Moral responsibility refers to the idea that individuals are accountable for their actions, and they have a duty to consider the moral implications of those actions. In other words, moral responsibility entails the idea that individuals must be held responsible for the consequences of their choices and actions, especially in situations where those choices have a significant impact on others.
At its core, moral responsibility is based on the concept of morality, which refers to a system of beliefs about what is right and wrong. The moral framework of an individual is shaped by various factors such as cultural norms, personal experiences, and upbringing. However, despite these variations, certain moral principles are universally accepted, such as honesty, respect, and compassion. These principles serve as a guide for individuals to make ethical decisions and act in ways that align with their values.
Moral responsibility is often viewed as a crucial component of a just society. In a just society, individuals are expected to take responsibility for their actions, and if they fail to do so, they may be held accountable by the legal system. For example, if a person commits a crime, they are subject to legal consequences such as imprisonment or fines. Similarly, in the workplace, employees are expected to act with integrity, and if they engage in unethical behavior, they may face disciplinary action or termination.
However, moral responsibility extends beyond the legal system and workplace. It also encompasses social and environmental responsibility. In today’s world, individuals are increasingly aware of the impact of their actions on the planet and society. As a result, individuals are expected to act in ways that minimize harm to the environment and society. For example, individuals are encouraged to reduce their carbon footprint by conserving energy, recycling, and using public transportation.
Moreover, moral responsibility also involves taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions on other individuals. This means that individuals should act with empathy and compassion towards others, especially those who are vulnerable or marginalized. For example, individuals may choose to volunteer their time and resources to support social causes such as poverty alleviation, education, and healthcare.
In conclusion, moral responsibility is a fundamental concept that underpins our social and legal systems. It emphasizes the importance of acting with integrity, taking responsibility for our actions, and considering the impact of our choices on others. As such, individuals must strive to act in ways that align with their values and principles and contribute to a just and compassionate society.
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development is a theory that describes how individuals develop their understanding of morality over time. The theory consists of three levels, each of which has two stages. In this essay, we will explore each of these levels and stages in more detail.
Level 1: Pre-Conventional Morality
The pre-conventional level is the first level of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, and it is typically observed in young children. At this level, individuals are focused on avoiding punishment and seeking rewards. Their moral reasoning is based on their own self-interest and personal needs.
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation
At the first stage of the pre-conventional level, individuals view rules and authority as absolute. They obey rules to avoid punishment, and they believe that those who break rules should be punished. They are not able to take into account the needs or feelings of others.
Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange Orientation
At the second stage of the pre-conventional level, individuals begin to consider the needs and desires of others. They understand that others have their own self-interests and may engage in exchanges to meet their needs. For example, a child may share her toys with a friend in exchange for the friend sharing their toys in return.
Level 2: Conventional Morality
The second level of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development is the conventional level. At this level, individuals are focused on maintaining social order and conforming to societal norms. They are concerned with being a “good” person and following the expectations of others.
Stage 3: Interpersonal Relationships Orientation
At the third stage of the conventional level, individuals are focused on being perceived as a good person by others. They are motivated by a desire to maintain positive relationships with others and to be seen as kind, helpful, and cooperative. They conform to societal norms to fit in and be accepted by others.
Stage 4: Maintaining Social Order Orientation
At the fourth stage of the conventional level, individuals understand the importance of following the laws and rules of society. They believe that laws are necessary for maintaining social order, and they feel a duty to obey them. They are concerned with upholding the social order and maintaining the status quo.
Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality
The post-conventional level is the third and final level of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. At this level, individuals are capable of thinking beyond the expectations of society and are willing to challenge social norms and conventions to uphold their own ethical principles.
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights Orientation
At the fifth stage of the post-conventional level, individuals recognize that laws and social norms are created by people and are subject to change. They believe that rules should be based on the mutual benefit of all members of society and that there are times when it may be necessary to challenge unjust laws. They are willing to weigh the interests of different groups and make decisions based on what is fair and just.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles Orientation
At the sixth and final stage of the post-conventional level, individuals develop a sense of personal ethical principles that are independent of society’s rules and norms. They believe in the inherent value of all individuals and the importance of upholding human rights and dignity. They are willing to stand up for their beliefs and principles, even if it means going against social norms and expectations.
Critiques of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Despite its widespread influence, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development has faced criticism from various perspectives. Some of the critiques are as follows:
Cultural Bias: One of the primary critiques of Kohlberg’s theory is that it is heavily influenced by Western cultural values and may not be applicable to people from different cultural backgrounds. The stages were developed based on research with Western participants, and critics argue that the stages may not be relevant or accurate for individuals from other cultures.
1. Gender Bias: Another critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that it is biased towards males. Kohlberg’s research was conducted primarily with male participants, and some studies have found that females tend to score lower on measures of moral reasoning than males. Critics argue that Kohlberg’s stages may not accurately reflect the moral development of females and other marginalized groups.
2. Limited Scope: Kohlberg’s theory focuses primarily on moral reasoning and does not consider other factors that may influence moral development, such as emotions, empathy, and socialization. Critics argue that the theory provides an incomplete picture of moral development and may not fully capture the complexities of moral decision-making.
3. Lack of Empirical Support: Some researchers have found that Kohlberg’s stages of moral development do not consistently predict moral behavior in real-world situations. This has led some to question the validity of the theory and its ability to accurately measure moral development.
4. Hierarchy of Stages: Critics have also raised concerns about the hierarchical nature of Kohlberg’s stages, which suggests that individuals must progress through each stage in a linear fashion. Some argue that this oversimplifies the complexities of moral development and may not accurately reflect the way that individuals actually develop their moral reasoning.
5. Lack of Diversity: Kohlberg’s theory primarily focuses on the development of moral reasoning in white, middle-class males. Critics argue that the theory may not be representative of the experiences of individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and ethnicities.
In response to these critiques, some researchers have attempted to expand on Kohlberg’s theory to address some of the limitations. For example, Carol Gilligan’s theory of moral development focuses on the development of care and empathy, which she argues is a key component of moral reasoning that is often overlooked by Kohlberg’s theory. Additionally, some researchers have suggested that the stages of moral development may not be hierarchical and that individuals may move back and forth between stages depending on the context and situation.
Despite these critiques, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development remains a significant and influential theory in the field of psychology. It has provided a framework for understanding how individuals develop their understanding of morality over time, and it has helped to stimulate further research and discussion on the topic of moral development.
In these notes, I will clearly distinguish morality from ethics by explaining the meaning, nature, and dynamics of morality. Hence, these notes will briefly address the question “What is morality?”.
It must be noted, however, that the difference between ethics and morality is not that significant. In fact, the former is essentially synonymous with the latter. Etymologically speaking, ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, while morality from the Latin word mos (or mores, if it’s used in a plural form), both words referring to customary behavior. For this reason, we may use the word “immoral” in lieu of the word “unethical”, or we may use the word “moral” instead of the word “ethical”. This is the reason why we say that a “moral person” or “ethical person” is one who is good and does the right thing, and an “immoral person” or “unethical person” is one who is bad and does what is wrong.
