Immanuel Kant and Universal Ethical Standards
Gerald Grudzen, PhD
President
Global Ministries University
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) lived during an age when Reason seemed to provide a guide to human behavior based upon his theory of Deontological (Duty based) Ethics. Even though Kant lived during the upheaval of the French Revolution, his own life as an academic scholar was quite peaceful and predictable. He taught that it was possible to live a moral life despite any tumult or tragedy that might be occurring around you. Kant could be considered the apotheosis of the Enlightenment and the precursor of a series of ethical norms now considered normative for democratic nations. Kant lived before the age of evolutionary and historical determinism that characterized the writings of Hegel, Marx, Darwin, and Freud. He also lacked any understanding of scientific developments that would take place in the twentieth century in anthropology and neuropsychology showing the impact of sociocultural and ideological factors that influence our perception of moral ideals. The present conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine contrast with any universal moral ideals that are rationally attainable.
Despite these challenges to the relevancy of Kat’s ethical philosophy, there is no doubt that he presented a powerful critique to the empirical philosophy of David Hume which led to skepticism about any moral ideals. The Kantian “revolution” in philosophy dramatically convinced most serious philosophers that the mind is not a tabula rasa I(blank slate).
Kant held that the structures of our mind are universal and that they apply to all people in all times, places, and cultures. He also lived before the revolution in our understanding of the nature of time and space wrought by Einstein in the twentieth century. Despite these limitations, Kant placed his hope for a sustainable future on peace in Europe which he developed in his 1795 book, Perpetual Pesce: A Philosophical Sketch.(Project Guttenberg; Google Books).
Kant stated that “no independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state …” He also stated that “no state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state.” Kant also claimed a human right to universal hospitality that runs counter to the restrictive immigration policies of most nation-states today. Kant argued for the abolition of a standing army which seemed to unite him with the moral principles of pacifism, a philosophy and theology of the Society of Friends (Quakers) founded by George Fox (1624-1601) during the Radical Reformation era of the seventeenth century in Europe. Kant mentions George Fox in Perpetual Peace in which Fox suggested an international tribunal for the mediation of disputes in the interest of achieving peace. Kant\s philosophical idealism can, in part, be seen as a response to the collapse of the moral ideals found in the Christian Gospels of Christianity during the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century which included wars between Catholic and Protestant nations that devastated Germany in the seventeenth century (Thirty Years War: 1618-1648). Millions of soldiers fought and died in these wars. The Treaty of Westphalia finally ended these conflicts in 1648. Despite a tenuous peace between Catholic and Protestant political leaders, the eighteenth century in which Kant lived was marked by the effects of a Scientific Revolution that began in the prior century. This Revolution challenged the authority of Christianity to implement its moral ideals based upon the rational teachings of the Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason. Renee Descartes had challenged the theological foundation of Christianity and its moral foundation in Natural Law by claiming that all knowledge had to be doubted except for one’s existence: Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) . The danger of this shift in the epistemological certainty of one’s thought led eventually to the skepticism of David Hume (1711-1776) in the following century and Kant’s attempt to bridge the divide between empiricism and rationalism.
The challenge posed by the Revolutions in science, philosophy, and theology during the Enlightenment, posed a threat to the traditional understanding of God’s presence in creation and the veracity of the biblical story found in the book of Genesis.
William Paley (1742-1805) published his Natural Theology in 1802. Paley’s book achieved immediate success in the English-speaking world. Paley used an argument from Design to prove the existence of God in contrast to Kant who held that it was beyond the reach of the human mind.to do so. Paley gave the classical example of finding a watch in the woods or a desert. No one could argue that a watch could have resulted from chance actions. Paley claimed it was self-evident that the orderly created world needed a divine planner. He claimed that God had created every plant and animal in its present form just as the Book of Genesis described it. (Karen Armstrong, The Case for God: Knopf, NY, 2009, p.228)
Kant’s naturalistic “faith” stands in contrast to the natural theology pf William Paley Kant did make a brilliant synthesis of empiricism and rationalism and he also developed a sophisticated understanding of ethical reasoning founded in several maxims that implied human beings are rational creatures and operated according to rational standards, His Categorical Imperative is based upon an understanding that human beings should only accept ethical maxims that have universal application for everyone in all times and all cultures.
