Kant’s Moral Philosophy and Human Dignity
Kant’s Moral Philosophy
Kant’s moral philosophy is his defense of a wider recognition of human dignity and its confidence in human progress. The categorical imperative remains an excellent proposal because it puts humanity as the supreme objective. Human rights align perfectly with the categorical imperative, while respect and promotion are in line with the mandatory condition to be desirable as a universal standard of behavior.
Currently, thinkers do not doubt the validity and universality of human rights, despite facts that are incompatible with these rights (and with the categorical imperative) and the enlightened world that Kant proposed.
Perpetual Peace
Reason governs the brief holding of perpetual peace. Kant raises the constitution of a global state, or state of peoples, that would be based on an ideal state, formed by the different states, with the ambitious goal of eliminating international conflicts and wars. This would satisfy the duty of abandoning the state of nature governed by force, and establishing a civil society fully governed by reason.
Probably one of the shortcomings of the United Nations is, precisely, not yet putting into practice this fraternal state of peoples capable of eradicating violence in international relations and promoting, successfully enough, humanity as the supreme end.
Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics has a great present position because it represents a power that Western society, accustomed to utilitarian interests, economics, and lack of solidarity, tends to leave behind: the defense of absolute principles. Although Kantian severity and principles are hardly defensible for becoming a very strict and fixed ethics, they do help to reflect on the validity of the defense of right (despite the consequences), on the importance of responsible commitment from a moral principle, the action of solidarity, and personal involvement versus indifference and egoism. Taking such attitudes, in many cases, means standing alone.
Personal Rating
Kant’s philosophy is interesting. As a man of not-so-advanced means that we now can conclude anything as successful in the field of knowledge. However, I disagree with him in the field of morality. Because in my opinion, the moral law must be fulfilled, yes, but always taking into account criteria of legitimacy, which Kant does not mention, because he tells us that the sense of duty is based on enforcing the laws without question. However, who assures us that these laws are good and that there is good will, as Kant says? Obviously, it is in the consciousness of each, but if you want, you can act with goodwill, or that goodwill is not.
It is totally absurd to think that we must enforce the law without considering the consequences which its compliance to the subject itself, since nobody in their right mind would fulfill a law that would cause physical or psychological suffering, unless previously have been deceived with false consequences of that law, and that totally breaks one of the fundamental principles of the categorical imperative, because the laws are aimed at the man himself, and not achieving something, whether physical or metaphysical.
Therefore, this moral system, does not differ much from the Scholastic system, as the hypothetical imperative, was the attainment of eternal life and happiness in heaven with God, not only here if you want to promise us happiness. Is there anything better than one’s own happiness and the happiness of society? In my opinion, there isn’t, so if the categorical imperative does not ensure happiness, what use is it? For as the previous system, God will ensure happiness in the afterlife. Therefore, this political and moral idealism of Kant is not far above the school grounds by Scholastic.