As we can see, the terms ethics and morality can be used interchangeably. However, there is a fine line that divides the two. In other words, we can distinguish one from the other in some respects.
The first idea that came to our mind when we ask the difference between morality and ethics is that the latter generally refers to the systematic study of the rightness and wrongness of a human action, while the former is generally understood as the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In this way, we can say that ethics is the specific branch of philosophy that studies the morality (that is, the rightness or wrongness) of a human act. With this, we may initially conclude that ethics is the science of “morals”, while morality is the practice of ethics.
Based on the above initial discussion on the difference between the two terms, we can now draw the idea that ethics attempts to provide systems of moral principles and the reasons why these principles are valid. Hence, ethics is more concerned with theories that can be used to explain why a particular moral principle is valid or not, right or wrong. It is for this reason that ethicists have come up with some of the basic ethical principles that may help determine the rightness or wrongness of a human action.
Some of these basic ethical principles are: 1) Respect for persons, 2) Truthfulness and Confidentiality, 3) Autonomy and Informed Consent, 4) Beneficence, 5) Non-maleficence, and 6) Justice.
Now, as already mentioned, morality refers to principles of right and wrong behavior or rightness and wrongness (that is, goodness and badness) of human actions. And more importantly, in determining the rightness or wrongness of human actions, the moral agent is guided by the broader rules or principles of ethics. For instance, the person’s moral belief that killing is wrong may stem from the basic ethical principle of “Respect for persons” or “Non-maleficence”. Indeed, this example further explains the basic difference between ethics and morals: if ethics says that killing is wrong because it violates the basic ethical principles of “Respect for persons” or “Non-maleficence”, morality, on the other hand, says “Do not kill” because it is wrong. Again, this is the reason why ethics is understood as the science of morals, while morality is the practice of (the basic principles of) ethics.
Bioethics comes from the Greek words bios, which means “life”, and ethos, which originally means “custom”. On the one hand, ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies the rightness or wrongness of human actions. On the other hand, bioethics is the application of the principles of ethics to the field of medicine and healthcare. Broadly construed, bioethics, as applied ethics, is defined as the ethics of life.
In particular, bioethics is concerned with the ethical issues that arise from the emergence and development in the life sciences, such as biotechnology and medicine. Some of these ethical issues include euthanasia, abortion, suicide, human cloning, allocation of healthcare resources, genetic engineering, artificial insemination, contraception, and organ donation and transplantation. As we can see, bioethicists address the morality of these ethical issues using appropriate ethical theories, such as utilitarian ethics, Kantian ethics, Christian ethics, and Pragmatic ethics. For example, a bioethicist may argue that abortion is immoral because, using Kantian ethics, it treats the human person as a means rather than as an end.
Core Bioethical Principles
As an applied ethics, bioethics applies the principles of ethics to the field of medicine and healthcare. Some of these principles are stewardship, totality, solidarity, respect for persons, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, and autonomy.
Stewardship is a principle in Christian ethics that suggests that human life comes from God, and no individual is the master of her own body. Humans are only viewed as stewards or caretakers, having the responsibility of protecting and cultivating spiritual and bodily functions. Thus, as stewards, humans should not harm but rather improve and care for their bodies.
Totalityrefers to the whole body. This means that every person has the duty to develop, use, care for, and preserve all her bodily parts. However, this ethical principle suggests that an individual has the right to cut off or mutilate any defective or worn out parts of the body.
Solidaritysuggests being one with the other. In the healthcare profession, healthcare professionals should be one with their patients or clients. As we can see, the principle of solidarity is very important in dealing with the poor, the uneducated, the disadvantaged, and the marginalized.
Respect for persons means that every person has the responsibility to treat persons always as an end and never as a means. Respect for persons, therefore, is the recognition of the equality possessed by every human being as a unique, worthy, rational, self-determining creature, and having the capacity to decide what is best for him. Respect for persons is best practiced in the principle of free and informed consent.
Non-maleficence is the non-infliction of evil, harm, or injury to others and, of course, to one’s self.
Beneficenceis the practice of doing acts of goodness, kindness, and charity.
Justice is the act of giving one what she deserves or what is due to her. For example, X has a right to his due. Hence, Y has the obligation not to deprive X of his due.
Autonomyis the right of every person to have control over their lives and decisions regarding their care. This principle has become the basis of informed consent which has become a core concept in modern medical practice.
Personhood and Bioethics
As a healthcare professional, one must care for human persons in a scientific way. But for one to be able to practicably do this, one must understand the meaning of personhood.
In essence, every human person has an inner worth and inherent dignity. Every person possesses these characteristics not because of what she has or does but because of what she is: a human person. As a human person, she must, therefore, be respected regardless of the nature of her health problem, social status, competence, a past action, and the like. For this reason, decisions about health must aim at the maximum integrated satisfaction of one’s needs biologically, psychologically, socially, and spiritually.
The Calling of the Healthcare Profession
The healthcare profession is a special calling, a service characterized by a trusting and caring relationship that cannot be measured in monetary terms. Thus, in bioethics, providing healthcare is not a career, like accountancy or engineering, but a vocation more like a healing ministry. For this reason, the relationship between a healthcare provider and a patient is not a contract likened to a seller and a buyer of goods. It is, therefore, a covenant – a trusted caring service between a healthcare giver who offers help and a dependent patient who needs and receives it. The patient trusts that the healthcare provider will be his advocate and will always have the patient’s best interest as his first priority. Furthermore, this trust is characterized by mutual honesty, openness, and understanding, and information that is freely given and exchanged.
The healthcare profession, therefore, is a caring relationship wherein the healthcare provider and the receiver have a sense of oneness, fulfillment, and growth, assisting each other’s importance, uniqueness, complexity, feelings, and needs. Each one helps the other find a voice and be heard so that both may be enriched.
The Patient
As the principle of stewardship suggests, every person has the obligation to care for her own health. Thus, she has the right to seek and receive healthcare. It must be noted, however, that a sick individual becomes a patient only if:
1) she admits that she is sick,
2) she can no longer take care of herself, and
3) so, she asks for help.
Because she is sick and unable to heal herself, a patient is vulnerable. Also, she is often unable to judge or choose the quality of healthcare she needs or receives. Hence, she must be protected against harm and exploitation.
As a patient in need of healthcare, she must be given the best possible care and taught to care for herself. Also, as a patient asking for healthcare she must accept responsibility for her care, cooperate with her healthcare giver by telling the truth and doing her best to follow instructions. She must also give respect, gratitude, and compensation to her healthcare provider.
In all these, the patient always remains a person with dignity and must be treated with respect. Her privacy and autonomy must not be violated.
The Healthcare Provider
When a person chooses to be a healthcare provider, she becomes one committed to healthcare, invested with authority but with corresponding responsibilities to her patients, her profession, and the society. She must, therefore, be a patient advocate, keep the patient’s best interest as her first priority, and be competent both in scientific and interpersonal skills. It is imperative that she appreciates the facts gathered from the history, physical examination and laboratory results as well as the patient’s values regarding what is acceptable to her and how she feels. She must guard against being arrogant and must recognize her limitations and ask for help when and if needed.
