The past century has seen the emergence of a movement of ethical universalism. That is, the belief that all moral values of humans should be based on a universal standard that transcends regional or religious boundaries. International agencies such as the United Nations have attempted pass these ideals into written laws and treaties, often with much contention. The points of interests, naturally, have been based on different value systems in different cultures. This idea of a universal ethic finds its origins, in part perhaps, from Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Kant's ideas of will and moral duty shape his Categorical Imperative - the fundamental underpinning of moral reasoning.Through the use of reason, Kant seeks to "establish the supreme principle of morality" (4: 392). Essentially he seeks to provide the blueprint of a universal ethic that all rational beings ought to live by. Applying Kant's ethic universally is a challenging notion that cannot fit into the current societal framework. That is not to say the universal ethic is restricted due to nationalistic or religious values. In fact, Kant establishes most of his ideas on how we should act and interpret any given moral law but does not provide a primer of universal laws.
His intent is not to create a doctrine of morality.The pressures, then, that the universal ethic faces are based upon the lack of a universal culture for it to attach to given the world's various fragmentations. Despite the beginnings of globalization from an economic standpoint, cultural and religious values remain diverse and provide a problem in attempting to apply the universal ethic. This paper begins by establishing Kant's universal ethics in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
It then seeks to establish the possibility of Kant's universal ethics in society and the challenges and desirability of such a goal in the context of ethical universalism.Kant begins Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals with his belief of the value of a good will. He feels that there is nothing in the world "that can be called good without qualification - except a good will" (4: 393). In other words, only a good will has unconditional moral value that is independent of circumstances or actions.
Regardless of how one uses good will, it cannot be used for immoral purposes. He then reasons the motivations of human action and finds three general categories. First: duty which is you perform the action based on the belief that it is the right thing to do; second: you enjoy doing the action and; third, you act based on some personal end it may serve. According to Kant, the only action that is has moral value is the first category of duty.Furthermore, it is not enough that one act upon personal ends which also happen to be the right action; the action must be wholly based upon duty. The example Kant presents is that of a merchant who charges all his customers equally and consistently.
However, the merchant does so to maintain his reputation and in turn, his business. His motivation is not that being fair to all his customers is the right thing to do (his duty). Therefore, despite the fact that the merchant acts fairly to all his customers, which coincides with the morally correct thing to do, it is not morally correct due to his motivations to meet some personal end. Duty does not necessarily mean doing the thing that pleases you the most or most satisfies a personal end. In summary, only those actions which are performed out of duty can have any moral worth.In section two of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant connects practical reasoning to moral law.
He starts by distinguishing between two types of imperatives. First, he discusses hypothetical imperatives which "declare a possible action to be practically necessary as a means to the attainment of something else that one wants" (4: 414). Hypothetical imperatives outline a goal and establish the necessary means to obtain some end. For example, one's goal is to lose weight.
The means to do so are exercise. Therefore, one ought to exercise to lose weight. However, Kant also later states that "the imperative that commands him who wills the end to will the means" (4: 419). In other words, one ought to use the means necessary to achieve the end or should give up the goal.The second type of imperative, categorical imperatives, are the fundamental principles of Kant's work. Moral law, for Kant, is constructed through practically reasoning via these imperatives.
Categorical imperatives are acts that are an end in themselves and not means to further some personal or independent end. These acts are morally good in themselves and ought to be performed; but not under the intent to promote happiness or personal desires. Kant frames categorical imperatives as principles which are moral laws and creates the Formula of Universal Law which states: "Act only on the maxim by which you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law" (4: 421).Kant suggests that though this categorical imperative and reasoning, one can test what one's duties are and what actions are morally permissible. One example Kant uses is a person who borrows money under the false pretence of paying it back. From this action, one must determine the maxim.
For example, in this case: I will borrow money when I am short knowing that I will not pay it back. Now the maxim is transformed into a universal law, as the Formula suggests, seeing if the action is morally sound. Clearly, a world where everyone borrowed money without returning it would eventually lead to a condition where money would no longer be loaned and trust in relationships would diminish. Finally, one needs to see where they stand in having their maxim a universal law. One would no longer be able to even borrow money, false pretences or not, if the maxim were universal law. Since this leads to a contradiction, the original action is morally forbidden.
The correct and morally permissible action in the case would be the opposite action. Essentially, the categorical imperative provides for a framework with which one can morally deliberate their actions.Kant states two more key categorical imperatives: the Humanity as an End Formulation and the Kingdom of Ends Formulation. With the Humanity as an End Formulation, Kant states "act in such a way that you humanity, whether in your own person or in any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means" (4: 429). By this, Kant means that humanity, both personally and generally should be treated as a special end in itself. One should not attempt to use others as a mean to pursue their own personal ends.
The Kingdom of Ends Formulation says that "a rational being must always regard himself as lawgiving in a kingdom of ends made possible through the freedom of the will - whether as a member or a head" (4: 434). Kant clarifies by calling it "the systematic union of different rational beings under common laws" (4: 433). The Kingdom is a tangible ideal of all rational beings coming together.In summary, there are three ideas that make up the moral good.
