FREEDOM AS FOUNDATION FOR MORAL ACTS
Introduction
This module seeks to answer the following topics such as Kant’s philosophy on freedom and morality,
the principles of justice and fairness and the different kinds of justice.
Learning Objectives:
1. Present Kant’s philosophy on freedom and morality, the principles of justice and fairness.
2. Describe the principle of justice and fairness and the different kinds of justice.
Learning Content:
KANT’S PHILOSOPHY ON FREEDOM AND MORALITY, THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
KANT’S PHILOSOPHY ON FREEDOM
Kant's definition of freedom is the right to control one's actions based on reason, not desire. All
of this can be simplified to the definition of autonomy. The term Autonomy derives from the Greek
term, which translates into self-legislator. The principle, then, is not to live by the animalistic rules
forced on them from birth, but rather to live by the laws that you enforce on yourself. Therefore, from
Kant's point of view, libertarian freedom is not absolute, but in fact, it is the subjugation of oneself to
one's wish.
There is only one inherent right, "says Kant," freedom (independence from being limited by the
option of another) to the degree that it can coexist with the freedom of each other following universal
law". Kant opposes any other justification for the state, in particular by arguing that the welfare of
people cannot be the foundation of state power.
He claims that the state cannot legally enforce any specific definition of happiness on its people.
It will be for the dictator to see people as infants, believing that they are incapable of grasping what is
beneficial or detrimental to themselves.
Freedom is not the only reason for the ideals that underlies the state. In Theory and Practice,
Kant makes equality the first of three concepts, such as the freedom of a human being as a member of a
state, the dignity of each person as a subject, and the freedom of any member of the commonwealth as
a resident.
In “Theory and Practice” Freedom highlighted the autonomous right of all individuals to
conceive of happiness in their way. Interference with another’s freedom is understood as coercing the
other to be happy as the former sees fit.)
Immanuel Kant accentuates the following philosophy on freedom:
1. Individuals have the right to choose one's conduct based on reason, not desire.
2. Individuals have to abide by the rules that they follow.
3. Individuals are independent from being limited by the option of others to the extent that they may
coexist with each other's freedom under universal rule.
4. Equality is the most among the various freedoms and freedom is the only inherent power. The three
concepts of freedom are the freedom of a human being as a member of a state, the dignity of each
person as a subject, and the freedom of any member of the commonwealth as a resident.
5. Individuals have an autonomous right to be happy in their own way, and the intervention of another's
freedom means forcing others to be happy.
KANT’S PHILOSOPHY ON MORALITY
Kant based his ethical philosophy on the idea that reason should be used to decide how people
will behave. He did not attempt to recommend concrete action but advised that reason should be used
to decide how to behave. Below are the main Kant’s philosophy on morality.
GOOD WILL AND DUTY
Kant based the idea of obligation on ethical law. Kant started his ethical philosophy by arguing
that the only virtue that can be uncontroversially good is good will. No one virtue has this position, since
any other virtue may be used to accomplish unethical ends (for example, the virtue of loyalty is not good
if one is loyal to the evil person). Good will is unique as it is always good and retains its moral values
even though it fails to achieve its moral intentions. Kant found good will to be a common moral concept
that openly wishes to use certain virtues for moral purposes.
In addition, to Kant, good will is a wider conception than the will of obligation. A will which acts
out of obligation can be described as a will which overcomes barriers to the preservation of moral law.
Dutiful will is thus, a special case of good will which is evident under unfavorable conditions. Kant
believes that only actions committed concerning obligation have moral meaning. This is not to suggest
that actions performed solely in compliance with duty are meaningless (they still deserve recognition
and encouragement), but that special respect is granted to acts performed out of duty.
Moreover, Kant’s definition of obligation does not mean that people carry out their duties
reluctantly. While duty also restricts people and induces them to act against their inclinations, it still
stems from the voluntariness of an agent or a person: they want to abide by moral law.
Therefore, when an agent takes duty action, it is because reasonable interests matter most to
them than their opposing inclinations.
PERFECT AND IMPERFECT DUTIES
Having applied the categorical imperative, duties emerge because failure to perform them will
either result in a contradiction of conception or a contradiction of will. The former is categorized as
perfect tasks, and the latter as imperfect. The perfect duty is always true. There seems to be a perfect
duty to tell the truth, so we must never lie. Imperfect duty requires flexibility. Beneficence is an
imperfect duty because we are not obligated to be absolutely helpful at all times, but should choose the
times and places in which we are. Kant believes that perfect duty is more important than an imperfect
duty: when a conflict of duty arises, perfect duty must be carried out.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Categorical imperative command unconditionally. Irrespective of our wishes or desires, a
categorical imperative binds us as everyone has a responsibility not to lie, regardless of conditions and
even though it is in our interest to do so. A hypothetical imperative is one that we must fulfill if we are
to satisfy our desires or command conditionally on your having a relevant desire. These imperatives are
legally binding because they are founded on reason, about an individual and not subjective evidence. In
addition to hypothetical imperatives, these bind us to the degree that we are part of a community or
society to which we owe an obligation, we cannot get out of the categorical imperative and we cannot
opt out of being moral agents. We owe an obligation to reason because we are rational agents; thus,
rational moral principles extend to all rational agents at all times.
