Effectiveness Of Hegel’s Criticism On Kant's Moral Theory

Hegel's Criticism of Kant's Moral Theory

Discuss and give our views on the effectiveness of Hegel’s criticism of Kant on morality and law. This is a large question but concentrate on what for you are the significant points?

Kant proposed one can assert moral principles in a single domain. He proposed the Categorical Imperative Theory[1]. He believed on the origination of morality from authoritative humans and was firm on the concept that it did not originate from God. Kant had regard for freedom and suggested that it is most essential for enlightenment.  The interest in aspects of feelings, morality, and affect led him to study on it and thus the argument on the universality and stableness arose. According to Kant, it was important to expose and authorize the morality principles.  The moral decisions are analytical and logical as morality demands that important and rational approaches are significant. (Tavernier 2014)

Kant stated that one should act by following a certain principle in such a way that it is just as significant as a universal law. He proposed the formula of law of nature to illustrate rational principles. According to an example, if there are contractions with the internal or universal standards, the point to consider is that the maxim or the specific principle has somewhat lost its credibility. The theory itself has some confusions due to which criticism was shown later on. The reliability of Kant’s theory was not too deep and there were a lot of questions which were unanswered in his concept of morality.

Kant’s theory was quite interesting because he has totally given a new direction to the concept of morality and he has given all the powers to the authoritative humans in the early era. He believes that nature has some limitations but the moral values are derived from one of the sources which were originated by the humans. This is quite strange to understand the concept because if someone has a belief in God then, it is quite difficult to understand the law. Due to such confusion in his theory, there are certain conflicts as well which are properly criticized by some of the other people. However, Kant’s theory was literally something very different because no one thought that morality has originally been generated by humans.

Wilhelm Hegel criticized the categorical imperative theory. His focus was on the Formula of Law of Nature. Hegel viewed that this concept was more likely to reduce formalism and on the other hand, the moral principles made it more like an obligation for just a duty. In a nutshell, categorical imperative is similar to the litmus moral test. It refers that in a case, if any discrepancy occurs it may lead to the question of presence or the absence of morality. (Hagen 1995) One of the other reasons why Hegel thought it is not the right idea as far as the morality is concerned because in this way, the phenomenon of formalism would be completely neglected. So, people will start taking it as an obligation that nothing should go against the moral values.

Kant's Moral Theory and Categorical Imperative

Considering the moral principles, there are chances of breach in the statement with reference to its abstract theory and the application in an objective situation. It can be understood with the illustration of a simple example. The abstract principle statement suggests “do not steal others belongings.” The dispute may arise on what is considered as stealing and how dangerous or harmful it can be before it is acted upon. Stealing is different from borrowing and what could be the harm if the latter one is adopted. The concrete situation where the act is performed does not lead to immorality. (Shortridge 2013) There is a lot of confusion between the standards set by the universe and those which have been created by us. Hegel is of the view that Kant’s theory has no practical implications and it is just a philosophy that needs to be reviewed and he did it by comparing it with the Formula for Law of Nature.

Kant assumed that the moral principles are substantially against the universal standards, but Hegel objected on this and stated that the rational moral principles crop from the universalizability tests. In an example quoted by Kant, related to an individual who tries to keep hold of those deposits which are although not reported, under one’s protection. The individual if chooses to keep the deposits as there are favorable circumstances can be listed as universalized. Hegel, although did not have much objections on this point, but there are issues in regard to the self-consistency of a will in a world view. The conflicts took art in this argument only because it was supposed by Kant that a moral view of world is like a property and in such a situation, deposits can both be trusted and made. It contradicts with the beliefs, morals, intuitions, and values. Categorical imperative was proposed so it could help in the critical analysis and test of the moral intuitions and values which are part of the maxims.

Hegel has a strong point in his criticism against the theory of Kant that nature has its own power and it can drive the moral values on its own so this concept makes sense to some extent. In other words, the theory which says that morality has been derived from the authoritative humans does not sound correct when it is compared with the law of universe. Hegel criticized it because he thought if authoritative humans were there behind morality then, it should have become a necessity of life for everyone to follow which certainly isn’t the case!

