Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. - Kant. Critique of Pure Reason, second ed. (1787), translated by N. K. Smith, St. Martin's Press (New York: 1965), preface.
Immanuel Kant is one of the greatest Western philosophers. His influence is evident in many aspects of our lives, including our emphasis on individual autonomy and free will as well as providing a different means than Descartes for combining free will with religious faith while maintaining consistency. Kant seems to anticipate the modern world where individuals of different cultures and beliefs need to interact together and get along, despite their diverse cultures and situations. His theory is designed to provide a basic boundary for the limits of moral behavior for anyone. His view of human nature is based on reason. This capacity transcends experience to allow every individual to discover and agree to the same basic moral rules.
While Kant has written on almost every area of philosophy, in our reading Kant discusses religion, morality, free will, and whether or not humans are inherently good or evil.
Morality: For Kant, there are certain unconditional moral laws that all rational beings ought to follow. They are discoverable through reason alone and do not depend on any conditions, culture, or belief. Each individual uses reason to discover and freely choose these moral laws. So, while the laws are universal (apply to everyone), each individual uses reason to discover and choose to accept them.
For Kant many moral rules are derived from what is necessary for rational beings to function and prosper in society as free, rational beings. Since this does not presuppose any criteria other than the ability to reason, then people from diverse backgrounds should agree on these basic moral rules. Once other considerations are allowed to influence one’s reasoning process, then the rule is no longer unconditional or universally applicable.
Following this method, Kant derives his Categorical Imperative. This has three formulations:
1. One should always act out of duty. One should act morally because it is your duty to act morally, not because of any end you believe you will achieve by acting morally (e.g. salvation, trust, friendship, safety, etc.).
2. One should act so that the maxim of your action can be a universal law. When trying to determine what to do in a situation, the action that is consistent with duty will be one that is based on a motivation and rationale that you would feel comfortable letting anyone use to support their choice in a similar situation.
3. Never treat a rational being as a mere means to an end. In order for freedom to exist and reason to be developed and practiced, rational beings must respect freedom and reason in others. To do otherwise is hypocritical (see #2).
God is not necessary for morality because morality is based on reason, not divine law. Kant does not deny the existence of God. He simply claims, unlike Plato, that we are not capable of knowledge of things beyond the realm of what can be experienced. Since, by definition, Godtranscends experience, we cannot know God. Any attempt to know God will be warped because our reason is inadequate. It is like trying to understand the experience of going to the Carribean by looking at a postcard. So Kant says, “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” (Ibid, p. 29.) Anyway, we should be acting morally because it is the right thing to do, not because we are trying to make it to Heaven. Belief in God can be useful for keeping our spirits up when we see bad things happen to good people. However, morality is not dependent upon it.
For Kant, all rational beings are capable of moral action. This is the predisposition to good in human nature. We have the tools. The predisposition to evil is that rational beings, by their nature as free agents, are also free to act wrongly. Freedom is a double-edged sword - it enables one to do both good and evil.