Kantian Ethics Provides A Helpful Way Of Making Moral Decisions - Discuss
Kantian ethics is often cited as the paradigm of a deontological theory, where the right takes
precedence over the good, and basic rights and principles guide us to know which goods to follow.
Kant also rejected the idea that all moral judgments should be culturally relative or subjective, thus
making his theory absolute. Although Kant's philosophy can be seriously criticised, it remains as
providing the finest analysis of the bases of the concepts of moral principle and moral obligation, and
therefore one could argue that his ethics provide a helpful way of making moral decisions. However,
this essay will argue against the notion and state that Kantian Ethics is not a helpful method when it
comes to moral decision making. Moreover this line of argument will also include the scholars Kant,
W.D Ross, Sartre, MacIntyre, Williams and Foot.
Kantian ethics could be argued to be a helpful way of making moral decisions because it provides
moral laws that hold universally, regardless of culture or individual situations. The concepts within
this ethical theory are simplistic, creating a system that everyone can follow, including children. This
is due to the fact that Kant’s ethics are absolute and offer clear and fixed guidelines on how to apply
his theory when it comes to moral decisions. It is seen through many examples that a system of rules
works, in the society we live in today we abide by legislation everyday, everyone is aware of what
their obligations are. If you allow people to break the rules because of consequences or even out of
human inclination or emotion, the legal system ultimately would be flawed and wouldn’t work as a
concept because no one would know what they ought to do. Similarly, this applies to Kantian ethics,
this theory devised by Kant would not work if each of these factors came into play, and thus because
it is absolute provides a helpful way of making moral decisions. However, whilst this theory may be
applicable to everyone, it simply is too abstract and cannot easily be applied to every moral situation.
Kantian ethics addresses what types of actions are good, however does not tell you what is the right
thing to do in particular situations, thus creating a flaw in his theory. This can be corroborated by the
scholar Alasdair MacIntrye, who argues that you can use the universalizability principle to justify
practically anything. He states ‘All I need to do is to characterise the proposed action in such a way
that the maxim will permit me to do what I want while prohibiting others from doing what would
nullify the action if universalised’ Additionally, as with any absolute ethical system, there is
inflexibility to the situation. Whilst Kant establishes that lying is always morally wrong, if you take the
hypothetical of a murderer seeking their next victim, lying to save someone’s life is surely the more
moral action. Therefore, it is clear that Kantian ethics does not provide to be helpful when making
moral decisions because it is too abstract as well as being absolute, thus creating it to be too
inflexible in some situations.
Furthermore, one could argue that Kantian ethics provides a helpful way of making moral decisions
because the system is rational and not swayed by emotion. Kant’s morality does not show
favouritism for friends and rather is a purely rational theory. In accordance with Kant, human
emotion and personal feelings play no role in decision making and rather we should solely do ‘duty
for duty’s sake’. This could constitute a line of argument as to why Kantian ethics does not provide a
helpful way of making moral decisions. An example of this would be visiting a friend in hospital; Kant
would argue that we should visit them not out of empathy but rather because it is our duty.
However, if this were the case and our only motive to be there was because of our duty, then we are
completely neglecting emotions and thus it could be argued as going for the wrong reason. Kantian
