Name:

Lecturer’s name:

Course:

Date:

According to Kant, human beings and all other creatures that are rational tend to not only have

ends but also have intrinsic value. Because of this, he states that it is not moral for human beings to use

each other as means for their own ends. Kant further states that the principle of humanity and any

creature that is rational as an end in itself are not borrowed from experience, moreover it is clear that all

those rational beings are members of a universal kingdom of ends. In addition, these laws are not only

made by these beings, but these beings are also subject to the laws, which have been made. Every

rational or human nature is based on the autonomy of the beings, which is practiced by them.

The categorical imperative is at the center of the philosophical concept as espoused in the moral

philosophy of Kant and it may be used as a way of determining the motivations that bring about the

actions of human beings. Kant's view is that all human beings occupy an unusual place in the creation,

and this makes them immensely rational creatures that were given the ultimate commandment of

reason. Therefore, it is from this command of reason that all the duties and obligations that are

observed by rational creatures are derived (McKinnon 844). Moreover, Kant defined an imperative as

any suggestion that stated a certain activity or inactivity taken by a rational being to be necessary. A

categorical imperative shows an implicit requirement, which is independent; that it affirms its authority

in all situations that are required and justified as ends in themselves.

In addition, Kant in his work expressed the extreme dissatisfaction he felt with the moral

philosophy that was extremely popular in his time believing that this philosophy would never be able to

surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives. A utilitarian in Kant's time would have said that the

murder was wrong because of the fact that it did not make best use of the good in those people who
were involved but that this was inappropriate for those people who were anxious with the maximization

of the optimistic outcomes, which would come for themselves. Because of this, Kant argued that the

morals systems that were based on the hypothetical could not persuade moral actions, or be regarded as

the basis of moral arguments against others, this is because their imperatives were largely based on the

subjective. Therefore, as an alternative Kant conferred an option in a moralistic system that was based

on the categorical imperative (O'Hagan 525).

Kant like the utilitarians based his moral theory on the intrinsic value but this is the only

similarities between these moral values. This is where utilitarianism takes happiness to be conceived as

pleasure and the absence of pain to be an intrinsic value, moreover, Kant states that one's thinking that

they have moral worth for its own sake is enough to be considered one’s good will. In addition, he

conceives people to be autonomous moral agents who have moral worth that is intrinsic and it is this,

more than anything that makes them deserve moral respect. This hypothesis of Kant is sometimes

thought of as the respect of person’s theory of morality (Mina 24).

According to Kant, some objections to the moral theory have been there because of the fact that

it is not always in the best interests of somebody to tell the truth. Sometimes, the truth is not always,

what is needed and instead it can be extremely detrimental to a person or those who are around him.

For example, it would not be a person's best interests to tell a killer where his best friend is if this killer

intends to kill his friend. Instead, this person has to lie to the killer to ensure that the life of his best

friend is saved and in the process, the moral theory as stated by Kant ceases to function. Kant's moral

theory is exceedingly limited to the telling of the truth, and it does not include those circumstances

when the truth may not necessarily be a marvelous thing in the end.

Still, the belief that one is one's own moral agent is extremely much flawed because if this were

to be true, then the whole world would have been in chaos today. Moreover, most people believe that

their actions are right whether they are doing good or bad and they will always find a justification for
their actions. Therefore, it is a fact that individuals cannot be trusted with the responsibility of being

their own moral agents because to do so would be detrimental to the society. Instead, all moral

authority should be placed in the hands of the society in which individuals live so that it can guide the

actions of all its members. Thus, an individual will be more likely to be motivated to do right if they are

under the close watch of the society and the societal expectations that he has to bear. Therefore, it can

be said that individuals do not do good because of the universal law, which has been put to make them

do so, but because of the expectations, which the society has of them.

Thus, to resolve the issue of whether Kant's theory is still applicable or not, we have to

appreciate that it is a very good moral theory, which can even be put into practice in certain situations.

However, it is still not a universally applicable theory, and some of the recommendations put forward

by Kant on how one should conduct himself morally have to be suspended in certain situations. An

example of this is as mentioned above where a killer asks a person about the whereabouts of his friend

whom the killer wishes to kill. According to Kant, this person would be obliged to tell the killer the

truth, which would not be in the best interests of his friend. Therefore, a more logical approach to this

situation would be for the person to suspend his obligation of telling the killer the truth in a bid to

ensure that his friend's life is saved. The contradiction in Kant's work is therefore, brought to the fore

and it is a very rare thing for it to be applied in the real world because to do so would lead to a lot of

conflict of interest among the parties involved.

According to the Kantian theory, all rational creatures are ends in themselves and have intrinsic

value and because of this; these creatures should not use each other as means to their own ends as this

would be bad for the individuals involved. Moreover, the human being is a very special creature, and it

is because of this that he was given the ultimate commandment of reason to guide him in all of his

actions so that he may be able to judge for himself whether he is doing the right thing or not. However,

this theory does not state how one should handle himself when one is faced with a situation where this
theory does not work. In addition, there is a lot of contradiction over whether one should always tell the

truth even if it is to be a bad thing for them or for those around them. Moreover, there are times when

the Kantian theory cannot be applied and has to be suspended in order to open the way for a solution

that is more appropriate for the situation at hand.

In conclusion, human beings according to Kant are human beings compared to other creatures

and thus tend to not only have ends but also have fundamental values. Moreover, Common sense has

to be used in order to ensure that there is a balance in everything that is done and the Kantian theory

does not have all the elements that are needed to ensure that there is common sense in all the decisions

that are made. It is therefore necessary to ensure that when the Kantian theory is being applied to any

decision, it is also balanced with the other theories which concern morality so that a universal theory

can be created. Therefore, in this way, there will be a more rational approach to the matters, which

concern the issue of morality and human beings.

Furthermore, the Kantian theory can be applied in a number of situations and one of these is the

application in matters concerning government where the public needs transparency so that they can

have more confidence in it. This would not only ensure that there is transparency within government

but it will also bring about a culture of politicians speaking the truth to their people instead of the lies

they say to be reelected. However, this theory is not applicable in those situations where the truth is not

necessarily the best option. An example of this would be to tell a child that a parent is dead and that he

will never see this parent again. Instead of doing this, this child is likely to be told that their parent has

gone away and that he is in a better place. This will not only serve to sooth the pain that the child is

feeling but it will also bring about a sense of hope that he will see his parent again. However, there are

times when it is very appropriate to tell the truth so that pain can be felt once and be forgotten in a few

days.
 Works Cited

McKinnon, Christine. "Human Welfare and Moral Worth: Kantian Perspectives." The Review of

Metaphysics 57.4 (2004): 844-5.

Mina, Antonio. "Emotions and the Moral Life: Kantian and Stoic Norms for Moral Behavior."

Eudaimonia : the Georgetown Philosophical Review 2.1 (2005): 24-8.

O'Hagan, Emer. "Moral Self-Knowledge in Kantian Ethics." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12.5

(2009): 525-37.