As an authority in her profession, she must contribute to knowledge, conduct herself in an ethical professional way and be worthy of being a role model to her younger colleagues. She must maintain and upgrade the standards of her profession.
She must also manifest a social conscience, stand for justice for the poor, make health care available at a reasonable cost, avoid the temptation to exploit or take advantage of the patient, and always care about human values. A good healthcare provider, therefore, needs to be competent in mind and hand, and compassionate in heart, that is, one needs the triumvirate of knowledge, skills, and interpersonal relations.
In these notes, I will discuss the meaning of ethics and its application to research. The notes include discussions on some major ethical principles that guide the conduct of research.
Ethics in research is important as it provides researchers with ethical principles or guidelines for the successful conduct of research. But firs, what is ethics?
Broadly defined, ethics is the morality of a human act. By morality, we mean the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a human act.
Practically speaking, ethics is concerned with what is good for the people and the society as a whole. Thus, ethics really matters because it urges us to do good to others and take responsibility of what we do. As a branch of philosophy that concerns itself with questions of how people ought to act, ethics, therefore, provides rules that govern the society as a whole. This explains why behaving ethically means doing the right thing at the right time.
In research, ethics provides guidelines for the responsible conduct of research. Moreover, ethics allows researchers and scholars to further educate themselves and monitor their activities in the conduct of research so as to ensure a high ethical standard.
It must be noted that aside from the fact that researchers must ensure that research subjects or participants are not placed in harm’s way, they need to be reminded that they have the moral obligation to provide maximum benefits to the participants. This means that researchers need not think only of their own interest why they conduct the research. It is for this reason that researchers must be guided by ethical principles in the conduct of the research to maintain research integrity and avoid research misconduct.
As we can see, there are acceptable and unacceptable conduct of research, especially when humans and animals are involved. Needless to say, research misconduct can lead to dire consequences if ignored. Just consider, for example, the famous Nazi human experimentation. As is well known, the Nazi human experimentation was a series of medical experiments on a large number of concentration camp prisoners, including children, conducted by Nazi Germany.
As is well known, during the Nazi regime in Germany, Nazi medical doctors forced concentration camp prisoners to participate in the experiment. In fact, the prisoners did not willingly volunteer to participate in the experiment and no consent was given for the procedures. As records show, the experiments had resulted in trauma, disfigurement, permanent disability, and death.
Some of the famous experiments that the Nazi medical doctors conducted on the prisoners include sterilization and fertilization experiments, head injury experiments, mustard gas experiments, freezing experiments, malaria experiments, experiments on twins, and bones, muscles and nerve transplantation experiments.
Ethics in Research: Some Ethical Principles that Guide Research
Honesty. Researchers ought to honestly report data and results of the study, including the methods and procedures employed in data-gathering as well as publication status. Thus, researchers should not falsify, fabricate, and misrepresent data and results.
Objectivity. Researchers should uphold objectivity and scientific rigor at all times. Thus, researchers should strive avoid all forms of bias in research, such as bias in experimental design, data analysis and interpretation, peer-review process, grant writing, and other facets of research.
Confidentiality. Researchers should always uphold the principle of confidentiality. One way of effectively doing this is to protect confidential communications, such as papers or grant submitted for publications, patient records, and the like.
Competence. Researchers are supposed to be knowledgeable and experts in their own discipline or field of specialization. In short, researchers should be competent scholars. Thus, they ought to maintain and improve their professional competence and expertise through life-long education and learning. More importantly, they ought to take steps to promote competence in science.
Integrity. Researchers ought to keep their promises and honor agreements, such as agreements with donors and research participants. Thus, researches need to strive for consistency in thought and action.
Legality. Research always has a legal dimension. Thus, researchers ought to obey laws and relevant institutional and governmental policies.
Maturity and Openness. Knowledge is supposed to be free. Hence, researchers must willingly share data, results, ideas, and resources. They must also be open to constructive criticisms and new ideas.
Respect for Intellectual Property. Researchers ought to honor copyrights, patents, and other forms of intellectual property. Thus, they should not use methods, data, and results own by other researchers or scholars without permission or proper acknowledgment. More importantly, researchers should avoid plagiarism at all times.
Responsible Publication. Researchers need to publish in order to advance knowledge and scholarships and not just to advance one’s own career. They also need to avoid wasteful publication, such as publishing in predatory journals, and duplicative publication.
Non-Discrimination. Researchers ought to avoid all forms of discrimination against colleagues and students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, and other factors that are related to their scientific competence and integrity. For this reason, researchers ought to respect their colleagues and treat them fairly. Senior researchers also need to help educate, mentor, and advise students. Senior researchers, therefore, have to promote the welfare of their students and allow them to make their own decisions.
Human Subjects Protection. Researchers should respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy at all times. When conducting research on human subjects, researchers should take precautionary measures to minimize, if not completely avoid, harms and risks. They also need to maximize the benefits that participants may get from the results of the study. For instance, if a researcher discovers a cure for a particular disease through her research on indigenous plants, a reasonable part of the patent should go to the indigenous community or communities where the plants are located.
Animal Care. In recent years, we have what we call “animal rights” thanks to the efforts of animal rights advocates. For this reason, researchers should respect animal rights at all times. As a result, they ought to show utmost care for animals when using them in research. Researchers, therefore, should not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.
Social Responsibility. As already emphasized above, researchers should conduct research not only for the advancement of their career but for the good of society as a whole. Thus, researchers should strive to promote social good and mitigate social harms.
As is well known, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to attain Nirvana, a Sanskrit word for enlightenment. According to the Buddha, this can be attained through the process of cultivating oneself, which involves the Eight-fold Path (Wallace, 2003). Each stage of the Eight-fold Path that a person has to undergo is founded on moral virtue. Thus, Buddhist ethics is crucial to the attainment of enlightenment as it serves as the underlying principle of the Eight-fold Path. These notes explore very briefly the important role that Buddhist ethics played within Buddhism’s Eight-fold Path. It begins with a discussion on the meaning of Buddhist ethics and the common ethical principles articulated by the Buddha. It then proceeds with a discussion on the stages of the Eight-fold Path and sketches the developmental process involved in each stage. Finally, these notes briefly present the important role that Buddhist ethics played in the Eight-fold Path.
What is Buddhist Ethics?
From the perspective of Western philosophy, the morality of human actions can be determined through the satisfaction of a given set of man-made rules and standards. In the case of Utilitarian ethics, for example, an act is considered morally right if it produces the greatest happiness for a great number of people in society; if it produces more harm than happiness, then an act is considered morally wrong (Smart & Williams, 1973; Albert, Denise & Peterfreund, 1984). In Kantian ethics, an act is considered morally right if the maxim of an act can become a universal law (Lindsay, 1934; Ross, 1954; Beck, 1960). In other words, for Kant, an act is right if everybody agrees with the principle upon which the action is based.
