Kant's Theory Coursework (Coursework Sample)

Suitablity of Kant’s Theory for Human Being
Name:
Instituiton:
Suitability of Kant’s Theory for Human Being
Question: Kant’s ethical theory is not suitable for the human being, he ended up imagining a human being suitable for his ethical theory. Do you agree?
Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontological ethics is based on the notion that a good action qualifies to be treated so only if it is preceded by a good will. İn other words, the theory hold the premise that people should do good things because it justifiable and the right course of action to take. Kant’s theory hold grounds on the principle of duty based on morality. In other words, some actions can be considered good even if their outcomes are wrong. Kant based his theory on the categorical imperative, which implies that human beings are driven by a certain motivation to perform an action. This notion implies a universal role, that requires an action to apply to all people for it to be permissible. Kant’s theory elicits mixed reaction because of the way it treats human beings based on the justifiable course of their actions. The theory raises questions on its suitability to human beings, and, therefore, is subject to numerous debates. Even though Kant’s theory provides ground for moral philosophy, it is not suitable for human beings because it is impractical, unforgiving, lacks motivation, does not recognize human emotions, and provides no grounds for absolute duty.
Kant’s ethical theory is found on the principals of what is known as the categorical imperative. This principle maintains the notion that an action must be necessitated by a certain motive. For instance, if you someone wants to drive a car, then he or she must first learn how to drive. What the law fails to do is to give humans an option on how to act when faced with dilemmas. If the motivation behind an action is good, but the outcome will be wrong, is it appropriate to pursue it? The theory becomes redundant in cases where individuals are faced with dilemmas. For instance, the theory does not offer direction in a situation whereby an individual has to decide whether to lie in order to save his family from death. Kant’s theory fails to provide guidance on some of the basic deeds that humans engage in.
Another reason that makes Kant’s theory unfair to humans is the fact that it is often seen as being unforgiving. Viewed in another perspective, Kant’s opinion on retributive justice calls for an ‘eye for eye’ form of justice. According to Johnson (2008), punishment is viewed as a moral action only if the crime committed was necessitated by the motive to commit a crime. This is in contrast to Jeremy Bentham view on punishment whereby he held the opinion that it should only be meted for purposes of rehabilitation rather than revenge. Kant’s law on retributive justice maintains that an offender must be punished if the actions committed points back to the offender. This law does not provide options for forgiveness because Kant sees it as lacking the moral obligation to the community. This is in itself not suitable for humanity.
Kant’s theory is not suitable for humanity because it lacks motivation despite calling for individuals to demonstrate an element of good will. The first formulation of Kant’s theory requires individual to act only as if those actions are determined to become a universal law. The law places importance on the element of accomplishes a certain duty and necessitated by good will. Also, the first principle of Kant’s theory requires that a perfect duty be that actions that is worth consideration if only it respects the rule of law and can which an individual can be blamed if or she fails to complete it. There must be some motivation behind accomplish a specific task. Duty and goodwill are not enough to motivate an individual to accomplish an undertaking. This is clear that Immanuel Kant only devised this formulation by imagining an ideal human being of his creation.
Another weakness of Kant theory and that is not appropriate for humanity is held on the principle that it does not recognize emotions. According to Wood (2012, p.97), emotions are insignificant. According to Kant theory, human actions should only be motivated by a sense of duty and good will. Kant’s theory does not provide room for humans to express their feelings and accomplish our sense of duties. Human desires and anticipation should be set aside when conforming to the expectations of moral duty. This is seen not to abide by the expectations of humanity.
Finally, Kant’s theory does not provide moral grounds to have an absolute duty. Absolute moral duty demands total commitment and necessity in accomplishing a specific duty. For example, absolute duty obliges an individual not to tell a lie in whatever situations. In this case, a person helping an outlaw to hide in his house has an obligation to tell the truth to the authorities. Human duties are absolute, and thus everyone has an obligation to complete them. However, Kant did not provide an alternative for those actions that brings conflict. In other words, he did not offer an alternative for humans to break the rule of promise in situations where the moral obligations bring the conflict of interests. This is not how a typical human being should behave in the modern world (Dave, 2012).
Despite the weaknesses evident in Kant theory its applicability to humanity, it is clear that the theory is useful because it provides ground for moral philosophy. Kant, like the phi...