Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who endeavored to uncover the basis of morality, what determines an action to be moral. He holds that morality is an individual’s worthiness of happiness, but that the actual outcome of any given act may or may not actually result in happiness, regardless of its moral value. Kant is unique in his thinking in that he does not believe that morals exist as a result of divine or natural means, but that it is motivated by reason. Kant’s ethical system is based first on the notion that there is no divine or natural influence, then by defining the basis for determining morality of an action and then applying it socially.

Kant believed that moral action is motivated by reason, not by nature or divine influence. He rejected the divine because “the practical use of reason consists in the exercise of our will” (Rossi, 2005). He didn’t reject the concept of God, but he recognized free will as being supportive of his argument that morality is based on reason. Kant rejected concepts such as human nature and natural law in the same way. Kant said, “…that human nature is not subject to rules” (Chouinard, Wallace, Scott, & Meine, 1960). If we are able to act in accordance of our own will, then we have a pre-programmed ethic.

Kant defined the term “maxim” as the plan of an individual in a specific circumstance which is acted upon and then brings about a result. So the maxim is the action which is being considered by an individual under a certain set of circumstances. The maxim is determined to be good or bad based on its university. If everyone were to do “X”, would the society experience a desirable outcome? For example, if everyone were to commit murder, would that be good for the society? The answer is logically no, as it would bring about an end to the existence of that society. Therefore, the act of committing murder would be bad maxim according to Kant.

Moral values don’t vary based on the desires of an individual. If one person has a religious belief which would cause them to not desire a specific outcome, it does not make the act any more or less moral for them than for someone who does not hold to that ethic. This goes back to universalism. It is immaterial whether one person or another sees or experiences a desirable outcome from an act; it is only moral or good maxim if it would produce desirable results if performed by everyone. Kant used the example that:

…a person presented with this choice: to perjure oneself so that the state can convict and execute an innocent person whom the ruler considers an enemy of the state, or, to refuse to commit perjury and thus be subject oneself to summary conviction and execution (Rossi, 2005).

On an individual basis, the outcome would be desirable, since the person would not have to suffer death, but universally there is an undesirable outcome. If the whole of mankind were to commit crimes and then lie under oath, letting someone else suffer for it, this would cause a negative impact on society, so it would be immoral.

Kant basically claimed that mankind creates their own morality through their ability to reason based on the social good. I think this is an interesting theory because it does not defy God, nor is it for God; rather it is apart from God. Even for Christians, it is arguable that God, with a foreknowledge of our reasoning, designed the social response to actions and therefore divine command and natural law could still be right, just not the means to the end; through reason, we define the morality which was already predetermined by God.

References

Chouinard, C., Wallace, W.S., Scott, W. D., & Meine, F. J. (1960). The American Peoples Encyclopedia. (Vol. 11). Chicago: Spencer Press, Inc..

Rossi, P. (2005). Kant’s Philosophy of Religion: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#3.1

Immanuel Kant on the Basis of Morality