Journal of and Volume 1, Issue 2, 2019, PP 30-38 ISSN 2642-8415

The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Today

Obinna Obiagwu1*, Jude Onuoha A.1 1Directorates of General Studies Federal University of Owerri, Nigeria *Corresponding Author: Obinna Obiagwu, Directorates of General Studies Federal University of Technology Owerri, Nigeria, Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The contemporary society characterised by the influx of technological advancement has continued to to an unimaginable degree. With the inception of technology, in communication, travel, production of and services and social relation has become possible. Hence, man in his widest experience has had great improvement in the way He his and interact with his fellow and of course is environment. This progress evident in the impact of technology has had its attendant challenges, allowing man to question advantages of the offshoots of technology. The presence of war and Man’s inhumanity to Man, the strive for power and for even to the detriment of the , the abuse of means of communication and the media outreach especially as it affects the of the people etc have really continued to present an antithetical of the sides of innovations made possible by technological advancement. Tin the light of these, the importance of Kantian ethical Philosophy remains indispensable in our contemporary society today. The aim of this article hence would be to see to what extent can Kant’s moral philosophy go in moderating the excesses of the society. One of the paramount concerns in this article would be to know the basic approach to basic questions of man in his environment and how possible it is to respond to issues like disaster, murder, war, disrespect for citizenry by the government etc. Keywords: Morality, Ethics, imperatives

INTRODUCTION answer is no, then we must not perform the . (Kant believed that these questions were The aim of this is to consider how the equivalent). Kant’s is an example of dominant moral can be applied to the a deontological moral theory–according to these discourse on the respect of the human person theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions and his environment. In specific , specific does not depend on their consequences but on values take priority. established whether they fulfill our . the basic of respect for human as ends in themselves, and for of Kant believed that there was a supreme rational beings; thus it cannot be ignored. In of morality, and he referred to it as the Categorical political decision-making, simply having good Imperative which determines what our moral does not suffice; they must be are. accompanied by responsibility. Both the ethics The aim of this paper is to consider whether the of and ethics (the virtue dominant moral theories can be applied to the of ) deal with responsibility for the discourse of War, disaster situations and other future. Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain basic human challenges as mentioned above. types of actions (including murder, theft, and There is enormous significance: found in the lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases outstanding work of , this kind where the action would bring about more of ethics establishes the fundamental principles than the alternative. For Kantians, of respect for human , autonomy, and there are two questions that we must ask accepting that a human being is an end in itself ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I (Kant, 1968a) rationally that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not Using the medical screening of patients to perform the action. (ii) Does my action respect determine their priority for treatment, the the goals of human beings rather than merely separation of a large number of casualties, in using them for my own purposes? Again, if the military or civilian disaster medical care, into

Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 30 The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today three groups: those who cannot be expected to A is the rule or principle on which you survive even with treatment, those who will act. For example, I might make it my maxim to recover without treatment, and the priority give at least as much to each year as I group of those who need treatment in order to spend on eating out, or I might make it my survive (Winslow, 1982, p.1). Does the human maxim only to do what will benefit some person need categorisation? Categorising people member of my . in this way may be considered to be ethically The command states, crudely, that you are not unacceptable since medical care should be allowed to do anything yourself that you would equally available to all who need it. not be willing to allow everyone else to do as Morality and Imperatives well. You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other What does it mean for one's duty to be people to keep their promises, then you are determined by the ? What obligated to keep your own promises. More is an imperative? An imperative is a command. accurately, it commands that every maxim you So, "Pay your taxes!" is an imperative, as are act on must be such that you are willing to make "Stop kicking me!" and "Don't kill animals!" it the case that everyone always act on that Hypothetical Imperatives maxim when in a similar situation. For These imperatives command conditionally on example, if I wanted to to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it your having a relevant desire. E.g ―If you want the case that everyone always lied to get what to go to , study in they wanted - but if this were to happen no one college.‖ If you don’t want to go to medical would ever believe you, so the lie would not school, this command doesn’t apply to you. work and you would not get what you wanted. Another example, your father says, "If you are So, if you willed that such a maxim (of lying) hungry, then go eat something!" - If you aren't should become a , then you would hungry, then you are free to ignore the command. thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to Categorical Imperatives lie, according to the categorical imperative. It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to These command unconditionally. E.g. ―Don’t make an exception for yourself. cheat on your taxes.‖ Even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you KANT ON MORAL WORTH may not cheat. The Moral Worth of Persons Relationship between Morality and Categorical Kant also has something to say about what Imperatives makes someone a good person. Keep in Morality must be based on the categorical that Kant intends this to go along with the rest imperative because morality is such that you are of his theory, and what one's duty is would be commanded by it, and is such that you cannot determined by the categorical imperative. opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to However, one can treat this as a separate theory you. to some extent, and consider that one's duty is How Does the Categorical Imperative Work? determined by some other standard. Keep in mind that what is said below has to do with how The categorical imperative has three different one evaluates people, not actions. A person's formulations. That is to say, there are three actions are right or wrong, a person is morally different ways of saying what it is. Kant claims worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally that all three do in say the same thing, but it base). A person's actions determine her moral is currently disputed whether this is true. The worth, but there is more to this than merely second formulation is the easiest to understand, seeing if the actions are right or wrong. but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative. Here is the first formulation. Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the of their actions and First Formulation not on the goodness of the consequences of The Formula of Universal Law those actions. By "motivation" I mean what caused you to do the action (i.e., your for "Act only on that maxim through which you can doing it). Kant argues that one can have moral at the same will that it should become a worth (i.e., be a good person) only if one is universal law [of ]." motivated by morality. In other words, if a