As we can see, the Western model of ethics is founded on arbitrary rules and standards that humans invented for their own utilitarian purpose. For example, abortion is morally wrong in many countries but is right in other countries. In this way, the morality of abortion is entirely a matter of social custom that is useful and acceptable to a particular social context. Buddhist ethics, on the contrary, is not based on man-made rules and standard but rather on permanent laws of nature (Harvey, 2000). Thus, Buddhist ethical values are rooted in nature and the unchanging law of cause and effect. For this reason, the ethical imperatives in Buddhism should not be construed as rules for people to follow, but as guidelines for attaining enlightenment (Harvey, 1990). This is why the Buddha did not prescribe any strict rules by which people are compelled to obey. On the contrary, the Buddha is seen to be helping people understand the nature of existence and at the same time guiding them on how to act ethically for their own happiness and for the benefit of others (Harvey, 1990). The Buddha articulated these guidelines through the five precepts.
The first precept involves the intention of not killing living beings. This does not mean, however, that we are not allowed to kill dangerous insects or slaughter some animals for consumption. What the Buddha wants to convey here is that we need to develop compassion for all living beings, most especially human beings. The second precept is to abstain from stealing. Of course, stealing means not depriving others of what is rightfully theirs. But the Buddha goes beyond the ordinary understanding of the term. Hence, in the second precept, the Buddha wants us to develop a sense of justice and fairness.
The third precept is abstention from sexual misconduct. A caveat must be borne in mind though that the term “sexual” here does not necessarily refer to sexual intercourse but the entirety of the senses. Thus, when we say sexual satisfaction in this context, we mean sensual satisfaction or the satisfaction of the senses. The satisfaction that one gets from eating could then be a concrete example of sexual satisfaction. What this precept suggests is that we should not live in excess, such excessive eating. The fourth precept is to abstain from lying. Here, the Buddha encourages us to be truthful all the time and be kind and gentle when dealing with our fellowmen. This precept also calls us to refrain from speaking falsely and gossiping maliciously. Finally, the fifth precept encourages us to abstain from intoxicants, such as alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs. The reason for this is obvious. Because in Buddhism meditation is one of the keys to attaining enlightenment, it is but proper to avoid these intoxicants as they only hamstring the development of rational thinking and self-consciousness needed for mindfulness.
With these precepts, understood as the practical expression of Buddhist ethics, we can now determine what makes morally right and morally wrong in Buddhism. All actions that spring from selfishness, hatred, greed, and ignorance are considered morally wrong, while those that spring from love, kindness, generosity, and wisdom are considered morally right. However, it is important to take note that Buddhist ethics does not speak of right and wrong as these words tend to condemn; rather, it speaks of being ‘skillful’ (kusala) and ‘unskillful’ (akusala) for right and wrong respectively (Harvey, 2000). Indeed, this shows that Buddhist ethics is concerned with practices that tend to help rather than harm the self and other.
Buddhist Ethics and the Eight-fold Path
The Eightfold Path is crucial to Buddhism as it provides the concrete path toward the attainment of enlightenment. As the name suggests, it consists of eight stages of increasing spiritual insights, namely, Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. Normally, these are categorized into three, with the first two tend toward the cultivation of wisdom, the next three toward ethical conduct, and the last three toward the development of the mind (Wallace, 2003).
Right View means seeing the world as it is in itself. This is a significant step because understanding the world as it is in itself allows us to know what really life is, which in Buddhism is characterized by suffering, absurdities, and meaninglessness. And for the Buddha, Right View implies the acceptance of life no matter how absurd and meaningless it may have appeared to us. If Right View allows us to affirm life, Right Intention enables us to decide to go on with life despite the difficulties it harbors. Thus, Right Intention encourages us to have a positive attitude in life.
The Buddha viewed Right Speech as an act of abstaining from thoughtless words that cause harm to others, such as lying and malicious gossip. Here, the Buddha wants us to speak with honesty, mindfulness, and loving kindness. Right Action means behaving in such a way that we do not harm any living being. Right Livelihood follows directly from Right Action in the sense that, according to the Buddha, we ought to make a living in a just and peaceful way. For this reason, the Buddha calls us to refrain from having livelihoods that cause harm and destruction to our community, such as dealing with weapons.
Right Effort has something to do with the development of wholesome qualities, such as love, kindness, wisdom, and generosity, as well as the release of unwholesome qualities, such as hatred, anger, and ignorance. Right Mindfulness is the complete awareness of the moment. For the Buddha, Right Mindfulness is to remain focused on things that we desire without becoming attached to them. And lastly, Right Concentration involves the turning of the mind to focus on an object that we desire. This implies the seclusion of the mind from sensual and unskillful qualities.
Each stage in the Eightfold Path supports the next stage, that is, in the process of attaining enlightenment, the cultivation of one stage necessarily leads to the cultivation of the next, and so on. Thus, all the paths interact and support each other in the process of realizing the ultimate goal. Now, it must be emphasized that all of this is made possible through the work of morality as the foundation of the Eightfold Path. This is because in Buddhism, the cultivation of what is wholesome depends entirely on the abstention from committing evil deeds and reprehensible actions. In fact, the Buddhist scriptures reveal that a person cannot proceed to meditation without first of all acquiring moral virtues that can restrain the external expression of defilement, such as greed, hatred, and ignorance (Almond, 2006; Der-lan Yeh, 2006).
Conclusion
The above discussion shows that unlike the Western model of ethics which is founded on arbitrary rules and standards that humans invented for their own utilitarian purpose, Buddhist ethics is rooted in nature and the unchanging law of cause an effect. Thus, the ethical imperatives in Buddhism are not to be construed as rules for people to obey but as guidelines for the attainment of enlightenment. The discussion also shows that the five precepts in Buddhism serve as the basis for determining the rightness or wrongness of a human act. Lastly, given the brief engagement with the meaning of Buddhist ethics and the Eightfold Path, these notes conclude that it is impossible for any person to attain enlightenment without the aid of morality.
Deontological ethics is closely associated with Immanuel Kant’s model of ethical theory. It argues that the morality, that is, the rightness or wrongness, of a human act depends on whether such act fulfills a duty or not, rather than on its consequence. Hence, deontological ethics is duty-based. As a matter of fact, deontology comes from the Greek word deon, which means duty.
One of the basic ideas in deontological ethics is that some actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences. For example, people have the obligation to tell the truth even if doing so might produce some unfavorable results. In other words, as Kant would have us believe, telling the truth is always “right” in itself even if, again, doing so might produce some unfavorable results. Hence, telling a lie, on the contrary, is always wrong for deontological ethics.
For instance, a physician has just discovered that her patient is having a stage 4 breast cancer. However, the physician cannot divulge the truth to her patient right away because the latter is having a cardiac condition as well.
If we are to consider the consequences of the act of telling the truth to the patient, the latter may have a sudden cardiac arrest and eventually dies. From the consequentialist’s point of view, therefore, it is better to tell a lie to the patient and instead divulge the truth to the significant others to avoid sudden death on the part of the patient. But from the point of view of deontological ethics, telling the patient about her real condition is the right thing to do even if doing so might result in a cardiac arrest.
In deontological ethics, therefore, before we make moral decisions, we have to consider first which actions are right and wrong and proceed from there. If an action is right in itself, then we have the duty or the moral obligation to act on it. If an action is wrong in itself, then we are under a moral obligation to act accordingly.
