Kant Aquinas

Aaron Keene

PHI 240 HSY1

Wally Calabrese

Kant and Aquinas both have very reputable theories on morality. Both of them are considered to be influential and their theories are used by many. Kant’s moral theory focuses on reason and deals with absolutes. Aquinas on the other hand, examines intentions and uses tradition natural law theory to prove his points. To determine which one of these theories best fits within my spectrum of understanding I must examine and compare these two theories.

        Kant’s moral theory is a nonconsequentialist theory. For consequentialists, moral right and wrong is determined by the outcome of an action, good consequences make an act right and bad outcomes make that act wrong. However, for nonconsequentialists, the moral rightness of a deed comes from the rightness of an action regardless of the outcome, good or bad. Kant believed that in reason alone we could find moral right and wrong. He believed that to do the right thing meant to do an action with only accordance to the moral law in my mind. Kant believed that moral laws were made entirely on categorical imperatives. Much in the same way the Bible says “thou shalt not kill” it doesn’t say thou shalt not kill unless it is to save someone else, it doesn’t say don’t steal something unless your kids will starve to death. Kant’s theory is based upon absolutes. However, one of the guidelines Kant came up with is the idea of universal law. Kant believed that an action that broke a categorical imperative can be deemed as morally permissible under certain conditions. 1) If everyone consistently acted the same way in that given situation. 2) If you yourself would be willing to let that given event occur. In my mind these statements made a lot of sense and gave some leniency to Kant’s very absolute theory. I think in most people’s moral compass if I was being chased by someone attempting to harm me and I stole someone’s car in order to make a getaway (with all intentions of later returning it) I would need to look at 2 things. Would most people act in a similar fashion given the circumstances? Yes, almost every person would so I have passed this first test. Secondly, if I were the person who owned the car would I be ok with this action if I understood the situation? Again, my answer would be yes, while I might at first be outraged for someone stealing my car I would be much less aggravated by it if I knew an innocent man was trying to run for his life. The part of Kant’s moral theory which struck a chord within me the most was his idea of the “Means-ends principle”. Kant’s view was that people should be seen as people not just as means to an ends. If every person followed this viewpoint then our world would be a much different, peaceful place.

        While Kant’s theory provides many insightful points and really opens up discussions that cause the reader to think and analyze their actions, Kant’s moral theory isn’t quite the one that aligns within my particular beliefs. Kant’s moral theory is a very strict and absolute type of thinking, saying that certain rules should always be followed regardless of the consequence is an unrealistic type of thinking. However, Kant’s moral theory follows a line of thinking that would help when trying to support a deductive argument, deductive arguments have conclusions which claim to be always true. Deductive arguments and Kant’s moral theory go directly hand in hand. Page 75 of Doing Ethics states “The more useful a scientific theory is, the more credibility it acquires.” Kant’s moral theory can help us solve a lot of moral dilemmas and therefore making it useful and as a result more credible.

        While Kant’s moral theory doesn’t align with my understanding of moral theory perfectly, Aquinas’ natural law theory aligns with my beliefs far better. Kant and Aquinas’ moral theory are actually fairly similar but they have a few differences which, for me, make their arguments even more appealing. Aquinas believed in the intentions behind an action make an action right or wrong. Doing Ethics used an example on page 111 which states “A pregnant woman has cancer and will die unless she receives chemotherapy to destroy the tumors. If she does take chemotherapy, the fetus will die. Is it morally permissible for her to do so?” Traditional natural law theory would state that yes, it is morally permissible for the woman to undergo chemotherapy because of the intention behind the action. The intention wouldn’t be to kill the fetus, the intention is just to save the life of the woman. It is not the consequence of the action that makes it right or wrong it is the idea behind the action. My understanding of moral theory directly aligns with this way of thinking. Many of the consequences of good actions are twisted into negative events, not by any fault of the people but because of forces outside the control of the person. If I try to buy a birthday gift for my wife and a sequence of events follow that create a domino effect that kills several people it doesn’t make me an evil person or make the action of buying a gift for my wife evil, it just means that there were variables outside of my control. Many people follow this line of thinking in real life situations, that is why people are far more accepting of a bad situation that is caused by an accident then on purpose, no one man can control the world and guarantee that their actions will always end up doing good rather than bad. This is the reason Aquinas’ natural law theory best correlates with my understanding of moral theory, it is far more forgiving to the people and a lot less absolute in its rules and application of said rules then Kant’s moral theory.