UNIVERSALIZABILITY
When anyone acts, it's a maxim, or a principle. For Kant, an act is only permissible if one can
have the principle that allows an action to be the universal law by which everybody acts. Maxims fail this
test if, when universalized, they create either a contradiction in conception or a contradiction in the will.
A contradiction in conception arises because, if the principle is to be universalized, it fails to make sense,
since the "limit will inevitably ruin itself as soon as the universal law has been created." The maxim is
not rational because it is theoretically impractical to universalize. We could not think of a world where
this maxim has been universalized. The maxim may also be unethical because it causes an inconsistency
in the will when it is universalized. This does not mean a logical contradiction, but that the
universalization of the maxim contributes to a state of affairs that no rational being would want.
Kant argued that morality was the objective law of reason: just as objective physical laws
involved physical action. Objective rational law requires rational action. He, therefore, assumed that a
perfectly rational being would also be perfectly moral since a perfectly reasonable being feels it
necessary to do what is rationally necessary. Since humans are not completely moral (in part acting by
instinct), Kant claimed that humans had to comply with their subjective will with objective rational rules,
which he called conformity obligations. Kant believed that the objective rule of reason is a priori, arising
outward from rationality. Just as physical laws occur before human beings, logical laws (morality) occur
before rational beings. According to Kant, therefore, objective morality is fundamental and cannot
change depending on the circumstances.
HUMANITY AS AN END IN ITSELF
The second interpretation of Kant's Categorical Imperative is to view life as an end in itself: “Act
in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always
at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”(Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the
Metaphysics of Morals)
Kant argued that rational beings should never be viewed simply as a means to ends; they must
also be viewed as ends themselves, demanding equal regard for their own logical motives. This stems
from Kant 's argument that reason motivates morality: it allows us to value reason as motivation in all
beings, including others. A rational being cannot rationally consent to be used merely as a means to an
end, so it must always be treated as an end. Kant explained this by arguing that moral obligation is a
logical necessity: that which is logical is morally right.
Kant's expounded five moral philosophies.
(1) The goodwill and duty where he described it as one of a kind because it is always good and maintain
moral values. It is a moral concept that freely seeks to use values for moral reasons. Kant added that
that good will is more of a conception rather than obligation. A will that acts out of duty can be defined
as a will that overcomes the obstacles to the protection of moral law. It is not to say that actions carried
out purely in compliance with duty are pointless (they still merit praise and encouragement), but that
extra regard is accorded to activities carried out on duty.
(2) Kant differentiate perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties for Kant is always true and it is more
important than imperfect duties. Telling the truth is an example of a perfect duty. If there is a conflict
between the two then perfect duty must be given importance. In contrast, for Kant flexibility is
indispensable in imperfect duty. As a human being, an individual can help the needy but still he or she
cannot do it all the time. Therefore, in perfect duty, it is a must to do what is good while imperfect duty
you do good but it is not an obligation to do so.
(3) Kant also made a distinction between categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative. The
categorical imperative for him is a rule of behavior that is unconditional or absolute for all agents or
persons whose truth or argument does not depend on any purpose or end. Conversely, a hypothetical
imperative is a rule of behavior relating to a person the idea that only if he or she desires a certain end
and has decided to act on that desire. In other words, in categorial imperative, the action to be done
does not depend on the result or desire or not conditioned by desire. however, in hypothetical
imperative, the basis of the action to be done is what I want and the means to get it.
(4) Besides, universalizability is was set off by Kant. The theory of universalizability centered on the
action to be acceptable or permissible, this theory must be applied to all citizens without any
contradictions. Meaning, when someone commits a crime he or she will be punished regardless of social
and economic standing. The law must be applicable to all.
(5) Humanity as an end itself of Kant pointed out that a human intrinsic worth does not depend on
something else, it does not depend on whether a person loves his or her life or makes other people's
lives better. A human being live so he or she has value.
KANT’S PHILOSOPHY ON JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
Kant’s corollary meaning of justice and fairness are the following:
(1) Justice involves external acts through which an individual may directly or indirectly influence others.
(2) Justice does not affect the desires, wishes, or needs of others.
(3) Justice is concerned primarily with the nature of interpersonal relationships and not with their
substance.
The first two concepts of justice of Kant include the voluntary ideals of benevolence and charity,
while justice concerns whether or not we value the fair right of others to live their lives as they see fit.
The third concept of justice illustrates a situation, let say if Mr. A buys something from a store, justice is
served if the nature of the partnership is voluntary.
If the store expects to benefit from the sale or how much the store earns then these and related
concerns pertain to the substance of the sale and do not fall under the purview of justice.
Being just and fair is not about having influence with other people particularly to those in the
higher-ups or those who are considered influential. If this is the situation then justice and fairness are in
trouble. Desires, wishes, or needs of others has nothing to do with justice, it does not matter. An
interpersonal relationship is more valuable than content. The interpersonal relationship must be
voluntary.
