Immanuel Kant, in his theory of Kantianism, claims that the righteousness or the wrongness of our actions is not dependent on the consequences but rather on if they fulfil our duty. He had a great belief in the categorical imperative, which is a moral law that he considered supreme. The categorical imperative was important to Kant because he believed that humans need to apply reason to determine the right thing to do (Vleeschauwer, 2016). Utilitarianism on the other hand holds that the outcomes of an action determine if it is wrong or right. In utilitarianism, the action that results in the greatest good for the majority is the most ethical one. This is a direct opposite of Kantianism, which does not care much for the outcome of an action.
Free will is the ability to select between available courses of action without any hindrance. Just as the name suggests, the actions are freely chosen by an individual, and no external forces push or hinder them. Philosophers who subscribe to this school of thought believe that humans are responsible for every action they take, and do not leave anything to fate. For example, someone can decide to beat up another individual who stole from them. This is a case of free will because there is also the option of forgiving and letting them go unharmed, but instead, they chose to beat up the other.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Kant is a strong believer in free will, and his Kantianism theory strongly supports this. He explains that people are held responsible for their actions, and not for what led them to do whatever they did. Free will therefore becomes a necessity because then one can account for their actions which they chose without influence (Sidgwick, 1888). Humans need to apply reason to determine right from wrong, but can only do this with free will. If not for free will, then humans may not be able to decide what actions to take, meaning they then cannot be held accountable for whatever decisions they make.
According to him, if an action fulfils our duty then it is righteous regardless of the consequences. As one makes a decision to act in a particular way, they have an expectation in mind; the duty that needs to be fulfilled. Free will then allow such an individual to act in a way that meets their particular need. Whether the action is good or bad is not important, what is important is that the individual had a choice to act in a certain way and they did. His duty would have been fulfilled, and whether it is a crime or not, he will eventually face the consequences (Sidgwick, 2010).
Free will in Kant’s case seems to go hand in hand with Kantianism. Humans need and act according to what they consider best serves their interests. No external forces, whatsoever, push them to make decisions as some philosophers allude. There is also a belief in free will that everything that is to happen is already pre-determined by the creator. We only act in line with what was set out to happen at that particular point in time. People are therefore free to choose how to act, although they already have a way they are expected to. This is rather confusing. Because then, people seem to be acting in a way that was decided before their existence, and beats the logic of free will. If it was already determined that you will murder, does that give one a choice really? Isn’t it more of something that is imposed on one that they have to subscribe to? (Sherman, 2018).
References
Sherman, J. E. (2018, February 08). A Refreshing New Approach to the Free Will Debate. Retrieved August 6, 2019, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201802/refreshing-new-approach-the-free-will-debate
Sidgwick, H. (2010). The Kantian Conception of Free Will. MIND; A Quality Review of Philosophy, 13(51), 405-412. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8999-1_4
Vleeschauwer, H. J. (2016). Objections to Kantianism. Retrieved August 6, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kantianism/Objections-to-Kantianism