31 Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today person's or desires cause them to do and they come to steal the food and end up something, then that action cannot give them killing all the children in the village and the moral worth. This may sound odd, but there is adults too. The intended consequence of feeding good reason to agree with Kant. starving children was good, and the actual consequences were bad. Kant is not saying that Imagine that I win the lottery and I'm wondering we should look at the intended consequences in what to do with the money. I look around for order to make a moral evaluation. Kant is what would be the most fun to do with it: buy a claiming that regardless of intended or actual yacht, travel in first around the , get consequences, moral worth is properly assessed that knee operation, etc.. I decide that what by looking at the motivation of the action, which would be really fun is to give the money to may be selfish even if the intended charity and to enjoy that special feeling you get consequences are good. from making people happy, so I give all my lottery money away. According to Kant, I am Kantian Moral Philosophy and Time not a morally worthy person because I did this, The fact that quite different acts are appropriate after all I just did whatever I would be in different times had been considered back in the most fun and there is admirable ancient times; evidence can be found in the well about such a selfish pursuit. It was just lucky known passage in the Biblical text of Kohelet for those charities that I thought giving away (Ecclesiastes) beginning: For everything there is money was fun. Moral worth only comes when a season, and a time for every under you do something because you know that it is heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a your duty and you would do it regardless of time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is whether you liked it. planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time Kant and Consequences to break down, and a time to build up... (Ecclesiastes, 1966,p. 604). A reason why Kant is not concerned with consequences can be seen in the following In spite of the evidence provided for this in the example. Imagine two people out together existential speech in the book of Kohelet, there drinking at a bar late one night, and each of is a clear need for any society to have rules them decides to drive home very drunk. They regulating human behaviour; and these rules drive in different directions through the middle have to be general, not dependent on the of nowhere. One of them encounters no one on moment. Both these aspects, the need for a the road, and so gets home without incident general law and the of the regardless of totally reckless driving. The other particularity or uniqueness of the present drunk is not so lucky and encounters someone moment have to be incorporated into adequate walking at night, and kills the pedestrian with theories of ethics, as these contrasting aspects the car. are embodied in . Kant would argue that based on these actions We can suppose that the rules themselves have both drunks are equally bad, and the fact that developed on the basis of long-term experience one person got lucky does not make them any of particular situations. In our discussion, we better than the other drunk. After all, they both shall try to shed light on some of the aspects that made the same , and nothing within should be considered in a discussion on either one's control had anything to do with the temporality in ethics. Heather Dyke wonders in their actions. The same reasoning why the temporal dimension has been neglected applies to people who act for the right . in ethical theories: Ethics seek answers to If both people act for the right reasons, then questions about the moral status of human both are morally worthy, even if the actions of actions and human lives... Lives have temporal one of them happen to lead to bad consequences extension, and are experienced from a sequence by bad luck. of temporal perspectives. Thus, one would think that answers to ethical questions should take The Wrong Interpretation some account of their temporal features. Yet Consider the case described above about the there has never been a systematic study of the lottery winner giving to charity. Imagine that he between time and ethics (Dyke, 2003, gives to a charity and he intends to save p.1).In recent years, several works have focused hundreds of starving children in a remote on the intersection between time and ethics. village. The food arrives in the village but a Time and Ethics (Dyke, 2003) is a collection of group of rebels finds out that they have food, findings from a conference held at the

Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 32 The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today

University of Otago in New Zealand in 2001. of things in themselves, human acts as temporal The book highlights the various ways these empirical are just phenomena phenomena intersect, such as the issue of (Erscheinungen) (Kant, 1968a). personal over time, which can make it Kant eliminated any empirical differences difficult to hold a person responsible for a deed connected with a specific situation through the carried out many years previously; or the universal form of the categorical imperative. relevance of the utilitarian criteria of the amount This ethics, which excludes all that is related to of happiness in a in which time is experience, presupposes that the duties of all infinite. rational beings are equal and enables us to Several decades earlier, propounded decide what is good or bad once and for all. a temporal perspective of ethics in his According to Jan Sokol (1998), the disadvantage of responsibility (Jonas, 1984), which is a of this kind of ethics in the fact that instead crucial resource for the and of seeking out a moral decision one can instead environment. Another resource led to Czech comply with an (apparent) ―‖, and this Jan Sokol’s discussion of time: is understood to be evident and obvious—yet, in inspired by the work of Paul Ricoeur, he some situations, understanding what ―one’s published a book titled Time and Rhythm duty‖ may be (in that actual situation) difficult. (Sokol, 1996) in which he gives an overview of Besides this, there is no left for important the understanding of time in philosophy, aspects of moral life, including metanoia, , and various . In his later change of mind, and one cannot imagine how essay ―Ethics and Time‖, he adopted an original actions like penitence or forgiveness could be temporal perspective on ethics (Sokol, 1998). universalized (Sokol, 1998). Sokol (1998) suggested that temporal features The Need to Take Responsibility were omitted from modern ethics, probably The questionable nature of an ethics which does under the enormous influence of Immanuel not take into account temporal dimensions time Kant. Kant sought to exclude time totally from seems more obvious in the context of the his concept of ethics, since he considered it to political sphere. Kant insisted on the a priori be incompatible with the concept of freedom in of moral law, and he strictly denied his moral philosophy. Sokol points outs that the moral relevance of the consequences of a some parts of Kant’s Critique of Practical deed: it is not the outcome achieved by the Reason (Kant, 1968b) seem to be more radical action that is relevant but the motive behind the than his (Kant, 1968c) action; it is only ―good will‖ that matters (Kant, because (which concerns the 1968a, p. 393). In contrast to this view, Max sphere of morality) does not acknowledge Weber, in his famous lecture as a temporal differences. in time then Vocation (Weber, 1964), formulates two different seems simply to be one way in which a thinking kinds of ethics: an ethics of conviction and an ethics being sensationally imagines the world, and this of responsibility (Verantwortungsethik), which is reminiscent of the thinking of (Plato, Weber sees as a necessary in politicians 2001), for whom time, which came into (ibid.). existence simultaneously with , was just The need to take responsibility for the a moving image of (Sokol, 1998). consequences of their actions is especially great In his categorical imperative, Kant succeeded in among politicians, since they make decisions formulating a rule that was completely which may prove good or fatal to a great independent of temporal conditions. In his number of people. Therefore, a politician cannot struggle to save the freedom of human beings, afford to decide only on the basis of an ethics of Kant tries to make freedom possible by excluding conviction or his own good . and spatiotemporal constraints from Politicians, according to Weber, must subscribe the realm of morality. In fact, Kant identifies to the ethics of ultimate ends—that is, responsibility with practical reason because (Weber, 1964). These two kinds of ethics— based autonomous will is the faculty to decide to act in on intentions and responsibility—are accordance with the moral law, and it is the complementary and necessary for a vocation in substance of practical reason that establishes politics (ibid.). this moral law (Kant, 1968a). Moral law is recognized by practical reason, not from (1966) explains the need to experience; while morality concerns the realm take responsibility for the consequences of one’s