Consequentialism is an ethical doctrine which holds the belief that the morality, that is, the rightness or wrongness, of a human act depends on its consequence. The most famous type of consequentialism is utilitarianism. As is well known, in utilitarianism, the basis of the morality of human acts are the consequent benefits that the act brings to many people concerned. In fact, for the utilitarian, an act is morally right if it produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, and morally wrong if it produces more pain than happiness to the greatest number of people concerned.
Because in consequentialism the morality of a human act is judged based on its consequence, this type of ethics, therefore, is non-prescriptive. Hence, if a deontologist says “We should not lie because it is always morally wrong to lie”, a consequentialist says “It is morally right to lie if doing so would produce a good outcome or consequence”. One good example would be a physician lying outrightly to a patient with stage 4 lung cancer who is also having a cardiac condition. Obviously, for the consequentialist, if the physician would outrightly tell the patient with a cardiac condition about her real medical condition, then it may hasten the death of the patient.
Other famous types of consequentialism are ethical egoism and ethical altruism. On the one hand, ethical egoism puts more emphasis on the idea that one ought to act in such a way that it maximizes or serves one’s self-interest. On the other hand, ethical altruism mandates that we ought to take actions that have maximum benefits for everyone except for oneself.
As we can see, consequentialism is one of the types of ethical doctrine that supports the idea that it is the end that justifies the means. As a matter of fact, consequentialism permits that the end justifies the means even if the means used is problematic.
Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Belle’s Residences is your perfect tropical escape. Residence 1 offers the ideal blend of comfort, convenience, and affordability, making it the perfect base for your island adventure.
The Human Person as the Foundation of Kantian Ethics
It is important to note at the outset that we cannot fully make sense of Kantian ethics without first understanding Kant’s concept of the human person. This is because the concept of the human person is the foundation of Kantian ethics. In fact, for Kant, the human person as a rational moral agent is the sole basis in determining the truth of the categorical imperative. Indeed, behind the formal ethical façade of Kant’s categorical imperative is the attempt of the human person to achieve moral perfection. Hence, we can surmise that the ultimate goal of Kant’s moral teachings is for the human person to become morally perfect. It is for this reason that we need to discuss first the anthropological basis of Kant’s categorical imperative before we delve into its specificity. And so, how does Kant view the human person?
According to Kant, the human person has a two-fold nature, namely:
1) homo noumenon and
2) homo phenomenon (Tucker, 1972).
On the one hand, the term noumenon, which is derived from Kant’s epistemology, refers to the essence of things. For Kant, the nounmenon is the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) (Copleston, 1963). According to Kant, the noumenon cannot be known because, as the essence of things, it is beyond experience. For example, as Kant would have us believe, we cannot know the “tableness” of the table, or that which makes a table really “a table”.
On the other hand, the term phenomenon, according to Kant, refers to the thing as it appears to the observer (Copleston, 1963). In other words, the phenomenon is the empirical part of a thing. It is indeed that part of a thing that can be experienced by humans. The hardness, texture, color, and shape of a table are all that we can know about the table. For Kant, they are the phenomenal aspect of the table. Thus, for Kant, everything that exists has two natures, namely: 1) the non-empirical part (noumenon or essence) and 2) the empirical part (phenomenon).
Applied to humans, homo noumenon is the godlike self of the human person, while homo phenomenon is the merely human self (Tucker 1972, p. 24). Now, Kant believes that the human person as a noumenon is the idealized person who is destined to be perfect since she has in herself the godlike nature as belonging to the world of understanding.
Logically then, we can infer that the noumenal self for Kant is the human person’s real self. It is indeed the true self. Since we have this godlike self, Kant believes that it is our duty to attain perfection by actualizing this godlike noumenal self. And according to Kant, we can attain perfection or we can actualize our godlike self by developing ourselves into moral persons, which can be done by obeying the command of the categorical imperative. But how does the human person actualize herself if she cannot know her noumenal self? The phenomenal self can provide us the key.
Since the human person cannot know her noumenal self, then she must take into account the fact that part of her self belongs to the phenomenal world, that she has a phenomenal self. In this way, she can have an idea of her phenomenal self. This is possible because the phenomenal self, according to Kant, is the empirical representation of the noumenal self. The phenomenal self, therefore, serves as the springboard for the actualization of the noumenal self.
Because the phenomenal self always appeals to “desires”, which, according to Kant, is the source of errors, the phenomenal self must be guided by a moral principle based on reason. Thus, the human person as a rational being must consider herself as belonging to the intelligible world if she hopes to attain perfection. This is where the categorical imperative comes in. As Tucker (1972, p. 35) argues, the noumenal self tries to actualize its godlike nature as the real self by obeying the dictate of reason through the categorical imperative.
Kant’s Notion of Morality
The foregoing discussion implies that the phenomenal self has to grapple with desires and take heed of reason to actualize her godlike nature. However, more often than not, the phenomenal self violates the dictate of reason and succumb to her desires or inclinations. Thus, the desire of the noumenal self to attain moral perfection is impeded.
To shed light on this matter, let us consider as an example the act of cheating in school. Unfortunately, cheating in academic institutions has become very rampant. In fact, a recent study indicates that nine out of ten college students commit at least one act of dishonesty (in the form of cheating) in a given academic year (Quintos, 2017). And, as we may already know, cheating, for whatever purpose, is unreasonable and morally unacceptable. But because of the desire to pass an entrance examination and be accepted in the college of choice, or the desire to keep the financial aid from scholarships, or the desire to graduate, students resort to cheating on examinations and on academic papers or projects.
Students who cheat may not immediately recognize that their actions are morally wrong because they are blinded by their justifications. They fail to take into consideration the far-reaching implications of giving-in to their desires. For example, they may not readily realize that cheating while in school could well be a predictor of dishonesty in the workplace. And so, when a medical student, for instance, cheats while in school just to finish the degree, it is very likely that she will be inclined to act dishonestly to patients and colleagues in the future (Desalegn & Berhan, 2014). Needless to say, dishonesty in the medical arena has serious consequences in the delivery of care to human life and negatively impacts social values.
The moment the human person yields to her desires that results in errors, she fails her duty to attain moral perfection. It is for this reason that Kant asserts that human actions must be guided by a moral principle rooted in reason. According to Kant, if the human person thinks rationally about how she should behave, then she will be able to immediately recognize what is morally right, and act accordingly. Thus, Kant formulated the categorical imperative to serve as a guide in determining whether an action is morally right or wrong. Indeed, Kant refers to the categorical imperative as the ultimate rational principle of morality.
To fully understand the specificity of the categorical imperative, as to why Kant formulated it the way he did, it will greatly help to dig deeper into his overarching concepts of morality. And so, what is Kant’s view of morality?
Morality, for Kant, is the strict obedience to the categorical imperative. Thus, for Kant, morality entails a commitment to the absolute command, that is, an obligation to the law as such. In this connection, Kant (1998) says, “Everyone must admit that law, if it is to hold morally (i.e., as a ground of obligation), must imply absolute necessity.”
