Immanuel Kant made the greatest contribution to human society by asking us to introspect. He gave each and every one of us the freedom to choose our own good, and yet made our choices so universal. His morality was not dogmatic or artificial; it was compassionate and relatable for every creature. Rajit Roy
As one begins to watch Woody Allen’s aesthetic film Irrational Man, one is faced at the start with a rephrasing of Immanuel Kant’s compelling observation – Human reason is troubled by questions it cannot dismiss, but also cannot answer; and indeed Kant’s philosophical treatises seem to be putting human reason and rational to the test. However, one single vital aspect of his colossal work is his critique on morality. In the kind of civilization that we live in now, the idea of moral values and ethics often tend to be taken for granted. If something is good, it’s good. What is bad is bad. No questions asked. Maybe such submission to value systems and codes has been serving its purpose so far. We have a judiciary that is based on this subtle relationship and understanding. No doubt we have every reason to question its efficiency today, yet our society is bound together by this framework of moral system. However, since scepticism is one of man’s greatest tools for growth, we must be willing to deconstruct our beliefs. Perhaps a deeper understanding of our values and principles would make us more conscious of our moral decisions. Therefore let’s be Kant for a moment. One of the first questions that define moral philosophy is the question of moral grounding. What is our morality based upon? Where do values come from? Once this fundamental question is sorted you, we can go further and ask- how valid this moral order is? Such curiosity at first sounds disturbing, bringing to judgement the very things that our society at large rests upon. But then philosophy needs courage. In an attempt to seek out the basis for our ethics and values, the first line of thought points towards religion. All religions, without exception, teach the art of goodness and peace with others. However, their morality is never backed by reason or rational, but is only based on faith. Our quest, however, is a quest of logic, not so much of faith or belief. So where do we look for next? Science, despite its seemingly improbable relationship with something as abstract as morality, can very well provide a clue. Human biology is a consequence of evolution that shaped the biosphere on earth. Darwin’s natural selection theory provided a new way of looking at life. The evolution of Homo sapiens had taken thousands of years of biological selection to eventually lead to a species as intelligent as us, capable of asking questions like these. In terms of biology, the idea of ‘moral good’ doesn’t seem a very likely terminology. Nature works by means of pure mathematics to sustain the survival of organisms and to pass on genes. Our evolution too was largely triggered by necessity rather than choice of good or evil. However, another kind of evolution was simultaneously working to ensure the proliferation of the human genome across the planet. It was cultural evolution. It led to the growth of civilizations and made humans the greatest of earth’s creatures. All of this was deeply rooted in our collective conscience. We evolved as animals who could relate to each other unlike any other organism. Trust, faith and cooperation became our survival kit. Being good to others, helping them grow, that’s how our species managed to ensure its continuum. With time, these ideas took a concrete shape of order built into ethics and moral codes. The need for competition for resources made it necessary that people should be organized in groups and should live by laws. As language developed, we started crafting these survival instincts into ideologies and metaphors. Maybe that’s how religion started after all. We became creatures who could adapt to any environment largely because we learnt to create our own laws or principles, those that were far more complex and elaborate than the laws of nature that were purely statistical. Yes, morality was a survival instinct. But then what laws should we live by when we have evolved into beings capable of making individual decisions and not limited by the mere need to survive? That is where Kant comes in. In his categorical imperative, Kant states-“Do as you wish should be done by the whole. Act such that your actions were to become a universal order.” I think this way of approaching our sense of good or bad is incredible in any way. Our actions must be instinctive based on our basic nature as human beings, as we expect others to behave. I feel there can be no better alternative to this moral code. Immanuel Kant made the greatest contribution to human society by asking us to introspect. He gave each and every one of us the freedom to choose our own good, and yet made our choices so universal. His morality was not dogmatic or artificial; it was compassionate and relatable for every creature. “Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness.” ~Immanuel Kant
0 Comments
|
About Me
Rajit Roy
An existential romantic, an agnostic and a prospective biologist. Archives
September 2018
Categories |