Kant- Strengths & Weaknesses

INFLEXIBLE AND UNJUSTJoseph Fletcher and Alistair MacIntyre; Kantian Ethics is too inflexible about individual actions. Henry Allison- 'Kant's account of the moral life has struck many critics as both unduly harsh and incompatible with out moral intuitions.' 

UnlovingK's principle of treating humanity as an ends in itself can be seen to be very close to Xian principle of agape, unconditional love for others. Fletcher argues it may be loving to kill a baby whose cries endanger a party of escaping refugees, and that it may be loving to kill a terminally ill relative, yet Kant challenges this; respect for life must override desires and emotions. (although saving the lives of a group or stopping suffering seem like the most important thing to do, when one steps back they can recognise that this situation is particular and temporary, thus the enduring principle of life's sanctity is more important than any individual pain or pleasure).

Rule-WorshipMacIntyre accused Kant of being action- centred rather than agent centred, being too worried about the rights and wrongs of the little things, and not worried enough about the broader moral character. Someone can seem bad despite keeping the law and another can seem good despite having done something bad.Kant had no answers to what people should do with their lives, for him it is for individuals to sue their reason and freedom to work our how to be good for themselves, by reflection on their experience of other people's lives. He accepted that mistakes are bound to be made, Kant never really despaired of the possibility of human beings living up to their natures and being good.However, Kant was not obsessed with rules in the way that MacIntyre suggests. In Groundwork, Kant aims to work our how a virtuous person would act, not to make people follow a code first, and be human second. Th general moral character is built up of every choice it has made. Modern VE does not offer definite advice about right and wrong, it is unclear about the virtues to which one should aspire.Kant is not afraid to pin down virtues of rationality and freedom or to describe how they should be applied and used.

One-dimensionalFriedrich Schiller was the first to accuse Kant of prizing reason about other aspects of human nature to the extent that we may suppress our instincts and emotions, and thus be less than fully human. Iris Murdoch: 'Kant's man stands alone, confronting the mountains and the sea and feels defiant pride in the free power of his reason.' Yet Kant disputed the idea that following reason meant suppressing the instincts and emotions. Similarly to Plato, Kant believed that all aspects of human nature pull in the same direction, provided they are being directed by reason. It is good to want to survive and reproduce (bestimmung), it is good to exercise freedom and to value others (willkur) but it is best when the love of life, freedom, empathy and sympathy are directed by rationality. Emotions are part of what it means to be human, but emotions need rational direction.

Potentially discriminatoryThe value that Kant placed on reason as the defining feature of human nature, would have made him unlikely to see those with no or less rational potential as fully human. Groundwork: Could suggest that Kant would accept the euthanasia of brain-damaged people, even of criminals. This is how some Nazi's interpreted Kant. This is true of Kant, however when he read the writings of Rousseau, his views changed:'There was a time when i believed that reason constituted the honour of humanity, and I despised the people who knew nothing. Rousseau set me right about this. This blinding prejudice disappeared. I learned to honour human beings...'

Defining PersonhoodUnder the influence of Rousseau, he took a broad view of humanity, but he was never precise about when human status begins or ends and believed that modern science has only complicated this matter. For example, if a foetus is classed as a person, then Kant would be 100% againt abortion, even if it were to save the Mother's life, however if a foetus was not classed as a person, he might support abortion in a variety of circumstances. However this criticism is not limited to Kantian ethics, a utilitarian decision would be just as influence by its particular definition of personhood. Peter SInger spent his career exposing the fact that law-makers, churchmen, philosophers, base their arguments on unsound defintions.

UnclearBy offering three formulations of the Categorical Imperative and by failing to provide a robust definition of humanity, Kantian Ethics may be said to offer no clear guidance on complex moral issues.However Kant would not accept this as a criticism as it is exactly what he would want. Rules take away the sense of freedom and responsibility which is central to any actions being morally praiseworthy. It is often difficult to see beyond two clashing duties to the right course of action, but for Kant, it is the business of engaging with the difficulty that enables human being to develop reason, exercise freedom and understand the extent of their human and moral responsibility.

AtomisticBernard WiIlliams accused Kantian ethics of being 'atomistic', making people selfishly concerned with their own goodness and refusing to accept that something it would be right to do the wrong thing. Kant encourages people to be concerned with their own moral character, to do what is right not just for others but for their own sake. Applying the principle of humanity as an ends in itself, doing the wrong thing to protect someone else would be to sentence oneself to hell on their behalf, to use oneself as a means to an end of their happiness. Kant's approach may be valid for a Xian, but for an atheist who do not accept God, heaven and hell as postulates, it may seem difficult to argue that the damage to an individual moral character caused by protecting someone else outweighs the good which may result from the action. eg, lying to a Gestapo officer.Kant would argue that any rational person would see beyond the circumstance to essential humanity of the Gestapo officer, and would understand that by making their right to honesty conditional, this would be more corrosive than the damage the officer may choose to do with the information. Furthermore, Kant notes that all consequentialist systems rely on being able to predict something's outcome, despite the fact that predictions are often flawed and sometimes impossible. Also, by becoming actively involved in a situation, people become responsible for its outcomes. - However much one may believe that the Gestapo officer will use the information wrongly, this cannot be known for certain. nor can one know that the lie will not cause suffering in its own way. For Kant, we should not meddle, but rather do what we know to be objectively right, leaving all blame to be attached to those who choose to act immorally. 

UnrealisticKantian ethics are accused of being unrealistic in their demands. Few human being attain the heights of dispassionate rationality and sustain their sense of moral freedom as well. Kant himself struggled with this criticism, and never answered in satisfactorily. The real difficulty lay in Kant's belief that every action affects the status of the moral character and that a good will can not have acted out of habit or irrationally at any time. Given the fact that humans spend 20 years growing up, during which they will not fulfil their potential to be both free and rational, it is difficult to see how anybody can really be good.

UnnaturalIn rejecting happiness as an end, Kantian Ethics are sometimes seen to work against human nature. However, to argue that Kant was not concerned with happiness as an end is misguided. in both Religion within the bounds of reason alone, and Toward Perpetual Peace, Kant referred to the long-term happiness, the summum bonum, as the only end worth acting for. No rational person could be satisfied with achieving their own happiness, knowing they did nothing to relive the misery of others. Although it is a cliche to wish for world peace and an end to poverty, people still do because they know that they cannot be personally fulfilled while war goes on and people starve. Furthermore, to act out of rationality in order to get the the summum bonum is using yourself as a means to an end, your whole life is acting for a means to and end. However Kant would suggest that for every moral dilemma you have to make a rational and free decision, this is what is good, this is what you get rewarded for. As long as it is rational and free (as is in accordance with the categorical imperative) then it is a good action, and will lead to the summum bonum. Kants thinking starts with thinking itself, he establishes the basis for philosophy a priori and does not in the end rely on experience. If Kant's claims began with experience then technically h would not be able to move from the particular to universal claims, and realistically he could not move from the real world, arguing that it is fundamentally fair and ordered. Kant starts with the huge assumption that the universe is the ordered, predicable place he would like it to be. This is the greatest criticism of Kant.

New Page