Kant Philosophical Ethics, Research Paper Example

Kant’s ethical theory has provided significant insight into the best practices in many complicated situations. This paper will examine Kant’s theory in considerations of three main questions. Using primarily Kant’s ethics dive into the topic of: Is United Nations intervention in foreign relations justified? Is it really the case that, unless something like Kant’s system obtains, we cannot condemn the practices of other cultures? And is ‘relativism’ really the necessary result? Kant’s ethical theory is deontological, where actions are the moral rights outweigh the desire of personal desire. Often in situations where the United Nations intervene, it is based on those who are pursuing personal gain at the expense of the general public. Kant’s philosophical ethics provides the basis for society to protect the majority under the universal moral law.

Using primarily Kant’s ethics dive into the topic of: Is United Nations intervention in foreign relations justified?

There are many arguments in association with humanitarianism, and when is the appropriate time for the intervention. The United Nations intervenes in situations where persecutions, torture, forced refugees, civil war, and tyrannies that are global. There is a moral and ethical flaw when intervention is selective when the United Nation chooses to intervene in some cases and not to others. The universal principle that are beloved by many moral philosophers is strongly influenced by Immanuel Kant. It is important to distinguish between the duty and rights to intervene in situations that are taking place around the world. The right to intervene is not an obligation; it is an ethical responsibility.

The United Nations right and obligation to intervene in foreign relations is justified by the need to support those who cannot defend themselves from immoral and inhumane activities. “Kant’s moral theory is, therefore, deontological: actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination. The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual agent’s determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise” (Kemerling np). The argument then becomes the basis for responsibility versus mere justification.

Kant argues that the predominate principle of morality must derive from the moral law. Thus, it is abstractly capable of directing us to the right actions in every possible circumstance. “So the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality, the fact that it has the formal property of universalizability, by virtue of which it can be applied at all times to every moral agent. From this chain of reasoning about our ordinary moral concepts, Kant derived as a preliminary statement of moral obligation the notion that right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law” (Kemerling np).The United Nations right to intervene is justified by the universal law, as proposed by Kant.

The need for humanitarian military intervention is based on the principle of justification, which enables them to equip, train, raise, and deploy a national military force. Military forces have been utilized for centuries in efforts to build nations and keep the peace that traditionally coincide with their own economic and political interest. The United Nations has vast representation, so it reflects the desires and beliefs of the majority. Take, for example, the extremists, ISIS, which are taking innocent lives as a result of their own personal agendas. It is not ethical or moral for the majority to be in danger as a result of their own interests. The United Nations involvement is to protect the majority and is supported by Kant’s ethical philosophy.

Is it really the case that, unless something like Kant’s system obtains, we cannot condemn the practices of other cultures?

Kant’s system does not allow the condemning of other practices or culture, only to support what is ethically and morally right. “Kant’s ethical theory provides the foundation for an interesting theory of justice which has been elaborated most notably by John Rawls” (Rawls np). Each culture has their own beliefs and practices; it does not make them wrong. However, when human lives are at stake, the cultural practices need to be reevaluated. Kant argues; the moral value of the action can only reside in a formal principle or “maxim,” the general commitment to act in this way because it is one’s duty. So he concludes “Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law” (Kemerling np). It becomes a duty and a responsibility to support the moral law and to protect those who are being directly violated by their cause.

Today’s culture is mixed, access to travel the world is at our fingertips. There are global businesses that united in efforts to increase their bottom lines. The separation of culture is minimal, therefore, what affects one nation, essentially affects us all. Millions of individuals are exposed to radically different cultures on a daily basis. These cultures may be different than what they are familiar with; however, it does not justify denying their individual rights. Cultural confrontation is not a new idea, but in cases when innocent people are having their rights taken from them, it is important. History is showing that cultures are sweeping to each other; it is morally wrong to condemn the practices of the others.

