Members
of society agree to give up some freedoms for the protection enjoyed by organized
society, but governments cannot infringe upon the rights that citizens have been
promised." ("Rights Theory," n.d.).
When applied to war, rights theory states that in order for a war to be deemed
morally justifiable, the intention of entering into war ought to be right in relation to
human rights. Kant's principle of rights theory thus teaches that it is not merely the
outcome of actions that is significant but also the reasoning behind them, because if
the intent is evil, then the outcome, in all likelihood, is bad as well.
........_...,,......,,,.,,,
.;;;
118 , ETHICS: PRINCIPLES OF ETHIC~L BEHAVIOR i N MODER !" SOCI ETY
Rights Based Ethics is a broad moral theory in which Kant's principle of rights
theory is included. The concept of rights based ethics is that "there are some rights,
both positive and negative, that all humans have based only on the fact that they are
human. These rights can be natural or conventional. That is, natural rights are those
that are moral while conventional are those created by humans and reflect society's
values" ("Rights Based Ethics," n.d.).
Examples of Rights Based Ethics System include the following ("Rights Based
Ethics," n.d.):
l. The right of a person to be treated with respect and dignity even after beign
found guilty of a crime
The United Statf's I~ said to h(!' tounded upon ,, Rlght!ii Base<l Efbt C\ SySlern
1
in which citizens arc ht'ld to h"ve certain unalienable 'l~hts. The phllo~ophcr Johr
- . h t ke • thE' viewpoint of wh ot
Locke 1s one of th e m ain supporters of this system 1 1 8 s w, '
the ideal world looks ltke ~nd generates t1. rights system based upon th0st9 ide-0s.
Th e Bill o f Rights of the United st.,tes of Arn ericl, is .., document that charact.el'izes
the t ype of ri ghts that are embraced by Rights Based Ethicl, I System s. The Universa l
Declaration of Human Rights also upholds ,md manifests the values of a Rights Ba sed
Ethi cal System.
Som e ethical theorists define the term 'right' as "justified claim that individuals
and groups can make upon other individuals or upon society; to have d right is to be
in a position to determine by one's choices, what others should do or need not do''
("Rights Based Ethics/' n.d.). Rights can be legal in nature, or pertain to human rights
or moral rights.
What is legal is not always moral. And sometimes, what is moral is not necessarily
legal in a particular country. These principles prove, among other things, that being
moral and being legal may be practically related but not one and the same.
Some explain the difference between legal and moral to the difference between
is and ought. That is, moral rights refer to what ought to be, whereas legal rights are
the rights that are 'on the books.' Moral rights represent the natural law while legal
rights embody the conventional positive law.
4.1 Legal rights. Legal rights denote all the rights found within existing legal codes.
As such, they enjoy the recognition and protection of the law. Questions as to
their existence can be resolved by just locating the pertinent legal instrument
or piece of legislation.
4.2 Moral rights. Moral rights, in plain contrast, are rights that ..exist prior to and
independently from their legal counterparts. The existence and validity of a
moral right is not deemed to be dependent upon the actions of jurists and
legislators• (·Human Rights,• n.d.). For instance, many people argued that
the black majority in apartheid South Africa had a moral right to full political
participation in that country's political system, although there existed no such
legal right.
Human rights are best thought of as being both moral and legal rights. The
legitimacy claims of human rights are connected to their status as moral rights.
Nonetheless, the practical efficacy of human rights is essentially dependent
upon their developing into legal rights.