By absolute necessity, Kant asserts that such law must be all-encompassing, devoid of any exceptions, and binding to all rational beings. This is because, logically speaking, anything that is deemed “necessary” always holds a constant truth across all possible circumstances.
In the aforementioned scenario, for instance, as the law, that is, the categorical imperative says “Do not cheat!” or “Do not lie!”, it stands as an absolute command that applies to every human person in all walks of life, regardless of the circumstances she may face or the justifications of her desires. And so, the act of cheating or lying is deemed morally wrong. Therefore, Kant believes that if and only when the human person acts in accordance with the absolute command that she can claim her actions to be morally right.
The a priori Principle as the Basis of Morality
Because morality requires absolute necessity and strict universality, as Kant posits, then it must be viewed in the light of pure philosophy (Babor, 1998). By pure philosophy, Kant argues that morality must not be based on experience, but on an a priori knowledge or principle. This means that the human person does not need to experience the circumstance in actuality to be able to decide the morality of her actions. Rather, morality must be conceived a priori, so as to make the command, that is, the categorical imperative, binding to all rational beings.
But what exactly is an a priori principle, and how does it differ from a posteriori one? Generally, the terms a priori and a posteriori are used to establish the basis of knowledge, that is, how something is known.
On the one hand, an a priori principle is based on knowledge or concept that can be known independent of experience. The statement “All bachelors are unmarried” is a common example of an a priori knowledge. We all recognize that this statement is true even without interviewing a bachelor. In the same way, we come to know the truth of mathematical propositions (Kitcher, 1980), such as two plus three is five, without the need to actually put together two things next to three other things. But it must be noted that although it does not need actual experience to gain knowledge a priori, it may arise in relation to experience. For example, our knowledge that “The whole is always greater than its parts” is an a priori knowledge, that is, before experience. This is because we don’t need to resort to experience before we can prove that, indeed, the whole is greater than its parts. Through mental processes alone we can say that the whole is greater than its parts. However, such knowledge, according to Kant, is always in relation to experience because we need to know (through experience) what a whole is or what a part is before we can say that the whole is greater than its parts. In fact, Kant (1998) says:
That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly arouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare, to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw materials of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it.
On the other hand, that which can only be known through human experience, according to Kant, is called a posteriori knowledge. Statements such as “The pain due to appendicitis is intolerable” or “The food is delicious” are examples of an a posteriori knowledge. As we can see, it requires one to actually experience appendicitis before she can say that the pain is unbearable or is due to appendicitis, just as one can only say that the food is delicious when she actually tastes it.
Now, for Kant, because an a posteriori principle is dependent on experience and its consequence, it cannot form the basis of morality. As is well known, human persons experience things in different ways. Hence, a posteriori knowledge may vary from one person to another, relative to their actual experiences. Therefore, if morality has to be binding to all rational beings without exceptions, then it must be based on something that holds a universal truth, that is, on an a priori principle.
The Concept of Practical Reason as the Foundation of Morality
Kant continues to assert that as morality is based on an a priori principle, this principle must be determined by reason. For the philosopher, human persons acting morally are tantamount to rational beings acting in accordance with reason. As the foundation of morality, it is necessary to conceive of such a reason in which its application leads to an absolute necessity and forms a universal law.
It is for this reason that we need to discuss and understand Kant’s two-dimensional view of reason. By two-dimensional, Kant is not saying that there are two kinds of reason. Rather, he draws a fine line of distinction between the two employments of reason: speculative (theoretical) and practical. Such distinction is not based on the nature of reason per se, but on their application or manifestation. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant (1998) writes:
Now if reason is to be a factor in these sciences, something in them must be known a priori, and this knowledge may be related to its object in one or other of two ways, either as merely determining it and its concept (which must be supplied from elsewhere) or as also making it actual. The former is theoretical, the latter practical knowledge of reason.
Obviously, from this passage, Kant distinguishes the speculative or theoretical employment of reason as the determination of “what exists” or knowing “what is [was da ist]” from practical employment of reason as the determination of “what ought to exist” or “what ought to be [was da sein soll]” (Engstrom, 2002).
According to Kant, speculative reason makes it possible for rational beings to attain knowledge about an object; hence, its outcome is cognition. It is concerned with the objects of the cognitive faculty, which are capable of being sensed. Thus, speculative reason manifests in the process of thinking, making inferences, or drawing conclusions based on the senses (Wells, 2006). In fact, the whole process of employing speculative reason begins with sensation. From there, it proceeds to understanding, and ends with reason.
Kant believes that the ultimate end of reason is for the human person to attain full understanding of the totality of the natural world. Thus, the human person tries to cognize the “what is” behind everything, and establishes the interconnectedness of all cognitions as she attempts to understand the totality of the way things are. However, a complete understanding of the world cannot be achieved by the employment of speculative reason alone. This is because there are higher levels of concepts that the human person has no determinate knowledge of, such as the concepts of God, immortality, and freedom (Kleingeld, 1998). From this contention, it can be understood why Kant (1998) says in his Critique of Pure Reason that although all our knowledge begins with the senses and ends with speculative reason, beyond that, “nothing higher can be discovered in the human mind for elaborating the matter of intuition and subjecting it to the highest unity of thought.”
Thus, according to Ulrich (2009), Kant deemed it necessary to “deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith”. By this statement, Kant believes that the human person has to deny the reach of speculative reason beyond the limits of senses and experience, and make room for another employment of reason that is not concerned with the determination of an object from senses, but with the production of an object corresponding to ideas. In this sense, Kant does not merely make room for faith but for the employment of practical reason.
According to Kant, the process of practical reason begins with principle (i.e. of reason), proceeds then to understanding, and finally to the senses. Hence, practical reason manifests in the human person’s acceptance of certain concepts as principles that ought to exist, and act in accordance with them. With practical reason, therefore, human persons can and need to think and act rationally as if they could know the totality of the world and as if free action were possible. In other words, practical reason deals with the grounds in determining the will of the human person to think and act with regard to the world (Grisez, 1958), even when she cannot have determinate knowledge of them, such as the concepts of God, immortality, and freedom.
From this distinction, it can be inferred that reason in speculative use cannot be universal because it only deals with cognition, which is relative to one’s experience only. Thus, nothing can be ascribed as the foundation of morality but practical reason. According to Kant, only reason in its practical use leads to an absolute necessity and universal law of actions of rational beings. This is because, for Kant, all rational beings share the same practical reason, and apply general principles to particular actions. This means that practical reason does not vary from the perspectives of a woman or a man, or a white man and a black man, or a poor man and rich man. This goes to say that if practical reason dictates that one person should act in a certain manner in a particular situation, then any person, when confronted with the same particular situation, should act equally in the same manner.
Indeed, practical reason serves as the guiding principle of moral actions. It compels human persons, as rational beings, to engage in moral reasoning in determining the right actions. Thus, for Kant, human persons are deemed as acting morally only when they act rationally based on practical reason.
Good Will
Mary and Grace are twins who are very passionate towards poor people. One day, they saw two beggars on the street. With an intention to help, Mary and Grace gave money to each beggar. Shortly after, both beggars headed to the store. The one who received money from Mary bought bread and devoured it. However, the beggar who received money from Grace bought a pack of cigarette. In this scenario, do you think Grace failed her moral duty because instead of helping the beggar not to starve, she became an instrument for him to be able to smoke, which can be detrimental to his health?
