Immanuel Kant created his ethical teachings with a basis of doing your duty and with goodwill. A priori reason is used to follow the three forms of categorical imperatives and the three postulates. Kant focuses’ on the intention and so is non-consequentialist and deontological. The ultimate ending to following the maxims created is happiness. However, Kant’s ethical teachings are argued by Schiller to be too repressing human nature which needs to be governed by reason yet ultimately, the theory relies on reason which Barth claims to be flawed and so Kant’s ethical teachings are unhelpful when resolving ethical problems.
Kant’s ethical teachings can be argued to be unhelpful in resolving ethical problems as Fredrich Schiller argues how Kant values reason and rationality above human nature. Schiller believes all humanistic characteristics and traits such as instincts and emotions need to be appreciated in the context of when someone makes a moral decision. When these feelings and drives are suppressed, we as humans are less than fully human and this signifies that we are not as free to make moral decisions as believed. Therefore, if basic human functions are not considered a part of Kant’s ethical teaching, the whole human individual is not considered and so in support of his theory being unhelpful in resolving ethical problems.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
However, Kant would disagree with Schiller’s claim, Kant too believes emotions are important for humans but need to be governed in a rational direction by using reason. This signifies why feelings and humanistic characteristics are disregarded in his ethical teachings. Kant follows Plato’s analogy that there are two chariots of desire and emotion, these cannot be driven alone and they would crash. Yet when the chariots are driven by human reason, progress is made and they can move. This demonstrates that when making a moral decision, the use of emotion and instincts are important but they are used in a controlled manner. Soloman further supports this as he believes there has been too much focus throughout history on rationality and the human side of emotions is neglected. He continues that it is necessarily bad to support Kant’s ideas but human nature needs to be acknowledged. Kant has done this by showing how humanistic traits just need to be governed and rationalized by reason. Therefore, this supports Kant’s ethical teaching and helps resolve ethical problems.
Furthermore, Kant’s ethical teachings allow humanity to have the freedom to use their reason and carry out their duty. One would have the freedom to choose the moral law and not just act on impulses of the flawed human nature. We can govern and rationalize human traits such as impulses and desires to be tempted to do selfish acts. This would ultimately lead to an overall goodness in the world when everyone follows this rationalization of human nature when making an ethical decision. For Christians, this additionally concords with the Bible and is supported by Jesus’ golden rule in Matthew 7:12 “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. This helps Christians follow of duty to God which Kant further supports in the Three Postulates of Immortality where there is an end justice in the afterlife. Therefore, Kant’s ethical teachings can also be supported by Christians and so demonstrates that it is helpful when resolving ethical problems.
However, it is believed to be too inflexible by Alasdair Macintyre as there are no exceptions in specific situations. This causes conflicts and controversies between maxims. Macintyre argues that Kant’s teachings are too inflexible about individual actions and if there are no exceptions it could lead to injustice. He continues to say Kant is too worried about right and wrong and the bigger moral picture should be considered rather than the small insignificant details. This can be further supported because it is questioned whether humanity has as much autonomy and freedom to make decisions as claimed. Conformity and following authority manipulate our decisions and can be seen in Milgram's experiment where many participants would harm others, by only following someone with a higher power. Therefore, this implies if we do not have ultimate freedom, the bigger moral picture needs to be considered and so Kant’s ethical teachings are not supported as being helpful when resolving ethical problems.
Yet this inflexibility of Kant’s ethical teachings shows that when human nature is governed by reason, Kant’s teachings are the closest way of deducing pure justice and equality. In the first Categorical imperative of the universal law. The maxim can be universalized for example, one should not take another life, this creates value among all and gives everyone the same, equal principles. This is additionally demonstrated in the second categorical imperative of the principle of ends where humanity should be treated “as an end and never as merely a means”. The significance of this is that it further emphasizes Kant’s teachings of the supremacy and worth of human life which can be reflected in today's universal moral principles of human rights. Ergo, when making a moral decision if human value and preserving justice and equality overall, then Kant’s ethical teachings of using reason can be viewed as helpful in resolving ethical problems.
Despite this, the main weakness of Kant’s ethical teachings is that the theory relies on reason too much as reason is ultimately believed to be flawed. Reason is the basis of the teaching which supports the use of duty and goodwill however it is believed by Karl Barth to be distorted. After the fall of Adam and Eve, it is argued that human nature becomes distorted with a sinful nature and so our reason cannot be relied on to provide the correct intention. Therefore, this is not in support of Kant’s ethical teachings being helpful when resolving ethical problems.
To conclude, Kant’s ethical teachings help resolve ethical problems as objectively making rational decisions is the only way to pursue pure justice, equality, and value in all concurrent to happiness. However, Kant’s ethical teachings are argued by Schiller to be too repressing of human nature which needs to be governed by reason and McIntyre believes the theory is too restricting. The main basis of theory relies on reason which Barth claims to be flawed. Therefore, Kant’s ethical teachings can be seen as the closest way to justice, however, ultimately are not helpful when resolving ethical problems.
Stuck on your essay?
