The normative rules and principles determine the things needed or permitted, whether good or bad. The normative rules and principles determine what agents are expected to do, what they can do, or what deserves to receive promotion, approval, and praise (Kahn 78). Principles and normative rules play an important function in determining what deserves criticism and disapproval. Moral rules or principles dictate what agents are required to do or what they are morally accepted for them to do and indicate what deserves to be praised and admired. According to Kant, what is remarkable about inspiration by obligation is plain respect for moral rules.
Duties can be defined as laws linked with felt incentives and limitations of individuals’ choices, whether from external pressure from other people or their power of reason. For example, a company’s by-laws lay down employees’ duties and enforce them with sanctions (Guyer). Another example of moral laws and duties is the state laws that define the citizens’ responsibilities and then enforce them with coercive legal actions. This implies that if people usually take action as citizens of a country, they do it because it is their civic duty. According to the moral rule or principle, what motivates individuals to take such actions is respect for the laws that make such responsibility their duty.
When people think they are duty-bound, they comply with the rules about them. In Kant’s view, when people act out of respect for the moral laws, for instance, by responding to issues they believe are their duties, they move or act by recognizing that the moral law is supreme and authoritative. Moral laws bind people and make them experience a feeling related to respect and fear at any point, and they recognize moral laws as the foundation of moral needs.
Kant’s justification of the components of moral needs and the traits of moral reasoning is grounded on Kant’s scrutiny of the exceptional force of moral consideration has as motives to act. The first formulation of the categorical imperative by Kant states that a person is ought to “act only with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Guyer).” The formula for universal law can be summarized to form a decision procedure that is important for moral reasoning. The first step is formulating a fundamental principle that enshrines the proposed action plan. The second step is recasting the formulated fundamental principle or maxim as a universal law of nature that rules all rational agents. Thus, all must act as they propose to act (Kahn 80). Then the third step confirms if their fundamental principle is possible in a world ruled by the new laws of nature.
If step three is possible, one is expected to ask themselves if one would rationally act on their fundamental principle in such an environment. If one’s actions pass all four steps mentioned above, it is morally permissible. Analyzing the above steps clarifies that if a person’s fundamental principle fails to satisfy the third step, then that person has the perfect duty to refrain from acting on that fundamental principle or maxim. In cases where the maxim fails to meet the fourth condition or satisfy the fourth step, the person has an imperfect duty that requires the person to pursue a policy that can allow such exceptions. From the analysis, it is understandable that one can differentiate between perfect and imperfect duties.
The perfect duties always take the form of” one must never or always to the fullest extent possible,” while the imperfect duties require a person to adopt an end by requiring that “one must sometime and some extent.” All this implies that an action is only right when it is in accordance with the moral rules of principle. This can be further explained by how Kant viewed the action of committing suicide to avoid future unhappiness. This fundamental principle was subjected to the formulation steps of universal law and failed the third step. Thus, it is universally aggregable that by committing suicide, a person is not protecting themselves from future unhappiness; hence people are forbidden from taking such actions and refrain from acting on the maxim of committing suicide to avoid future unhappiness. According to Kant universal law of nature, the principle of refraining from helping others who pursue their projects fails the fourth step of formulation, thus, bringing an inconsistency in the will test at the fourth step. Hence, people have to sometimes and to a given limit to help other people.
Through the universal law, Kant recognizes that ordinary moral thoughts are duties towards a person’s own and other people, thus distinguishing the four different classes of obligations. The perfect duties are subcategorized into perfect duties towards individuals and others. In contrast, imperfect duties are subdivided into imperfect duties, which are duties towards others and individual duties. One of the best examples of perfect duty towards individuals from themselves is the refrainment from suicide, to refrain from making fake promises. As an individual, you have no intention of committing to something which can be used as a classic example of perfect duties towards others. On the other hand, the imperfect duties can be best explained using the following examples if one decides to develop their talents, that’s become an imperfect duty towards oneself. But if one decides to contribute towards other people’s contentment, that becomes an imperfect duty to others.
The above claims can justify Kant’s claim that action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule of principle. For instance, the Kant’s example of one’s perfect duty towards others raises concerns over fake promises that a person may commit to without the intention of fulfilling to help them get something that they want. There is no self-inconsistency in the fundamental principles: “I will make lying promises when it achieves something I want (Kahn 79).” Kant’s position is illogical for one to take any action or perform it when its maxim contradicts itself. Therefore, the maxim of lying can be used if it helps one get whatever one want. The other way Kant’s claim of action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule of principle can be justified is by looking at the example of perfect duties towards oneself.
If a person conceives the idea of declining to adopt the maxim of accepting to grow any of their capacities in a world where the maxim is considered a universal law of nature, then with no doubt, that world will become a more primitive world than the current world. Without developing the existing talents, humans can lead a world with no innovations and inventions making it very primitive. It is reasonable to assume that the necessary way to achieve happiness at an individual level is by ensuring that everyone develops their talents and capacities at some point. For instance, if one has developed an interest in playing piano or guitar, they cannot pursue their happiness unless they have developed their talent and others have developed their talents and capacities in making the piano or guitar. Thus, people have a moral obligation to some extent to help others develop their talents or pursue their interests for others to pursue their happiness.