In Kant’s view, the morality of an action should not be determined by its outcome. This is because consequences of actions cannot hold a universal truth. For one, human persons do not have full control over the outcome of their actions. It is inevitable that, at times, even when the human person acts rationally in accordance with practical reason, she does not achieve the intended outcome due to some uncontrollable circumstances. Indeed, even when Grace’s act of giving is intended to help the beggar not to starve, how the beggar spent the money was beyond her control. Thus, the morality of Grace’s action should not be assessed based on its outcome.
Moreover, if the morality of an action is to be based on its intended outcome or consequence, then morality becomes conditional. In other words, the goodness of a thing or act is conditioned on one’s intended end. Hence, because human persons are motivated by different ends, they may find an action as “good” or “bad” relative to their ends. In this way, an act may be viewed as “good” as a means to one end, and “bad” as a means to some other end. Applied to the sample scenario, Grace’s act of giving may be “good” for the beggar whose end was the gratification of his urge to smoke. However, from the vantage point of a health-conscious person, for instance, Grace’s act of giving may be “bad” because that became an instrument for the beggar to smoke, which could cause damage to his health.
Obviously, the Kantian ethics is in stark opposition to the moral theories of consequentialists who conditioned the morality of an action on its end or outcome. This is because Kant’s morality, as governed by practical reason, is grounded in something that is unconditionally good, that is, good without any qualification.
It is important to understand that when Kant speaks of “good”, he does not merely refer to anything that the human person can think of as good. As is well known, there are many things that may appear as good, but are not truly intrinsically good. For example, talents of the mind, such as intelligence, wit, judgment, or the qualities of temperament, such as courage, resolution, perseverance, are undoubtedly good in many respects, but these too can be precursors of evil acts. On the one hand, a student may use her intellect in studying hard to attain good grades. But ironically, such intellect can be used in planning strategies on how she can cheat during examinations, and still have good grades. Even happiness for Kant is not good at all if that happiness is not deserved. And so, if a woman is happy because she succeeded in luring a married man, then, it is not good for that woman to be happy.
Kant’s point here is that, if something is good without qualification, that something is not merely good as means to one end and bad in another. Rather, it is absolutely good in-itself and universally good in every instance. In the opening remarks of the Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals, Kant says: “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification except a good will.”
Simply put, for Kant, the only thing that is unconditionally good is a good will. Now, because Kant’s morality is based on something good without qualification, that is, good will, then the moral worth of an action is determined only by the motive or the will that is behind that action. As already known, all those things or actions that people think of as good can become extremely worse if the will to make use of them is bad. Therefore, if actions are to be good, the will of doing such must be good. As of Mary and Grace’s act of giving, when interpreted in the light of Kantian ethics, both must be considered on equal moral ground in terms of their will to help, a good will, regardless of the outcome of their actions.
The Concept of Duty as the Motive behind Moral Actions
In the previous section, it is made clear that, for Kant, an action has moral worth only when the human person is acting out of a good will. But when can the human person claim that she definitely possesses a good will that governs her moral actions?
According to Kant, the human person is said to be acting out of good will only when the sole impetus of her action is that of moral obligation or moral duty (Beauchamp & Walters, 1999). Hence, for Kant, duty is the motive behind a moral act. It follows, therefore, that an action is said to have moral worth when the human person performs such action only because she recognizes through practical reason that it is morally the right action to do in a given situation, and as a rational and moral being, she regarded herself as having a moral obligation or moral duty to do such right action. In other words, the moral worth of an action is possible only when the human person acts for the sake of duty, and not just because of the potential good results that she may get out of her actions. It is for this reason that Kantian ethics is often called deontological, that is, duty-based ethics.
Now, in the discussion on duty, it is important to understand the difference between acting for the sake of duty and acting in accordance with duty. The former gives an action its moral worth, while the latter does not.
On the one hand, acting for the sake of duty means acting for the sake of the law, that is, with absolute respect to the moral law, which dictates what a rational being ought to do. And so, if someone asks why Mary and Grace helped the beggars when their action is not giving them any gain, the twins can respond that they did it because the moral law prescribes helping the poor; hence, it is their duty to help.
On the other hand, acting in accordance with duty means acting simply to conform to the law. When the human person acts simply to conform to the law, the motive of her actions may be influenced by certain inclination or desire for an expected outcome or emotional feelings. And so, if Mary and Grace’s action was only in accordance with duty, they might have helped the beggars primarily because they want to appear us kind-hearted human persons.
To fully understand this distinction, let us take into consideration Kant’s famous example, which states, “To preserve one’s life is a duty, and besides, everyone has also a direct inclination to do so.” Let us use this statement in interpreting the moral worth of the act of preserving the life of a fetus, for instance. If the human person preserves the life of the fetus because she recognizes that it is what the moral law dictates, and understands that it is her duty to do so, then she is acting for the sake of duty. In this sense, her action of preserving the life of the fetus has a moral worth because it is guided by the moral law. However, if the human person acts in accordance with duty, her action of preserving the life of the fetus is simply to obey the moral law and appear as a responsible parent or avoid the possible legal implication and the associated stigma in the event that she resorts to abortion. In this way, the human person’s act of preserving the life of the fetus does not have moral worth because she only acts out of inclination to do so.
But Kant is not saying that an action done in accordance with duty is wrong because it still conforms to the law. It simply has no moral worth because it is motivated by inclinations. For Kant, an action can only have a moral worth when it is performed out of something good without qualification, that is, out of a good will, which is then manifested in doing actions for the sake of duty. Hence, the motive of any moral action must be duty, not desires.
Kant’s Moral Law: The Categorical Imperative
We must recall that Kant believes that the human person possesses a noumenal self that is godlike in nature. As such, the human person has a duty to actualize her godlike self by becoming morally perfect. However, because the human person also has a sensuous phenomenal self that is susceptible to desires or inclinations, the human person has to recognize her obligation or duty to resist these inclinations for her to fully attain moral perfection. It is for this reason that Kant conceived of a moral law that should prevail over the inclinations of the sensuous self, and guide the human person in achieving moral perfection (Ross, 2009).
It is important to understand, however, that Kant’s conception of the moral law does not follow the concept of the Scholastics, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas, who believe that the moral law is derived from the Natural law, which originates from God’s Eternal Law (Grisez, 1958). In contradistinction to this concept, Kant believes that the source of the moral law is not God, but the human person himself.
Now, because the human person is a rational being, the source of Kant’s moral law, therefore, is nothing but practical reason. Kant formulates the moral law based on the principles of practical reasoning that apply to all rational human persons, irrespective of their desires or inclinations. This means that the human person should do what is right as prescribed by reason, which all rational beings are bound to accept. Thus, it can be concluded that Kant attaches the criteria of absolute necessity and strict universality to the moral law.
