Kant - really universal?

This week, I would like to share some thoughts about the theory of my countryman Immanuel Kant, which I had in the past and which still keep me busy.

As you all know, we discussed the different formulations of the Categorical Imperative in the last class as well as in today‘s class. My thoughts mainly deal with which is probably the most famous formulation, namely: „Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.“ The very base of this approach is that Kant wanted to create a moral law or rather a method to check if a way of acting is considered to be moral or not. Kant‘s claim was, to shape this law in a way, so that it applies to all human beings. Having this in mind, we can understand, we he founds his theories on Reason and not on Happiness, like e.g. Aristotle did. In Kant‘s view, happiness has thousands of faces and therefore can‘t be the measurement for a moral law, but Reason is the same in every human being.

This exactly is the point, I want to talk about: Is Reason really the exact same reason in every human being? Of course, we have to distinguish between Reason and intelligence, but is Reason not also very close connected to the social surrounding and the culture area, where a person grew up? Surely, we would all agree that people coming from the same culture have at least very basic beliefs in common, but what if we compare an indigene and a so called „civilized“ man?

Moral thinking, virtues and therefore also the measurements, how to evaluate them, can definitely change. This can also be seen, if we compare moral beliefs of ancient peoples with contemporary ones.

Although I really believe that the argument mentioned above is true, we cannot deny the fact that no matter at which culture or kind of civilization we look, basic moral principles can be found in each one of them. We would have a hard time to find any kind of society in which it is morally accepted to kill other people. Maybe there was such a society in human history, but we definitely see that this is not a good way to survive.

Personally, I would really myself consider to be a follower of Kant‘s Philosophy, but that does not mean that I cannot criticize his theories. All in all, I think that his approach is one of the best ways in order to create a just and well-working society (also in aspects of the good life, even this was not his main goal), but only within one culture area.

What do you think about this criticism?