Categorical Imperative
The principle of private happiness states
that an individual’s
prosperity is weighed in proportion to that person’s
good conduct. In short,
one’s peace of mind is empirically measured by how
virtuous one is towards
others and to himself. Kant’s objection to ethical
theories that use this idea
emanates from the fact that it extends human
reason, one that determines good
will and good conduct, outwards instead of
inwards, reason being automatic,
inherent in an individual. The above
doctrine puts motive on virtues, meaning
that one’s good conduct is being
used as a means to an end. Morality is not
established because the inner self
is not developed out of one’s duty but
instead, the necessity to have good
will is for satisfying a particular purpose.
Moreover, it is superficial,
centered on a human being’s feelings and
inclinations rather than pure
reason. If one can not exercise rational behavior,
one will form one’s
beliefs out of sheer feelings and base one’s opinion of
others on this. Moral
feeling is not an apt judge of right and wrong because it
lacks that uniform
standard, one that is unbiased and not easily swayed by
emotion. The fact
that individuals are different also implies that they have
different basis
and sources on morality, that they have dissimilar opinions on
good and evil.
It makes it difficult, then, to establish a universally
acceptable set of
laws if it is solely based on the dynamic nature of human
emotion. Kant
believes that one’s good will is inherently good in itself, and
should not be
measured empirically. To use one’s will as a means to an end
produces nothing
but unhappiness and extends only to misology, the hatred of
reason. Framing
one’s life to certain expectations and shaping one’s actions
to the
attainment of those goals can be fatal when those expectations are not
met.
Failure brings people down and to lack reason, one that does not conform
to
desires, is to lack a foundation to stand on, to enable one to bounce back
from
defeat. It will serve one better to have a definite belief in one’s
maxim to
be universally acceptable, acting only on those intentions that one
believes
everybody else will accept. Therefore, the principle of private
happiness calls
for a person to prove that moral worth within an existing
situation. This theory
assumes that one’s will can not stand independently
without it being tested or
challenged. One’s prosperity is within the human
being. All moral conceptions,
according to this philosopher, originate not
from empirical evidence, but only
reason alone. Ends do not justify the means
all the time. One can contrast
Kant’s beliefs on private happiness to
that of Bentham’s utilitarian
principle. The latter defends the fact that
actions are moral to the extent that
it maximizes happiness. There is a
functional aspect to morality in this sense
because one’s actions are judged
good or bad according to how it makes the
individual happy or unhappy. Kant
opposes this idea because happiness, in his
view, is strictly empirical. What
brings a person satisfaction is subject to
one’s experiences, it involves
comparisons to certain events in one’s life.
And for this, he explains
that there is no definite principle to secure
happiness, there is no
imperative or law that can make anyone happy anytime.
Prosperity is often
a sign of happiness, and happiness, in Kant’s belief, is
more of an issue of
human imagination, rather than human reason. Still according
to private
happiness, good conduct determines peace in one’s life. It can be
assumed in
this principle that one can only act morally when one wishes to live
in
prosperity. Kant, on the other hand, reiterates that it is one’s duty to
act
with good will towards one’s self and others as well. It is only in
this
manner that moral worth can be allocated to one’s actions. Private
happiness
tends to be a belief that is very selective on its character.
Individuals that
agree with this perspective will tend to follow it whenever
they see it fit
themselves to do so. But perfectly rational beings, according
to Kant, will just
do the right thing, without any hidden agenda whatsoever.
I believe in some of
the areas on private happiness. Like the fact that
having good conduct does
increase the chances of one having peace of mind.
Having a society that still
does good things rather than one mired in chaos
and lawlessness, I’d take that
in a heartbeat. I can sleep well at night
knowing that there are still people
who believe in their values and act on
them, regardless of why they choose to do
so. But the idea of a good will
serving a particular purpose does sound
hypocritical. Kant’s notion of doing
the right thing because it is one’s
duty to do so is part of his philosophy
that I believe in. But how do you know
that there is no hidden agenda? How do
you distinguish an act done out of duty
and one done out of personal gain? I
mean we have to be omniscient, God-like, to
be able to separate these two
things. And that is my beef with Kant’s idea of
pure reason and pure good
will. It is difficult to filter out the purity of
another’s intentions. It
does seem to be paranoia, or a severe case of
distrust on my fellowman, but
in order to believe in something, you’ve got to
test its strength across
different situations. Only then will you know that
you’re defending the right
ideology. Kant, on account of the above reason, now
says that one should act
only on those intentions that can be universally
acceptable, to act only on
those intentions that everybody else will accept. But
again, how do you know
what is agreeable to others and what is detestable?
Except for the
so-called "psychics", last time I heard, no human being can
read minds...so I
hope. So, do I agree with the principle of private happiness?
I do, when
it comes to exhibiting good conduct, that it does determine, among
other
things, how safe and comfortable one is with his or her life. I
don’t,
because it does lose moral worth when it’s a means to an end.
However,
Kant’s supposition is not that clear either to make me embrace
his teachings.
I’m left in what others often call a conundrum, stuck with
no absolute
explanation to the nature of human reason and good will. Maybe
that’s why they
teach these
things...