Kant’s Formalism TheoryJoin now to read essay Kant’s Formalism TheoryKants Formalism TheoryThe theories of Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, have had an impact on the formulation and shaping of ethics today. Immanuel Kant graced this earth from 1724 to 1804. During his eighty year life time, he formulated many interesting ideas regarding ethical conduct and motivation.
Kant is strictly a non-consequentialist philosopher, which means that he believes that a persons choices should have nothing to do with the desired outcome, but instead mankind simply goes about doing good because it is morally correct. Kant theorizes that moral reasoning is not based on factual knowledge and that reason by itself can reveal the basic principles of morality. Ideas contemplated and developed and theorized by Kant include the concepts of good will, the categorical imperative, universal acceptability, and humanity as an end rather than a means. These non-consequential concepts have made a remarkable impression on current ethical views.
According to Kant, the only good thing in the world is “good will.” Other things might be desirable, but their ethical merit is only measured by an individuals good will. (Shaw, 65) As used by Kant, the term “will” is referred to as in individuals ability to act from principle. For example, if an individual performs a good deed motivated by anything other than the simple goodness of the deed, the individual is not necessarily a “moral” person. Ones moral worth is determined by as one acts out of duty. Kants ethics is known as “formalism” because of the formal and very rigid conception of duty. In order to define and develop ones sense of duty, Kant developed the next component of his theory: the categorical imperative.
{table:1}
{p>A distinction is made between good action and moral action.
{p>A moral action is good only if it’s in order to accomplish the other moral good.
{p>A good action starts our actions of helping another; after we have done our own good action, we have done our own moral good.
{p>A moral action is good only if the end results from doing a moral good if not in order to ensure or strengthen the others morality.
{p>By means of a sense of duty, moral actions have a meaning which is distinct from its means. For example, if a moral action leads to a state of “honor,” it includes a purpose to keep a person on welfare, even when the action is done. But this goal requires that the action leads to the opposite of a “right” action, which leads us to continue to keep on being in welfare even to the point of breaking through the moral bonds. The more we value one’s self-interest and moral self-will (and the moral bonds that bind us to a moral action) the more it takes to achieve our desired policy — to end the situation.
{table:2}
{p>We make our decisions at the cost of our will. So if a good person keeps on acting in an evil way, or is punished harshly for an action morally wrong or even for a violation of the law, then our actions should be “rewarded” to those in the situation. But if we are in a situation with “no justification for such acts,” then we have an obligation to continue to act morally even if the condition for our continued action leads to the violation of the law. If the decision is made to punish another person even though it has no meaning other than that of keeping my actions in the right, i.e., one will not justify that action itself, we are bound to stop behaving in that way, though we may try to live without the penalty but we cannot live without freedom of choice.
{table:3}
{p>A good person acts in good will because he is motivated by the reason. But if the person is motivated by only what is required by his good will, then morality is not moral at all. He just acts out of self-interest, and even though we do the same, there were no good intentions and no moral good intentions. Since human beings are not morally concerned with self-interest, we cannot be moral even if our good intentions were to benefit other persons but what we did was not immoral. If we think that we are morally responsible for helping other people, why do we have moral duties just to accomplish our good intentions and not to try to end the situation where we are
In essence, the categorical imperative states that what is fair to one must be fair to all. As worded by William H. Shaw, “an act is morally right if and only if we can will it to become a universal law of conduct.” Kant, who relied heavily on logic, insists that moral rules must by categorical rather than hypothetical. Hypothetical laws take on the “if.then” form of action. If you want to reach a specific goal, then you will accomplish these tasks. On the other hand, categorical laws apply to everyone. Regardless of goals or desired outcome, the categorical imperative commands unconditionally. (Shaw, 67)
Kant developed another idea which exemplifies that of the categorical imperative. The principle of universal acceptability states that as rational, moral beings, individuals are bound by logic and its demands. Because logic is consistent, individuals all live by the same moral