Hire Writer

Kantian Ethics - Kantianism

Categories: Categorical Imperative Ethics Philosophical Theories Philosophy

Download

Essay, Pages 5 (1154 words)

Views

205

Without free will, we are nothing but meat sack puppets.
The most important question throughout the book is about ethics.
What makes an action good and what makes an action bad?
Or simply, what is good and what is bad?
Let's approach these puzzling questions with a Kantian perspective:

To sum Kantianism up:

Kantian ethics are deontological, they revolve entirely around duty rather than emotions or consequences. All actions must be performed with an underlying principle or maxim. He says that every rational being can act morally and have the same reasoning.

Categorical Imperative: all actions are moral and "good" if performed as a duty.
Formula of Universal Law: actions must apply to everyone and always result in good.
Formula of Humanity as an End: never treat anyone as a means to an end, or employ ideas like inclination or your own benefit to actions.
Formula of Autonomy: manipulating another person to go against their moral right or "good" is wrong.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Kantian Ethics – Kantianism ”
Get custom paper
NEW! smart matching with writer

All human beings are free rational agents bound by a will that is logical.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Categorical Imperative

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Bad human beings have bad wills.
Kingdom of Ends: imagine every maxim you employ and every action you take is forming a group of set laws for all of humanity in an imaginary Kingdom of Ends. Perfect justice and perfect peace will ensue.

Now that we have some understanding of Kantianism, let's return to analyzing the book.

Alex is a 15 year old boy who participates in criminal gang activities. He steals, he hurts, he rapes and he kills.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper

Topic

Deadline: 10 days left

Number of pages

Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"

Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

He is the worst example the author could give. We can not try to justify his actions. He isn't insane, he doesn't have a traumatizing past and he doesn't do these actions for anything in particular.

Alex eventually has a fight with his friends and they turn their backs on him. After a house robbery goes wrong and a lady is killed, Alex gets arrested. His friends are long gone by the time the cops arrive.

After this scene, Alex starts being portrayed as somewhat miserable. He is beaten up behind the bars, harassed by perverts and abused by the guards. After a while, they suggest something called "Ludovico Technique" to "treat" him. The aim of this treatment is to make him a good person who can be a part of society again without the fear of the person returning to their old habits, something that frequently happens with ex-convicts. Because they have no house to go back to, or because crime is all they've ever known, they go back to their old ways.

When reading the book, we can easily understand that this is indeed a very cruel treatment.
Something similar to this happens to homosexual people. They are sent to gay camps where they undergo shock therapy and witness traumatizing events.
Beside this being unnecessarily cruel, it actually doesn't do anything it aims to.
People who are born a certain way will not have their DNA change, and Alex will not be a good person.

How? Let me explain.

What if a celebrity donated 50 thousand dollars to a charity just to gain some popularity?

Are they still doing a good act? Are they a good person if they are doing an action that is generally perceived as "good" just because?

I mentioned some Kantianism before. Now, according to that, not only Alex doesn't do good actions or become a good person, the doctors are in fact the bad people for doing something that destroys the very essence of us humans in the first place: free will.

After the treatment, Alex doesn't start questioning his actions. He still wants to kill, he still wants to rape, and he still wants to cause damage. But he just can't. He becomes sick whenever he tries to do these actions. So quite literally, he can't do anything. Whether that's bad or good.

If the treatment actually worked and Alex became a "good person" the result would be like this:

Alex would develop a healthy thinking process and analyze his choices. He would do good because he would know it's the right thing to do, not because he wanted someone to like him. He wouldn't do things for his personal gain. He would realize that if he stole, everyone could too and the world would be a chaotic place to live in. He would change not because he wanted to get out of jail, but to change the world.

On the contrary, after he gets released, people start walking all over him because he doesn't have the ability to protect himself. That is because he doesn't have a rational reasoning anymore. There are no gray areas with Ludovico Technique, because the patient doesn't have a free thought process anymore. They will only do things that can't, even as an accident, hurt someone. Not only that, he also doesn't achieve what a good person hopes to. The cycle of immorality continues, it's just not him this time but other people. He contributes to evil in the world because of this.

Alex's natural self is praised only when the politicians realize they can profit from him.
This part really disturbed me because it really makes you wonder how people are really used as a means to an end.
The plot takes a different turn at this point. It is now not about morals, but something bigger and more important: Our identity.
What if Alex wasn't a dangerous criminal but an author who just happened to disagree with the government?
The only reason Alex went through this is because he is against what the society and the government believes, not because of a greater good or the harmony of the community.
Let's accept Alex and the hypothetical author as threats to the government.
Where do we draw the line between a dangerous individual and someone who commits a thought crime?

Is there a spectrum of bad?

What's so disturbing about this is the realization that it doesn't matter what you do, if you go against them and you're different, you'll be forced to change.

The book concludes that* you only matter when you are profitable to the government. Your individuality, mistakes or the sins you've committed don't matter as long as you are the front page of a newspaper and help them get a few thousand more votes.

As long as you go do your job and be quiet. As long as you call the police when you are beaten up by a gang returning from your ordinary job and expect them to solve it for you. As long as you don't worry and believe in God when the gang can afford better lawyers and your attackers are walking freely in the streets when your life becomes a cage.

Fairy tales aren't real and this book is the perfect example of it.

*based on the ending of the American version and the film directed by Stanley Kubrick