1. Kant

Kant’s Theory of Ethics

In his Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) asserted that the true moral law should not be a “hypothetical imperative,” which simply tells us to “do something as a means to achieve some purpose,” but rather it should be a “categorical imperative,” which straight-forwardly tells us to “do something,” unconditionally. For example, we should not “be honest merely as a means of being regarded as a nice person,” but instead we should “be honest,” unconditionally. The categorical imperative is established by practical reason, and it gives our will an imperative, or an order. (Practical reason is called the “legislator”.) The will that has received the imperative of practical reason is a good will, and a good will urges us to action.

Kant described the fundamental law of morality as follows: “So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle in a giving of universal law.” ³ “Maxim” here refers to a principle of practice determined subjectively by a person’s individual will. According to Kant, an action undertaken should be such that the subjective principle, or maxim, directing it could be applied universally. Kant regarded as good that which holds true universally, with no contradiction, just like natural law; that which can not hold true universally, he regarded as evil.

Kant said that the moral law within us, present as the voice of duty, presses us into action. He stated, “Duty! Sublime and mighty name that embraces nothing charming or insinuating but requires submission, … but only holds forth a law that of itself finds entry into the mind and yet gains reluctant reverence.” ⁴ The morality asserted by Kant was a morality of duty.

Kant also stated that in order for a good will not to be regulated by anything, freedom must be postulated; and that, as long as imperfect persons seek to realize goodness perfectly, the immortality of the soul must be postulated; and that, when one seeks perfect goodness, or the supreme good, virtue should be connected with happiness, and in order for virtue to properly correspond with happiness, the existence of God must be postulated. Thus, Kant recognized the existence of the soul and of God as postulates of practical reason.

Unification Thought Appraisal of Kant’s Perspective of Ethics

Kant distinguished pure reason (i.e., theoretical reason) from practical reason. Pure reason is for the purpose of knowledge, and practical reason regulates the will and guides it to action. Since pure reason is separate from practical reason, there can not but arise the question of why action required by the categorical imperative is good. In deciding whether or not a certain action is good, one must ascertain the result of that action. Yet, according to Kant, an action that is directly impelled by the categorical imperative to do a certain thing, irrespective of the results of that action, is good.

Suppose a person A happens to encounter a wounded person B, and the categorical imperative “you must help this person” is issued. Suppose, further, that A, receiving the categorical imperative, tries to take the wounded B to a hospital. Now, B may not want to be taken to the hospital, and he may refuse to be helped and want to go to the hospital by himself. A is satisfied with the situation because he followed a categorical imperative issued by practical reason. In this case, A will regard his action as a good deed unconditionally, but B will feel it to be disturbing and not want to regard it as good.

In this way, without taking into account the result, Kant is only concerned with the motivation. His position does not necessarily accord with the common sense of goodness. Such a difficulty can arise because Kant separated pure reason from practical reason, or knowledge from practice. In fact, pure reason and practical reason are not separated from each other: reason and act are one. We act while taking into account the result of our action, according to one and the same reason.

Kant’s notion of moral law raises certain questions: what is the standard according to which subjective maxims are to be universalized, and in what way does such universalization become possible? Kant said, on the one hand, that if all people became perfectly moral happiness would be realized; on the other hand, however, that since an act aiming at happiness is merely a hypothetical one, it can not be regarded as good. Although he knew that people seek happiness, he held that they should not aim at happiness. In this context, he postulated God, and affirmed that if we practice goodness perfectly, we will necessarily be happy.

The problems in Kant’s view are derived from the fact that he did not know about God’s purpose of creation. For him, all purposes were self-loving and selfish. From the perspective of Unification Thought, however, human beings have dual purposes, namely, a purpose for the whole and a purpose for the individual, and originally they were to pursue the purpose for the individual while placing priority on the purpose for the whole. In contrast, what Kant referred to as “purpose” was nothing but the purpose for the individual. As a result, he denigrated every kind of purpose, and his moral law became a law with an ambiguous criterion.

Furthermore, Kant asserted that, in order for the moral law to be established, the immortality of the soul and the existence of God must be postulated. On the other hand, in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant excluded God and the soul saying that it is impossible to cognize them since they lack any kind of sense-content. Here, also, there is a difficulty in Kant’s philosophy. He postulated God, but his postulated God is only a hypothetical God, not the true or existing God. As such, his God was not the God whom we can believe in and rely on.

Kant attempted to establish the standard of goodness of his moral law based only on duty, which is given to us by practical reason. This is merely a cold world of duty, a world of regulations like those followed by a platoon of soldiers. Seen from the Unification Thought point of view, duty and behavioral norms can not be a purpose in themselves, since the purpose of our action is ultimately to realize true love. Duty and behavioral norms are merely the means for actualizing true love.