TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE……………………………………………..…………………
ii
CERTIFICATION…………………………………….……………
iii
DEDICATION…………………………………………………….…iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………….
.v
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………vii
GENERAL INTRODUCTION……………………………….……..x
CHAPTER ONE
KANT’S MORAL PRINCIPLES
1.1
Goodwill…………………………………………………………
1
1.2
The
Concept of Duty………………………………..………….. 5
1.3
The
Imperative…………………………………………….…… 10
CHAPTER TWO
THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
2.1 The Three
Formulae…………………………..………………. 15
1.3.1
The
Formula of Universal Law……………………….……… 17
1.3.2
The
Formula of the Ends in Itself………………….………….21
1.3.3
The
Formula of the Kingdom of Ends……………………….. 22
1.4
The
Justification of Categorical Imperative………………….. 24
2.2.1 Freedom and Categorical
Imperative………………………… 25
2.2.2 Freewill and
Autonomy………………………………………. 26
2.2.3 Freedom and
Natural Necessity………………………………. 27
1.5
How
the Categorical Imperative is possible……………..……. 30
CHAPTER THREE
THE NIGERIAN ETHICAL
ORDER VIS-A-VIS THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
3.1 Socio-Political………………………………….………………
33
3.1.1 Ante-Independence…………………………………….………
34
3.1.2 After
Independence…………………………………….……… 38
3.1.3 Present Situation
(Nigeria Today)……………………………… 43
3.2 Education……………………………………………………….
46
3.3 Religion…………………………………………………………
50
CHAPTER FOUR
EVALUATION AND
CONCLUSION
4.1 Evaluation…………….………………………….………..…..
53
4.2 Conclusion……………………………….……………..………58
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………..……… 61
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
“Human conduct is good or bad
depending on its relation to the norm of morality.”[1] A
norm of morality is a standard to which a human act is compared and which
enables us to determine if it is good or bad. It is a common conviction of
mankind that some actions are good and therefore ought to be done while others
are bad and so to be avoided. But individual as they are, are sectarians as to
what determines the goodness of these acts. An action condemned by a set as
outrageous, may be a necessary duty of another. Even philosophers in their
endeavor to give the general principle on which these moral judgments are based
are varied in their opinions.
In classical period, this problem has
been tackled bi-dimensionally under the guidance of these two questions: What
is the nature of good life? How ought men to behave to achieve good life? In
the modern and contemporary periods, the vantage point has been that of
analysis of some judgments already proposed by the classics as well as the
formulation of some principles supposed to be the ultimate norm for correct
moral judgment. Despite the efforts made in this area, philosophers have not
arrived at one unanimous principle which underlies good life as such. This
neither rules out the tremendous discovery made in this area, nor means that
there are not some particular actions recognizable either as good or bad, at
least in some concrete situations; man with the gift of intuition and
conscience can and has done this.
However, the basic task of moral
philosophers lies in discovering the fundamental principle that characterizes
all good actions. Hence the basic problem of moral philosophers has been the
question such as: what is it that we mean of action when we say that it is
right and ought to be done? Can we discover any general characteristic which
belong in common absolutely to all right actions and which does not belong to
any action except those which are right? Can we discover any single reason
applicable to all right actions equally, which is, in every case, the reason why
an action is right and when it is right?
These questions lingered until the 18th
century philosophers. Immanuel Kant approached them in a unique sense since the
dawn of moral philosophy. Kant stated his ethical philosophy in the form of
moral principle known as “The Categorical Imperative”. The principle
states “Act only on that maxim through
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”[2] In
other words, if I want to carry out an act, I should ask myself if I could
wish that, that act I am about to carry
out should become a generally accepted standard of acting. Kant stated that the
good taken purely and simply is found only in goodwill and goodwill does not
act from natural inclinations, but from duty and so he maintains that only acts
done from duty have moral worth. It then follows that an act is not good
because of its end result, but solely because of the intention of duty, from
which it is performed.
Taking the Nigerian situation as a
case-study, it is easily observable that individual citizens have not
internalized the idea of civic duty as an obligation owed to oneself.
One of the changes that Nigeria
needs desperately is in the area of ethics. For instance, the right of citizens
to be served by those who operate the system has been placed in a state of
total abeyance by an absolute lack of personal commitment to duty. One would
immediately think of Immanuel Kant when one notices sometimes how little public
officials regard their duties as moral obligation. Therefore, from 19th
century on, it has become
impossible to discuss the moral
problems without mentioning Kant. It is in society that one is either moral or
immoral. In other words moral obligations have some social and ethical
implications.
Our aim in this work is to present
the correct interpretation of this principle- the categorical imperative and
also to figure out its implications to the Nigerian ethical order, which has
suffered tremendous practices from the hands of her citizens.
Before going into the full detail of
this work, it is pertinent for one to look briefly at the life of this great
modern philosopher Immanuel Kant, who laid a major landmark in the field of
philosophy and human civilization..
IMMANUEL KANT: LIFE AND WORKS:
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) German
philosopher, considered by many as the most influential thinkers of modern
period, was born at Konigsberg in .
His father was an emigrant from Scotland.
Educated at the local high school, the collegium Fridencianum. Kant proceeded
to the
of where he
encountered and got influenced by that erudite philosopher called Martin
Knutzen. After his education, Kant became a family tutor and later taught in
the university as a “privatdozent”.He taught a wide variety of subjects including
– physics, mathematics, physical Geography and Philosophy. Kant was also a
prolific writer.
