I am writing more on Kant as I do not like the results of my first attempt at analyzing Kantian Ethics. In Immanuel Kant/ and topic of interest Kantian Ethics. I was finding a sense of moral repugnance with the ideas as express by KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University on Kant's Ethics, but at the time couldn't put my finger on exactly what was so repugnant to me. The fact that the examples that are used to explain the principals involved seemed shill oriented was and still is not the reason. Here is an example of the shillerary.
Categorical Imperatives: These command unconditionally. E.g. “Don’t cheat on your taxes.” Even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat.
Excerpt from: KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University
I am hoping that by taking another shot at this, my reader will see both why the first was not so good, and hopefully agree that this one raises the bar for moral behavior to one that is in everyone's interest. Peace!
The Moral Worth of Persons: On Kant.
Kant also has something to say about what makes someone a good person. Keep in mind that Kant intends this to go along with the rest of his theory, and what one's duty is would be determined by the categorical imperative. However, one can treat this as a separate theory to some extent, and consider that one's duty is determined by some other standard. Keep in mind that what is said below has to do with how one evaluates people, not actions. A person's actions are right or wrong, a person is morally worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally base). A person's actions determine her moral worth, but there is more to this than merely seeing if the actions are right or wrong.
Excerpt from: KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University
This to me is the use of judgement of others actions. I don't know how other people do this, but I do know how I do this. You see it doesn't matter whether or not a person intended good or bad. It is not for me to use my comprehension or understandings to judge another actions as moral or base. To me such is spinning my gears for a null return seeing as what a person does has a history in intent and motivation that I cannot see nor ascertain. I can however see the consequences of the actions taken by another and determine if I want to suffer or savor the results?
In reading about Kant on Moral Worth : "What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives? Morality must be based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you. " Source one see's that the problem is in what is meant or intended by the term Universal Law. Is this a law that everyone is subject to, as in natural law. Everyone is subject too natural law because these laws are how the world works. Does he mean what is a universal moral principal? Most likely.
If it is based on universal moral principals how does it square with the universal principal that we all are our own master. Meaning that we as individuals are the one who decide what moral principals are those which we will be commanded by. Thus to me one is commanded by there own essence. Who they are and not what they are, which is not the same thing. Some people are easily lead. Wanting some mommy or daddy figure to comfort them with directions. They are still people, but wanting in character and will. Some people neither want nor accept someones directions. They too are still people, just self sufficient.
1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law): "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]."
Excerpt from: KANTIAN ETHICS - California State University
The problem that I see with this First Formulation is two fold. People decide what maxims, if any, they will be commanded by, and people can will anything that they choose to will to become a universal law. Even if all conditions are perfect and everyone acts in line with this principal, no one is guaranteed the desired out come. Including the desire to be moral over base. Kant even admits that good intentions don't always create good results. " b) The basic idea: Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the motivation of their actions and not on the goodness of the consequences of those actions." Source
To me this is actually the bases for much immoral actions (and morally base) that can be of harm over and over again. Why, because if you do something without the intent to harm but it does harm. Do you not have the moral obligation to fix the harm you have caused. Liberty and freedom require responsibility for your actions, but not your intent. Thus we are responsible for the results of our actions regardless of intent. Thus to me this Kant on Moral Worth sets the bar so low that the outcomes will always be less than could be attained and as a result is morally base.
All photo's are from Pixabay. I am not responsible for what you think, if your think, or how you thinks. You are responsible for both what you do and what you think. Peace and love to all.