Society has changed, now the dominant powers or the ones with the greatest support assume that their culture is superior. Take, for example, the colonial period where the West brought military, markets, and missionaries to convert the cultures and religious values of those around them. As of recently, there is a growing respect and acknowledgment to the validity in the ways that others live. It may be different, but it does not make it wrong. What makes it wrong is when the ethical laws are challenged by the desires for personal progress. It can be obtained by an individual or a group who has a following that believe in their agendas. Again, it does not allow the culture to be judged, only the practices that have corrupted the basis of that culture.

There are many reasons which the popularization of anthropology provides a sympathetic and or neutral position of the alien cultures. Whatever the reason is, there is still the same need to understand and respect various cultures. Society changes, and with those changes comes new ethical standards which dictate right and wrong. Kant’s ethical positions are still valid today because it provides a generalization of what is right and wrong. Society may change, but it cannot elude the need for an ethical basis of operation. The cultural variations bring many challenges to the idea of moral laws.

Regardless of the explanation or reason, there is a growing acceptance of cultural relativism in today’s society. Let’s take, for example, the issue that took place in the nineteenth century and the right to buy and own slaves. It was an economic decision for the owners to have slaves and to use them for the growth of their plantations. The reason was practical and easy to convince other of the reasoning, however, according to Kant’s position it challenged many other factors such as moral and ethical obligations to the slaves. Society accepted the practice until was challenged by a higher consideration. The practice is no condemned by society however during that time it was a common practice and readily acceptable. Moral laws dictate that society adheres to the best possible outcome for the majority based on ethical standards and practices.

Is ‘relativism’ really the necessary result?

Relativism is really a necessary result of ethical behavior. “Its success may be less than complete, but its efforts give rise to a deep and satisfying moral philosophy that has had enormous influence and in our age of cultural relativism is more urgently needed than ever” (Beck np). Relativism opposes the idea that all truth is relative outside of the claim that truth is relative. There is a variety of relativism that can be difficult to understand; however; it coincides with Kant’s theory of ethical and moral value.

It is important to understand that there is cultural relativism that wrongly eludes to the idea that each culture is equipped with their own distinct choices, thoughts, and perceptions. It is important, under Kant’s moral and ethical laws to embrace the differences that are held of value by others. Cultural relativism takes an opposing position on the idea that moral truth is objective and universal. It resists the idea that there is no absolute wrong or right within society. The moral code of each society thus determines what is right or wrong based on their own beliefs. The society can determine what is right or wrong within their own standards of living. According to cultural relativism, man can determine what is right or wrong within his own culture.

Relativism is an inevitable outcome based on Kant’s ethical philosophy. Moral and ethical laws are determined by what is right or wrong based on the societal standards, which vary from place to place. The mistaken idea presented by relativism is that there are no objective standards that govern our society and prevents the judgment from others because we are entitled to our own practices and beliefs. In addition, it believes that the reflection of the indigenous worldview will not allow anyone to object to society’s intolerance. It is extremely challenging to balance right and wrong in a society that holds so many different views on ethical practices and values. However, there has to be a guideline for which a culture can believe. Hitler believed that all Jews were bad, and ordered them to be killed. The culture may have supported his endeavors; however, it did not justify them or allow the nation to turn a blind eye to their beliefs. Ethical and moral theories support the idea that relativism has its own limitations.

Kant’s philosophical ethics provides the basis for society to protect the majority under the universal moral law. The United Nation’s position to intervene is vital to protecting moral and ethical considerations across the globe. Kant’s ethics provides a strong justification for getting involved in situations that are unfavorable. There is an extremist who are growing in strength and tormenting and killing the innocent people who are living in their land. Intervening is no longer an option; it is a moral and ethical obligation. To do the least harm and to protect the majority’s interest is protected by Kant’s ethical position. Intervention is not an easy decision; it could result in extreme resistance and even war; however the innocent people deserve to have their rights protected by an organization that maintains a moral and ethical basis of operation.

Work Cited

Beck Lewis White. A Commentary on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. University of Chicago Press, 1960. Print.

Kemerling, Garth. Kant: The Moral Order. 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.