Kant was appointed in 1770 to the
chair of logic and metaphysics at the of .
His first book, Thought on the True
Estimation of Living Forces was published in 1747 and between 1754 and
1770, he produce an impressive stream of essays and treatise. His major works
include- Critique of Pure Reason (1781),
Critique of Practical Reason (1790), Critique of Judgment (1790), Metaphysics of Moral (1797) and a host
of others. Religion within the Bounds of
Mere Reason, a book that earned him a political sanction from King
Frederick Williams II, was published in 1793.
Kant never moved out of . He associated with outer society and enjoyed
throughout his life social intercourse with sailors and travelers, with whom he
discussed the political happenings of the time. He awed his audience greatly
with his wide range of Knowledge and intellectually stimulating lectures. He
died on February 12, 1804.
This work is divided into four
chapters. Chapter one deals with some concepts of Kant’s moral principles- the
goodwill, the concept of duty and the imperative. Chapter two treats
exhaustively the supreme principle of morality-the categorical imperative; its
different formulations, its justification and its possibility. Chapter three
deals with the implication of this principle to the Nigerian ethical order and
finally Chapter four takes care of the evaluation and conclusion.
The scope of this work is limited to
morality as it concerns rational beings. Its methodology is both expository and
critical analysis.
KANTIAN
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: ITS IMPLICATION IN NIGERIAN ETHICAL ORDER
CHAPTER ONE
KANT’S MORAL PRINCIPLES
Kant in virtue of his education has a
vivid appreciation of the unparallel excellence of moral value. In his ethical
theory, Kant sets out to discover and justify the supreme principle of morality
and the foundation on which the whole structure of moral law must rest if it is
to be valid as a genuine law of duty. On his part, he has nothing to do with
utilitarianism or with any doctrine which gives to morality a purpose outside
itself. The basis on which his entire ethics rest are; Goodwill, duty and the
imperative.
1.1
GOODWILL
The concept of “goodwill” is a very
important concept in Kant’s ethics. Infact, it is at the center of his moral
philosophy. Kant argues that reason must have some functions. It then follows
according to Kant, that our existence has a different and far nobler end, for
which reason is
properly intended. This end can only
be the cultivation of a will not merely good as means to something else, but
good in itself.
For Kant, goodwill is the only thing
that is good par excellence. Thus he writes;
Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or
even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification except a
goodwill.”1
Thus, all other things we generally
refer to as good are conditionally good; their goodness needs to be qualified
because they can become bad when misused. For instance. Intelligence, courage,
resolution, perseverance, as qualities of temperament and other talents of the
mind, are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects, but these gifts of
nature may also become extremely bad and mischievous if the will which makes
use of it is not good. There are even some qualities which are of service to
this goodwill itself and may facilitate its action, yet which have no intrinsic
unconditional value, but always presuppose a good will, they are not good
absolutely. Moderation in the affections and passions, self-control and calm
deliberation are not only good in many respects but even seem to constitute
part of the intrinsic worth of the person. However, they are far from deserving
to be called good without qualification, although they have been so
unconditionally praised by the ancient thinkers. This owes to the fact that
without the principles of goodwill, they may become extremely bad.
For Kant goodwill is intrinsically
good and is always good. Hence he opines;
A good will is good not because of what it performs or
effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end but simply
by virtue of volition that is good in itself.2
Succinctly, we can say that for Kant,
Goodwill is the only thing that has absolute and unconditional goodness and
that which gives meaning to other limited goods.
However, Kant’s conception of
goodwill attracted two questions by way of objection. First, what does Kant
mean by Good without qualification? Second, what is Goodwill? In answer to the
first question, Professor Paton in his book The Categorical Imperative explains
good without qualification as meaning an unconditional good. By this he means
that goodwill transcends all conditions and therefore is good in whatever
condition it is found.
Kant distinguished the two senses of
the word”Summum” extracted from the phrase “ summum bonum” and therefore drew a
distinct line of demarcation between
supreme and perfect good. According to him,
The Summum may mean either supreme (supremum) or
perfect (consummatum). The former is that condition which is itself
unconditioned, i.e. not subordinate to any other (origianarum); the second is
that whole of the same kind (perfectissimum)3
By this, Kant means that the supreme
good is the unconditioned good but not the perfect good; it is only a part of
the perfect good, while the perfect good is the whole good. According to Kant,
goodwill means supreme and not a perfect good, while the perfect good is
realizable in the life after. Thus Kant gives the condition under which
goodwill can as such be called the “summum bonum” He thus denies the possible
existence of any other perfect goods.
As regards the second question, which
centers on the nature of goodwill, Kant gave some elaborations of this in his
notion of duty. He succinctly defines goodwill” as that which acts for the sake
of duty.”4 Hence for fuller understanding of the
nature of goodwill, we turn to Kant’s notion of duty.
[1] C.
Ekwutosi: Ethical theories unpublished
lectures,( Awka: Pope John Paul II Major Seminary, 2003) p.1
[2] F. Copleston:
A History of Philosophy. The
Enlightenment,( London New York, Continum Publishers, 2003) P.304
1
J. Adler: Great books of the Western
World. Kant(Chicago Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc 1996) p. 256
2 Loc. Cit
3 M.J.Adler; Critique of Practical Reason in Great Books
of Western World, translated by Thomas Kingemill Abboth,(
London:Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Chicago,1996),p.338 .
4 H.J. Paton:
The Moral Law, (London, Hutchinson
publishers, 1972), p 18