Effectiveness of Kant's Moral Theory

The practical philosophy of Kant was criticized by Hegel. In Philosophy of Right[2], Hegel paid emphasis on the natural drives and he was convinced that these drives can be logical, pure, ordered and rational if the ethical theory is followed. The autonomy of a genuine human being can be easily accessed if the basic rules are acted upon. There was nothing like the concept of ethical formulation in the theory of Kant. It suggest concrete principles are they are generally linked to the drives.

In reality, Hegel did not object on the formulation of categorical imperative theory, but he was against the concept that principle identification and location was the only act to be performed for the moral theory. Hegel anticipated the pitfalls in Kant’s theory as there was no defined difference and distinction among duty and the inclination. Kant provided with a just view and the action theory and did not question about the motivation in a general term. There was difference in the universal and practical impulses, rather than in the degree or position of morality.

The motives according to theory proposed are neither moral nor immoral. There is only the idea of less or high in moral principles. In the process of randomization, it is difficult to administer as there are issues in the standardization of the rationalization process. Hegel suggested that the ethical theory works for one’s desires, needs, motivations, and the reduction of events on a large scale and the freedom which is repointed after the task has been completed, and the systematization.

Hegel debated that Kant was not successful in practically illustrating that the moral will can lead towards contented moral or rational principles. It was argued that if they were actually a source of self-determination and freedom. The initial approach by Hegel was that Kant failed to give the native attitude on the duties and it was defected morally due to lack of substantial act oriented duties. The aim by Kant was the justification of moral law, instead he came up with the doctrine of duty determination. According to Kant, the moral will was a reflective composition in a structured manner and was empirically based on the maxim. The existence of limited identity among empirical and moral will as moral will is sensible, logical, and rational, but empirical will is just rational. The moral will is portrayed by its “formal correspondence with itself” alongside the abstract vagueness and uncertainty. The moral will does not constitutes the content of the maxim neither the interest involved. (Decety & Cowell 2014) Hegel criticized and rejected these concepts and proposed that such inconsistencies are neither to be accepted nor tolerated. The content is what provides with the distinction among the two terms; moral and empirical will. In such propositions, the moral will cannot continue with the empirical will and thus they operate as different entities.

As Kant conceived the moral will with regard to the priori determination, is was independent of the empirical will.

Hegel agreed that the moral will by Kant was independent. He knew that it is the autonomous will which makes a law and formulates the maxim. Hegel agreed on the concept of the acceptance of a maxim or the law according to its integrity in universality. Still, he argued that this was “empty formalism” and he urged that a maxim holds only when it is for the cause of universality rather than the desires or gains which the maxim may lead towards. (Hutton 2007) Hegel’s theory looks more reliable and his criticism makes sense because it is understood that the power of nature is far more than the power of humans. Morality is something which itself creates its place within the humans and the degree of it varies within everyone. (Jnr 2013)

The confusions of Hegel are also questionable as historical considerations reveal that he ignored the basic theoretical components of Kant’s philosophy. In the most important formative years, he did not study the theory of Kant. Even when Hegel approached it, he still did so under the influence of the analysis and judgements made by Schelling and Fichte. Fichte focused on the restricted thesis and gross representations and following him, Hegel also neglected the arguments. In his analysis there was lack of composition and there were no clear propositions on the arguments by Kant. Hegel argued on the items in the situations and world around the individual are just simply phenomenal but they lack ground. As a result, these objections somewhat made Hegel to ignore and miss the actual content which was involved in the idealism and deduction by Kant. There were drawbacks in the findings proposed by Hegel.

Decety, J. and Cowell, J.M., 2014. The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(7), pp.337-339.

Hagen, S., 1995. How the world can be the way it is: An inquiry for the New Millenium into Science, Philosophy, and Perception.

Hutton, E.L., 2007. Hagen, Kurtis, The Philosophy of Xunzi: A Reconstruction. Dao, 6(4), pp.417-421.

Jnr, G.A., 2013. Religion and morality in Ghana: A reflection. Global Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), pp.162-170.

Shortridge, A., 2013. Law against Nature? The Sophists: An Introduction, p.194.

Tavernier, J., 2014. Morality and nature: evolutionary challenges to Christian ethics. Zygon®, 49(1), pp.171-189.