Can the ethics of Immanuel Kant be the basis of morality?
Why or Why
not?
Explain your answer.
No. In order to become a fully good person, Kant thought that we
needed an infinite amount of time, since we can only ever get better and
better at becoming virtuous, example is becoming such that what we
want to do is already what we ought to do. This leads Kant to believe that
our life must continue after our death, since otherwise we would not have
the time that we need to become moral persons, and the moral law
requires of us that we become such persons. Without immorality,
therefore, we could not actually satisfy the law which we are commanded
to obey--and this was inconceivable to Kant. God enters the picture
because who else could grant us this afterlife? God and Immortality were
not conditions of the moral law, but they were regarded by Kant as being
conditions of our ability to satisfy the moral law. And so, according to Kant,
morality inevitably leads to religion; and this argument is what has come
to be known as the moral argument for God.
If people are obliged to becoming virtuous, we will have a peaceful
world where hurting someone intentionally and committing crime is not
possible. In this case, lying to save a Life is a good reason to violate
Kantian ethics, even if one is a genuine honorable and honest person. I
mean integrity, but with little occasional twists in situations when lying to
save a Life would make one feel proud of himself. As much as I agree with
Kant in almost everything, I have a mind of my own and I would in certain
situations violate my own principles if the situation calls it. It is moral
responsibility. What is better I would ask myself: do I say the truth and
another person gets killed because of me or shall I save a life by lying? I
will have to lie in that situation. I would not like to live with the thought
that one is dead because of me. But I would live guilt free knowing that
me telling a sweet innocent lie saved a Life.