Firstly, act such that your actions, and in turn, maxims could be suitable as universal law; second: act so that all rational beings are treated well as ends in themselves and third: act with the idea of a whole society in mind with all maxims coming together to form a universal law. Kant feels that once one has accepted these unconditional values, they attain Autonomy of the Will. That is, they now transcend external forces in their lives and they are now free, at least ideally. In a sense, you are only truly free when you abide morally, but that is because you are not subject to your personal motives, inclinations and the natural world.
Kant's ethics are universal in a two key aspects. Firstly, for as flawed as the approach may be in some aspects, his a priori approach allows Kant some credibility in this issue. Essentially, a priori means without experience. Kant's reasoning is not based on empirical evidence.
It does not take into account cultural experience. Instead it is all formed through thought based constructs of logic. The shortcomings of this process are in that his arguments might need to be based in some empirical study to truly understand moral values. For example, Kant does not take into account cultural pressures and variables when dealing with his example of one who borrows money without the intent of paying it back. These cultural differences could change the categorical imperative test process. However, for the process of universality, Kant's approach works well in including all cultures and regions.
Secondly, Kant is not interested in formulating universal ethics. Kant does not offer a doctrine of universal law, based on reason, which rational beings should follow. He seeks to present a framework of morality that rational beings can use in determining universal law. Additionally, he states his case of why rational beings should follow this way of life, as it leads to the only true freedom possible.
Even the examples Kant proposes in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals are cut and dry ethical considerations of theft and suicide. Kant's ethics are egalitarian at worst in this regard. There is no exclusion based on wealth, caste or religion.There is little reason to assume that a set of universal ethics are undesirable in the world today. In the same vein of works like Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and the Enlightenment, the move to progress society in every facet is still maintained among many groups.
However, the reality of the world makes the feasibility of Kant's universal ethics nearly impossible. One critique of the Enlightenment rests in that most of its thinkers were of the same social, religious and economic dispositions. That is, most were middle-class intellects and this paradigm, which lacks an accurate global cultural diversity, reflects the works of the thinkers. It is unlikely that Kant thoroughly took into account the state of the world and its diversity.
Although, due to his a priori approach, this does not necessarily invalidate his universal ethics, it does make them seem idealistic in the modern world.Still, it is undeniable that some elementary progress has been made in the pursuit of ethical universalism. International documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development by the United Nations all show some notion of universal truths guiding moral behaviour. One, however, could argue how effectively these doctrines are being followed globally.The crux of the matter is in that ethical universalism is not an attempt to find a common moral barometer among all individuals.
Instead, the focus, due to reality of the world and the obstacles it presents, is the universal ethics between different groups. Various interests impede any ethical universalism. Purely cultural differences may appear in regions such as Africa were moral value systems are fundamental different. It is impossible to impose universal law on countries that still find it acceptable to stone pregnant woman out of wedlock, for example.
Political and economic pressures exist in countries like China, where child labour is clearly an issue, but is seldom noticed by countries such as the United States in the interests of pursuing trade relations. And finally, religious tensions in the world are clearly apparent, especially when the dichotomous nature of the Christianity/Islam struggle rests on moral values in the current global environment.Cornelius Castoriadis argues a universal trait among human societies of each society having to treat itself as superior to other societies as well as then devaluing their value systems.1 Society A cannot accept society B as superior or else the society A would merely merge its own value systems with society B, a dissolution of the society. Nor could a society see itself as equal with another because then the different customs of a society would be treated as compatible, even if they were considered immoral due to cultural differences. Therefore the only way a society can differentiate itself among others is to treat others as inferior which eventually translates into racism, discrimination and criminal activity.
Regardless, there are certain universal truths that must be regarded with universal acceptance. For example, the golden rule is consistent with many cultures and religions globally. The rule is a reciprocal ethic that states that one should treat another in the same manner one wishes to be treated. Other basic principles already outlined in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide the basis of these ethics. Ethical universalism should take precedence in the rights of the global individual. The dangers of pressing such an agenda with any sort of zeal is, of course, overstepping cultural boundaries or religious dogmas which may lead to increasing tensions between cultures and damage the process.
While the process of establishing the universal ethic should involve some dialogue, there is no denying finding a general consensus would be challenging.Kant's ethics are based upon reason and as such, on paper, have little to do with cultural differences. Ironically, therein lays its largest flaw, making the objective of applying a universal ethic difficult at best. Kant conceptualizes a good will and subsequently morality through the use of categorical imperatives. These imperatives are meant to guide reasoning to determine morally sound actions and behaviours but leave the details of what exactly should be universal law quite open.
As such, Kant's universal ethics are indeed quite universal however practical applications seem impossible. The nature of ethical universalism is such that individuals are grouped within cultures, and then cultures against each other in an antagonistic struggle. Until this standpoint shifts so that cultures cease to be a key factor in the application of ethics, Kant's Enlightenment project, as appealing as it may be, cannot work as it is intended.