33 Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today actions and for —at least, the history of risk cannot be avoided completely in any human one’s nation—in a similar way, but places action, including morally relevant actions. This greater emphasis on the dimensions of does not mean that rules are not useful but that responsibility. He criticises the ―neo-protestant moral life cannot be reduced to them. In some ethics of good intentions‖ and attributes the cases, responsibility for others prevents us from of responsibility for history before to providing the demanded and, in the (Bonhoeffer, 1966). According worst case, encourages us to lie. In his novel Les to Bonhoeffer, ―good intention‖ is not sufficient Misérables Victor Hugo provides a good for a truly moral act, as there is always example of such a situation: only the lie of a responsibility for success as well: ―Wisdom and truthful religious sister who had never before foolishness are not ethically indifferent, as the lied in her life can save the lives and happiness neo-protestant ethics of good intentions aimed of other people. In such a case, following the to teach us‖ (Bonhoeffer, 1966, pp. 17-18). rule (to avoid being responsible for breaking it) Bonhoeffer promotes an Aristotelian- Thomistic would be just selfish. We cannot expect there to respect for wisdom, which is one of the cardinal be some kind of pre-established harmony which in : Since success is not would guarantee that following the rule would morally neutral, and neither are foolishness and lead to the best result in each case. wisdom (Bonhoeffer, 1966). The solution in the novel contrasts sharply with Owing to the situation confronting the German Kant’s position which has been criticized by nation after Hitler came to power, Bonhoeffer Bonhoeffer: Kant insists that it was right to tell had to find a new way to reflect upon the moral the , in keeping with the principle of state of society and to deliberate in truthfulness, even in a situation where a friend is ethics. He tried to find out why the German hiding in his house and the murderer pursuing nation was obedient to a regime which was him comes and asks for him (Kant, 1996). clearly immoral. Bonhoeffer was convinced that Bonhoeffer considers this conclusion to be the cause was not to be found in the lack of absurd; for him the solution is not found in bravery and self-sacrifice of the people, but in following rules, nor does he see abiding by the the that obeying the law was the highest law to be a source of the of a moral moral principle: ―We had seen the and being, it is found in obeying one’s the greatness of our lives in the subordination of (Bonhoeffer, 1998). For Bohnoeffer conscience all our personal wishes and to the task begins with and seeks out not the law but living which was put on us‖ (ibid., p. 12). God and the living human person: ―A conscience, freed from the law, will not shy For the Germans vocation and freedom were away from taking on the of another...A two sides of the same coin; in German thinking, freed conscience... is open to those close to us in the idea of freedom was propounded their hour of need‖ (Bonhoeffer, 1998, p. 279). passionately from Luther to the philosophy of , but it was a freedom seen in the We may reasonably suppose that Kant’s answer deliverance from selfishness by working for the would differ if he were in a real situation; whole. These moral qualities were misused and especially, if the Gestapo or terrorists were there was a lack of personal : it is much coming—instead of one isolated murderer- and easier to solve things by fulfilling a principle there was no chance of his defending the friend. than accepting personal responsibility for a Kant was simply discussing truth-telling in specific solution (Bonhoeffer, 1966). general and was just thinking about ―a case‖, Bonhoeffer prioritizes free, responsible acts. and was not—in contrast to Bonhoeffer—in ―a situation‖ in which his friends really might be If we compare Kantian ethics with the idea of endangered by his truth-telling. responsibility in Weber’s lecture (Weber, 1964) and especially with Bonhoeffer’s thinking on highlights this distinction: pursuing the right course of action in an While ―a case‖ concerns an example used in extremely arduous situation, there are moral theory to illustrate a difference in the indications that Kantian ethics may be—in some circumstances which could change what is contexts and situations—blind to the challenge morally permitted, ―a situation‖ involves me, of time. Rationalistic aspiration leads a person concerns me and my existence (Guardini, 1931). to strive for rules that are so apparent and The conscience always relates to a real indisputable that they can liberate conscience ―situation‖ and not an abstract ―case‖ to be from . But uncertainty, chance and speculated upon theoretically. A ―situation‖ is

Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 34 The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today constituted by various, often contradictory, of ethics in the modern times. Kant’s respect for demands and human and material relations. As human dignity, the human being as an end in Guardini states ―each situation we find itself, means that no human being can be used as ourselves in is unique. It has never occurred a means for any other end (Kant, 1968b), and before and it will never occur again. Therefore, this is always significant. Besides being what is supposed to occur within it will never important in philosophy, it is vital to other have occurred before. And it is this which disciplines that rely on a concept of the human should be described and creatively elaborated being and his/her autonomy, especially politics, on‖ (Guardini, 1931, pp. 31-32). In a situation and in and , in relation the conscience is directed by previous to protecting the right of a person—or a experience and also develops gradually over patient—to make decisions about themselves. time. The most influential book in bioethics, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Beauchamp & The Relation of Norms and Principles Childress, 2009), postulates that the principle of From this embodiment in time, it follows that autonomy is one of four key principles, and norms and principles always relate—in real makes explicit reference to Kant in many life—to a particular situation, and to insist that contexts. they should be applied in a particular way may The Undesirability of Categorical Impertaive lead to absurd results. Therefore, the manner of application must be left to the conscience of the This categorical imperative cannot be denied, moral agent. On the other hand, the principles even where the dimension of time is cannot be inferred from the situation itself. The incorporated into the ethical discourse, and it is idea of ―‖ as propagated by also valid in the disaster ethics. Hans Jonas in Joseph Fletcher (1966) seems attractive, but the his Imperative of Responsibility adds a time principle of ―love‖ (agape or caritas) on which it horizon to the moral calculus present in Kantian is based is too vague to serve as a criterion of ethics (Jonas, 1984). In his ―Old and new ethics. J. Lédl in Nothing but Love? Optio imperatives‖ chapter, Jonas explains that Kant’s Fundamentalis as a Criterion in the Situation categorical imperative ―was addressed to the Ethics attempts to substitute the vague moral individual, and its criterion was instantaneous‖ criterion (presented by Fletcher) with the (ibid., p. 12), while his own ―ethic of the future‖ concept of ―fundamental decision‖, and explains takes account of real consequences. that in real life the quality of a moral decision Jonas had to distinguish his attempt at depends on the moral level of the moral agent formulating a new ethics from earlier forms of (Lédl, 2009). ―future-oriented ethics‖ (p. 12), in particular Here, Lédl’s position seems to come close to from modern and from the ethics of that found in virtue ethics which holds the well- fulfilment in the life hereafter. The latter, he developed that there are stages of virtues explains, concerns a life that is good in itself that a moral agent can attain. Virtue ethics (including virtues, like , charity, purity of includes temporal dimensions: In the different heart etc.) and that is supposed to be awarded in stages of maturation an individual (communities future life, and, therefore, this preferable way of or nations) attains we can expect and demand life is the best option in any case, even if there is different levels of virtues. Virtue ethics, which no hereafter. allocates the central position to wisdom Thus, the presence characteristic of ethics is (, 2013), comes close to the concept of preserved in this case (Jonas, 1984). The responsibility. When their capacity for wisdom relation between modern utopia (represented is improved, the individual can make better notably by ) and ethics is different. The decisions, foresee the consequences of a specific modern idea of progress made possible the act or inactivity and take responsibility. emergence of a secular form of chiliasm, in From what has been said, it is clear that in which everything preceding the coming difficult situations personal responsibility can be society is understood just as a preliminary stage expected only from a person who has attained a of it. Therefore, the ethics of the present time high moral level. But the personal moral has only a preliminary character, while the real condition is not a constant; it is a dynamic factor ethics of the future (in the coming society) is not depending on personal effort and . yet clear and actual: the ethics in the preliminary Undoubtedly, Kant’s moral philosophy stage need not do justice to , as constitutes one the most influential conceptions events occurring in the present time are

