Kant Approach To Evil Analysis

871 Words4 Pages
There is an interesting question to be raised when discussing the philosophy of Kant and his approach toward evil. The question lies in whether Kant’s philosophy is efficient to explain human predicament, that is, a person’s suffering in relation to a cause—usually evil—that he is subject to. In my opinion, although Kant’s arguments concerning evil are clear and logical in a sense, his theory is still too flawed to properly explain human predicament. In this paper, I will provide two reasons, which I would like to call common sense, to argue my position. First, Kant places too much emphasis on the intent behind an action rather than the consequence of the action itself. Second, his definition of moral law to which people should adhere, that…show more content…
According to Kant, a person performs moral duty because he recognizes it is the right thing to do; however, if the reason as to why he acted in such a way is because he wanted to pursue a certain self-interest, then that action is considered evil. If there is a pattern to this occurrence, which is called impurity, it makes the person become slightly more corrupted, but not enough to be considered evil yet. Finally, if a person deliberately and always choose to prioritize self-interest over moral duty, that is, he will only perform moral duty if it conforms to his self-interest, then that person is categorized as wickedness, which is the highest degree of evil. Now, my question is simple: Is a person considered evil if he chose to perform moral duty because it would benefit him in a way or another? My answer is no if and only if it does not involve any sort of pain or suffering. We live in a society where evil is generally defined as something that causes suffering or harm to another being. It does not matter whether you uphold moral duty for the sake of fulfilling your self-interest as long as the outcome conforms to the moral law. For instance, if you came upon a wealthy-looking man in a dire need of help in a forest, perhaps because he injured his leg and could not return to his destination, it does not matter whether your intent was to launder money off of him by helping him. As long as you upheld your moral duty by helping him, then you should be considered a good person. Part of that reason is mainly because I feel that it is not for us to judge whether we are good or evil, but for other people to do so, and if other people cannot see the intent behind your actions, then there is no way for them to know whether you are good or evil. In my opinion, the intent behind your action is an irrelevant distraction, that is, it is
Open Document