Self-interest, according to Kant, should play no part in ethical considerations and in determining one’s obligation to follow a certain course of action based on an analysis of the moral considerations that should follow our ethical deliberations. The will also [played a key role in Kant’s ethics since it had to be clear that any ethical consideration would be based on the will to do good by one’s determination or action to obtain the best moral outcome. The weakness of Kant’s argument seems to be that human beings can reason without the influence of self-interest. The Categorical Imperative does give credence to the fact that all human beings need to seek their well-being and happiness in accord with that of everyone else. His theory of Deontological Ethics does not seem to take account of the possibility of sacrificing one’s own self-interest in favor of another human being such as a mother for her child entering a burning building to save her child or the heroic action of a Good Samaritan in times of a civic tragedy such as a hurricane or tornado requiring civic officials to risk their life to save the life of another endangered person.
Kant did correctly realize that the acceptance of a universal moral law seemed to conflict with empirical evidence that most human beings are motivated by self-interest and not more universal ethical considerations such as the Common Good. By placing the validity of moral ideals in the categories of the mind, he seemed to weaken the concept of a moral ideal based upon a revelation from a divine source such as the moral precepts found in the monotheistic religions and the moral ideals of Buddhism founded upon the teachings of the Buddha. Kant did hold that his Deontological Ethics needed a foundation in the existence of God which he arrived at through Reason rather than Revelation. Kant claimed that we could not have direct knowledge of God since the concept of God was noumenal (ontological reality)) or beyond the ability of our mind to apprehend. He did claim that God could be apprehended as a fact of Practical Reason. Faith for Kant could only be found in his concept of Practical Reason. Kant coined the term “pure rational faith” to distinguish his view of faith from the theological positions of the monotheistic religions. (Kant’s Philosophy of Religion, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Kant’s departure from the realm of theology did not mean he was forsaking a sense of transcendence and for that reason, he is known as a representative of Transcendental Idealism.
The history of the past two centuries seems to indicate that the acceptance of Deontological Ethics is still limited to an idealistic picture of the human condition in a world still dominated by Realpolitik, based upon the p[political philosophies of Pragmatism or Utilitarianism. The German philosopher Wilhelm Friederich Hegel (1770-1831) became. the most influential philosopher of the nineteenth century because of his influence upon Karl Marx.
Hegel also became the final idealistic philosopher of the Enlightenment era. His Phenomenology of the Mind (1807) “argued that Geist (Spirit or “Mind was not a being but the inner being world, that which essentially is “ ( Armstrong, OP. cit., p. 232. Hegel’s philosophical and historical determinism did not leave much room for human freedom to allow human beings to make rational judgments independent of the overpowering force of the German state.
In the nineteenth century, Immanuel Kant’s delicate balance of empiricism and rationalism could not withstand the increasing power of the Industrial Revolution and European colonialism that molded much of the remaining decades of the nineteenth century.
Kantian ethical theory now seems to fit most appropriately into the moral movements of the twentieth century led by moral exemplars such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Thich Nhat Hanh who embraced a philosophy of non-violence. The rise of student protests and the escalating violence in the Middle East is an indication that the ideal of non-violence as a philosophical principle still has currency in the twenty-first century and will continue to attract followers and possibly see the value of Kath’s ethical platform based upon rational and common-sense considerations.
As an example of the global movement toward a non-violent ethic fulfilling the promise of Kant’s Perpetual Peace, the Parliament of Religions in 1993 passed the Initial Declaration Towards a Global Ethic. This document, inspired by the leadership of Professor Hans Kung of Germany, the leading ecumenical scholar from the Vatican II era of Catholicism and a fellow German like Emmanuel Kant, provided the ethical foundation for a non-violent Global Peace.
The document, The Irreversible Directive number three of the Initial Declaration Towards a Global Ethic of the Parliament of the World’s Religion, has the following statement about non-violence and peace.
Persons who hold political power must work within the framework of a just order and commit themselves to the most non-violent, peaceful solution possible. They should work for this within an international order of peace which itself needs protection and defense against the perpetrators of violence. Armament is a mistaken path; disarmament is the commandment of the times. Let no one be deceived: There is no survival for humanity without global peace. (Towards a Global Ethic, Parliament of the World’s Religions, Chicago, Illinois, 1993)
Kant’s vision of a world without war marked by the peaceful resolution of conflicts has moved beyond its original European framework to embrace the entire human family and our global community of nation-states within the framework of the United Nations Charter.
Our present search for a better global solution to human and political conflicts must include Kant’s vision of a world without warfare.
Gerald Grudzen, PhD
President
Global Ministries University
May 13, 2024