From the fact that it is absolutely binding and does not accept any exceptions (hence, categorical) and, at the same time, directs how human persons ought to act (hence, imperative), Kant calls this moral law the “Categorical Imperative” (Beauchamp & Walters, 1999). And because it is an absolute law, for Kant, there is only one absolute statement of the categorical imperative. However, Kant argues further that the categorical imperative can be formulated in another way to make the moral law more understandable. In this connection, let us briefly discuss two of Kant’s official formulations of the categorical imperative.
Kant’s first and fundamental formulation of the categorical imperative is based on the principle of universality. It states: “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 1952).
A maxim, according to Kant, is the principle on which the moral agent acts, or simply put, the principle of actions. In the first formulation, Kant is saying that after the human person determines a principle of action or maxim, she must ask herself whether it is possible for everyone to act in accordance with that maxim. If it is possible for everyone to act according to that maxim, then it is morally acceptable. Otherwise, it is morally unacceptable. Let us consider the maxim of lying to save a relationship. Obviously, such maxim may be acceptable only to the person who lies, and not everyone can consider the act of lying as acceptable. For this reason, the act of lying is never morally acceptable because it fails to satisfy the principle of universality.
The second formulation can be stated as follows: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another never as a means but always as an end.” This formulation of the categorical imperative is based on the principle of humanity. This simply means that the categorical imperative dictates that rational beings must treat each other as ends in themselves, and never as a means to some further end. This is because if we use another rational being merely as a means to a further end, then we have reduced that rational being into a thing. In the same example, that is, lying to save a relationship, it is clear that it involves manipulating the other person, which makes her less of a rational human being. In this sense, we can say that it violates the principle of humanity. For this reason, according to Kant, lying is not morally acceptable even if it is intended to save a relationship.
Lastly, Kant is convinced that the employment of the categorical imperative as a guide to moral actions would ultimately lead to the actualization of a morally perfect community, which he calls as a “Kingdom of Ends” (McCloskey, 1976). Kant envisions this community as one where rational beings are acting with reverence to the moral law, and regard human persons as ends in themselves. In this way, human persons are existing in perfect harmony as they respect the humanity of all its members.
Kant on the Theory of Right: A Brief Sketch
While Kant conceived the moral law, that is, the categorical imperative as an absolute commandment that is binding to all human persons, he insists that this bindingness is self-imposed. This means that the human person autonomously prescribes the moral laws for herself that govern her actions. In other words, although the categorical imperative is a universal law, the human person has the freedom to choose whether or not to obey that moral law of action.
Suffice it to say, the idea of freedom or free will is derived from the notion that the human person is a rational being who possesses the faculty of practical reasoning. As discussed in the previous section, practical reason is the governor of the will. Thus, as a rational being who exercises practical reasoning, the human person can freely choose which laws to adopt and impose in her life. And this exercise is what Kant calls as rational autonomy. Consequently, because the human person aims at attaining moral perfection, by virtue of rational autonomy, it can be surmised that she freely wills to obey the dictates of the categorical imperative any time she is put in a situation wherein the choices of actions need careful deliberation. The idea of free will here leads us to the conception of right.
Now, for Kant, right (Recht), that is, a moral claim to be recognized by others as “a right-bearing person”, is intrinsically related to morality. In fact, both can be expressed as the categorical imperative. Hence, from Kant’s categorical imperative, which is originally conceived as an ethical theory, we can draw a categorical imperative of right, which reads: “Every action which by itself or by its maxim enables the freedom of each to co-exist with the freedom of everyone else in accordance with a universal law is right” (Kant, as quoted in Beck 2006, p. 371-401).
As we can see, Kant outlines his theory of right in accordance with freedom. In fact, Kant equated freedom with right. In his The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant (1996, p. 30) writes: “Freedom (independence from being constrained by another’s choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law, is the only original right belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity”. What we can draw from this passage is that for Kant, innate freedom is our original birthright, that is, we have the right to freedom by virtue of our humanity. In other words, freedom is the sole original right. And with this conception of original right, Kant was able to formulate the concept of human rights, which now includes the right to life, the right to be independent, and the right to express one’s own thoughts and opinions (in short, freedom of expression). Indeed, Kant says that it is by virtue of our being rational and autonomous that we are entitled to fundamental human rights and other types of external rights.
It is important to note that Kant distinguishes two kinds of right, namely: natural right and acquired right. The idea of freedom as original right belongs to the first. Kant calls this as internal right. But for Kant, the conception of freedom as original right opens the way for acquired right. Kant calls this external right. The examples of human rights mentioned above belong to this kind of right. At the end of it all, with this two conceptions of right, and gain, by virtue of our being rational and autonomous, we possess the fundamental right to have rights.
In this notes, I will discuss very briefly the meaning of virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics is a branch of ethics that emphasizes the character of the moral agent, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. Virtue ethics is concerned with the cultivation of virtues or traits of character that promote human flourishing and the common good.
The roots of virtue ethics can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, particularly to the works of Plato and Aristotle. For these philosophers, virtue was seen as a state of character that enabled an individual to lead a good life and achieve happiness. Virtue was not simply a matter of obeying rules or achieving particular outcomes, but rather involved the development of a well-rounded character that could respond appropriately to a variety of situations.
In virtue ethics, the focus is on what sort of person one should be, rather than on what actions one should take. Virtues are those traits of character that enable individuals to act in accordance with their moral duties and to achieve the good life. Examples of virtues include honesty, courage, compassion, humility, and justice.
Virtue ethics also emphasizes the importance of moral education and the cultivation of virtues. This involves not only learning about moral principles, but also practicing virtues and developing the habits and dispositions that make them part of one’s character. In this way, virtue ethics is more concerned with the long-term development of moral character than with rules or principles that can be applied in specific situations.
One of the strengths of virtue ethics is that it offers a more holistic approach to ethics than other ethical theories. Virtue ethics takes into account the complexity and richness of human experience and recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to ethical problems. Virtue ethics allows for the fact that ethical judgments are often context-dependent and that moral agents must exercise practical wisdom and judgment in determining the appropriate course of action.
Another strength of virtue ethics is that it is well-suited to addressing some of the moral challenges of our time. For example, virtue ethics offers a useful framework for thinking about environmental ethics, as it emphasizes the importance of respect for nature and the development of a sense of environmental responsibility. Virtue ethics is also well-suited to addressing the moral challenges of business and economics, as it emphasizes the importance of honesty, fairness, and social responsibility.
However, virtue ethics also faces some challenges and criticisms. One of the criticisms of virtue ethics is that it can be vague and difficult to apply in specific situations. Because virtue ethics emphasizes the development of moral character, it is not always clear how to apply virtues in particular situations. Another criticism of virtue ethics is that it can be too individualistic and fails to take into account the social and political dimensions of morality. Virtue ethics does not offer a clear framework for addressing systemic issues of oppression and injustice.
In conclusion, virtue ethics is a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of developing virtuous character traits as the key to living a good life and promoting the common good. Virtue ethics offers a more holistic and nuanced approach to ethics than other ethical theories, but it also faces challenges in terms of specificity and social relevance. Nonetheless, virtue ethics (meaning of virtue ethics) offers a valuable framework for thinking about the moral challenges of our time and the development of moral character.