35 Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today understood just as a means for the future (Jonas, modern technology combined with and 1984). the fact that is has spread all over the world, the moral philosophy of our time has to extend the In his thoroughgoing , Jonas explains previous area of responsibility. Jonas summed the difference between the stance explained up the challenge of the time in a new moral above and his ethics of responsibility for the imperative: ―Act so that the effects of your future, which is authentic and does justice to the action are compatible with the permanence of demands of today—that is, following moral genuine human life‖, or in other words: ―Do not rules (including Kant’s categorical imperative) compromise the conditions for an indefinite and aiming to fulfil the of the continuation of on earth‖ (Jonas, individual in the present time. Therefore, Jonas 1984, p. 11). Jonas’s concept of responsibility attempts to formulate an ethics which is neither provides us with a way of avoiding ethical chiliastic nor utopian. Faced with the threats , without neglecting the challenge of brought by technology, including the threat of the time nuclear war, ecological destruction, and , Jonas takes seriously the moral There is always an element of wager present in obligation to be aware of the altered nature of human action. If all the interests of humankind human action: it may result in total destruction. were at stake, Jonas suggests that a bad In contrast to earlier forms of ethics that took prognosis would prevail over a good one: ―the into account only the rules of behaviour and one heuristic of ‖ (Jonas, 1984, p. 26) can help person’s responsibilities to another (that is, us to avoid the most disasters. Jonas’s relations between existing people), it is now attempt to formulate an ethics adequate to the necessary to extend the scope of morality to time led him to a widely accepted precautionary include nature, and to future generations.The principle. In questions of disaster ethics, the objective of Jonas’ work was to develop an precautionary principle could prevent man-made ethical theory adequate for an era of modern catastrophes. From the precautionary principle, technology that possesses the ability to cause it follows that there is a to long term damage to nature or even make future protect the public from exposure to harm, and human life impossible. While Das Prinzip the onus is on those performing the action to Verantwortung is an attempt to provide the provide proof that the new technology or general basis of the concept of responsibility in process is not harmful (Wingspread Conference ethics, Jonas’s later work Technik, Medizin und on the Precautionary Principle, 1998). The Ethik: Zur Praxis des Prinzips Verantwortung is heuristic of fear teaches us that a bad prognosis ―the applied part‖ of the former, and gives a should have priority over a good one.As long as more detailed elaboration of his ethics of the danger is unknown, we do not know what to technology (Simek, 2014, p. 51). preserve and why. Knowledge of this comes, against all and method, from the In it, Jonas warns against new medical what to avoid. This is perceived first , especially genetic manipulations, and teaches us, by revulsion of feeling which which may make it possible to deliberately acts ahead of knowledge, to apprehend the shape future generations, and disrupt the whose so affects us. We know the successful process of (Jonas, 1987, p. thing at stake only when we know that it is at 174). Today, the new possibilities of human stake (Jonas, 1984, p. 27). ―Uncertainty may be enhancement have led to the emergence of the our permanent fate - which has moral concepts of and , consequences‖ (Jonas, 1984, p. 191). The moral and urgent questions about the moral limits of consequences especially concern politicians, : Should human nature be changed? since they have the power to put the interests of Should we (ir) reversibly change the anatomy, others at stake, and therefore, they are physiology or of individuals or society as responsible for them (Jonas, 1984). a whole? Contemporary medicine has to take future generations into consideration (Payne, CONCLUSION 2015). A careful reader may notice that in the example Because of the threat associated with the above one of the selfish person's intended vulnerability of nature and the lack of power consequences is to make him happy, and so it over technology, Jonas is convinced that human might seem to be that intended consequences do survival depends on purposeful efforts to care matter. One might think Kant is claiming that if for our planet and its future. Given the nature of one of my intentions is to make myself happy,

Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 36 The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today that my action is not worthy. This is a mistake. [8] Bonhoeffer, D. (1966). Nach zehn Jahren. [Ten The consequence of making myself happy is a years later]. In Widerstand und Ergebung (pp. good consequence, even according to Kant. 9-25). München & Hamburg: Siebenstern Kant clearly thinks that people being happy is a Verlag. good thing. [9] Dyke, H. (2003). Introduction. In H. Dyke (Ed.), Time and ethics: at the intersection (pp.1-7). There is nothing wrong with doing something Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. with an intended consequence of making [10] Ecclesiastes (1966). In The Holy . yourself happy, that is not selfishness. You can Revised Standard Version (pp. 603-609). get moral worth doing things that you enjoy, but London: Catholic Truth Society. the reason you are doing them cannot be that [11] Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation ethics: The new you enjoy them; the reason must be that they are morality. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. required by duty. Also, there is a tendency to [12] Gluchman, V. (2008). Etika a reflexie mordlky. think that Kant says it is always wrong to do [Ethics and reflections of morality]. Presov: something that just causes your own happiness, Filozoficka fakulta Presovskej univerzity. like buying an ice cream cone. [13] Guardini, R. (1931). Das Gute, das Gewissen This is not the case. Kant thinks that you ought und die Sammlung. [The good, conscience and concentration]. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald- to do things to make yourself happy as long as Verlag. you make sure that they are not immoral (i.e., [14] Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of contrary to duty), and that you would refrain responsibility: In search of an ethics for the from doing them if they were immoral. Getting technological age. Chicago & London: ice cream is not immoral, and so you can go University of Chicago Press. ahead and do it. Doing it will not make you a [15] Jonas, H. (1987). Technik, Medizin und Ethik. morally worthy person, but it won't make you a Praxis der Prinzips Verantwortung. Frankfurt bad person either. am Main: Suhrkamp. Many actions which are permissible but not [16] Kant, I. (1968a). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik required by duty are neutral in this way. der Sitten. [Groundwork of of According to Kant a good person is someone morals] (pp. 385-463). In Kants Werke: Band who always does their duty because it is their IV. Berlin: Walter Gruyter. duty. It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must [17] Kant, I. (1968b). Kritik der praktischen be the case that they would do it even if they did Vernunft. [Critique of practical reason]. In not enjoy it. The overall theme is that to be a Kants Werke: Band V. (pp. 1-163). Berlin: good person you must be good for goodness Walter de Gruyter, sake. [18] Kant, I. (1968c). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. [Critique of pure reason]. In Kants Werke: REFERENCES Band IV. (pp. 1-252). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [1] Akinpehu, J.A. (1983) ―Values in Nigerian [19] Kant, I. (1996). On a supposed right to lie from Society‖ in O.A. Nduka ed. New Perspectives philanthropy. In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), Immanuel in Moral Education Lagos: Evans Bros. Nigeria Kant, (pp611-615) Cambridge Ltd (P. 41-56) [3]. & New York: Cambridge University Press. [2] Etuk, Udo (1998). ―Ethical Conditions of [20] Lédl, J. (2009). Nic nez làska? Optio Human Development in Twenty-First century’ Fundamentalis jako kritérium v situacni etice. in Oladipo ed. Remaking Africa, Ibandan: [Nothing but love? Optio Fundamentalis as a Publications. (p. 276-291) criterion in situation ethics]. Praha: Unpublished MA dissertation. ETF UK. [3] Jones, W.J. (1978).History of New York: Dover Press [21] Payne, J. (2015). Predmluva [Introduction]. In J. Payne, A. Dolezal, D. Cerny, et al. Dobry, [4] Kant, Immanuel. (1934). Critique of Pure nebo lepsi zivot? (pp. 5- Reason, Translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn. 12). Praha: Ustav statu a prava AV CR. London: Dent and Sons Ltd. [ [22] Plato (2001). Timaeus. Newburyport MA: [5] Toynbee, Arnold and Ikeda, Daisaku. (1989). Focus Publishing R. Pullins Company. Choose Life. Oxford: . [6] Aristotle (2013). . London: [23] Sokol, J. (1996). Cas a rytmus. [Time and W. Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard rhythm]. Praha: Oikûmené. University Press. [24] Sokol, J. (1998). Etika a cas. [Ethics and time]. [7] Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). In Cas a etika: texty kproblemu temporality. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: [Time and ethics: Texts on the problem of Oxford University Press. temporality] (pp. 9-28). Praha: Sofis.

37 Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today

[25] Simek, V. (2014). Etika techniky podle Hanse Environmental Retrieved from http:// Jonase. [Ethics of technology according to www.sehn.org/wing.html Hans Jonas]. Filosofie dnes, 6(1), 50-83. [28] Winslow, G. R. (1982).Triage and justice. [26] Weber, M. (1964). Politik als Beruf. [Politics as Berkeley: University of California Press. a vocation]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. [29] Zack, N. (2009). The ethics of disaster [27] Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary planning: Preparation vs response. Philosophy Principle (1998, January 26). In Science and of , 8(2), 55-66.

Citation: Obinna Obiagwu, Jude Onuoha A., "The Implication of Kant’s Moral Philosophy in our Society Today", Journal of Philosophy and Ethics, 1(2), 2019, pp. 30-38. Copyright: © 2019 Obinna Obiagwu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Journal of Philosophy and Ethics V1 ● 12 ● 2019 38