Kant’s claim that an action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule of principle has also attracted attention because of its humanity formulation. Kant’s humanity formulation states that “we should never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or others, as a means only but always as an end in itself.” Philosophy scholars often view this as a way used by Kant to introduce the aspect of respect for humans in any case so long as it is important for humanity. The humanity formulation does not restrict using people to achieve your goals. Intuitively, this looks absurd since people have always been doing this in morally appropriate ways. Thus, making it right in accordance with a moral rule of principle. Indeed, it is not easy to have a life or imaginable life that can be recognized to exist without others, whether their contribution in terms of expertise or advice to help others achieve their own goals.
It is justifiable that everything that people use in their daily lives, from the chairs people sit on, computers that people use to work with, the food humans consume, the medicine that individuals take when they are sick, and other items are products from other people. These items are produced by using different people’s talents and abilities, which have undergone development through the will of many people. Kant’s humanity formula disagrees with using people through their talents and abilities as just a means to meet individual goals. Thus, their goals must be tied to an aspect of morality as they use other people’s abilities, and that’s where the idea of compensation comes in as a way of appreciating others for their abilities and talents.
The other angle that can justify Kant’s claim that an action is right if it follows a moral rule or principle can investigate Kant’s moral theory based on the treatment are given to people with various disabilities. Kant does not talk much about people with various disability issues. Still, his moral framework is always viewed by people from different angles as both hostile and supportive towards people with disability. One of the most critical reproaches of Kant’s moral theory is regarding persons with severe cognitive disabilities who lack moral capabilities.
According to Kant’s moral theory, what makes humans morally special is not grounded on their biological aspects of the conditional properties or the human abilities to feel pain or consciousness about something. Still, he reasons that rational human nature, moral capabilities, and character to develop and follow moral principles make humans worthy internally and deserve respect (Birch 4). Thus, for people who lack moral capabilities due to cognitive disabilities, the supporters of Kant’s moral theory proposed that an emphasis can be put on having duties regarding this special group of people. The suggested duties may entail obligations to self-improvement that gives humans a reason to treat their fellows with cognitive disability issues to improve how people treat others even though they are not their duties with basic moral status.
Another perspective of meeting the condition for the claim made by Kant in terms of the people with disability in society, the problem can be addressed by emphasizing Kant’s claim that all persons have dignity. This argument can be based on Kant’s theories of biology and psychology. All persons who have a severe disability automatically have the necessary features of moral personhood. The third perspective supporting Kant’s moral views claims is an argument that suggests that people always value things as humans. Therefore, people should value themselves as ends, forcing them to take a step and commit to valuing all humans and animals as ends (Birch 9). People with abilities have faced many challenges in society and have often been treated as lesser beings. They have always been stereotyped and have been denied various opportunities further to develop their skills, talents, and abilities.
In some cases, people with disability have been denied access to facilities that would assist their living, thus, depriving them of comfort. In other situations, these people are denied an opportunity to make friends since some do not want to associate themselves with them, thus, lacking people to stand in solidarity with them (Cureton 15). These actions by pole violate the moral duties as described by Kant, where individuals are expected or morally obligated to assist these people not because it is their duty but because they feel like it is.
People with disability continuously face obstacles in developing self-respect within society. Most people consider them a burden, malingerers, or too inquisitive (Stohr). In some cases, people with disability often receive some help from others that do not match the respect they are owed, making the help look like ridicule to them. According to Kant’s moral theory, any assistance given to people with disability should be accorded to uphold respect to persons with disability so that those who assist don’t impose burdensome obligations of gratitude on people who have been given help. For instance, by providing help to the person with the ability to acquire something to assist them when they do not need such assistance.
In conclusion, principles and normative rules play an important function in determining what deserves criticism and disapproval. Moral rules or principles dictate what agents are required to do or what they are morally accepted for them to do and indicate what deserves to be praised and admired. Kant defines duties as the rules linked with felt incentives and limitations of a person’s choices, whether from external pressure from other people or their power of reason.
The laws limit what a person can and cannot do since they are not their obligations, roles, or duties. However, Kant’s universal laws also place the imperfect duties of people to ensure that morality is upheld. Kant’s claim that an action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule of principle has also attracted attention because of its humanity formulation. Kant’s humanity formulation states that “we should never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or others, as a means only but always as an end in itself.” This claim does not restrict using people to achieve individual goals. It is not easy to have a life or imaginable life that can be recognized to exist without others, whether their contribution in terms of expertise or advice to help others achieve their own goals.
The claim by Kant that all persons have dignity through his theory of biology and psychology can support Kant’s moral claims that a person should value themself as the end, which forces them to take a step and commit to valuing all humans and animals as ends. People with abilities have faced many challenges in society and have often been treated as lesser beings. They have always been stereotyped and denied various opportunities to further develop their skills, talents, and abilities. Thus, based on this claim, they deserve fair treatment with respect, dignity, and care. Thus, this makes it critical to support Kant’s claim that an action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule of principle.
Works Cited
Birch, Jonathan. “The place of animals in Kantian ethics.” Biology & Philosophy 35.1 (2020): 1-11
Cureton, Adam. “Character education for students with disabilities.” Journal of Moral Education (2021): 1-24.
Guyer, Paul. Kant on the Rationality of Morality. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Kahn, Samuel. “Defending the traditional interpretations of Kant’s formula of a law of nature.” Theoria 66.158 (2019): 76-102.
Stohr, sKaren. “Pretending Not to Notice: Respect, Attention, and Disability.” (2018).