Ethics

Immanuel Kant is popularly known for his categorical imperative notion. His ideas or school of thoughts were in great contrast with the utilitarian theorists. The categorical imperative according to him was a standard of rationality. His moral philosophy revealed that deviation from the categorical imperative was irrational.

Kantian ethics differentiate happiness and being good. Whereas the utilitarian theorists suggest that people should pursue those interests that maximize happiness, Kant notes that since happiness is beyond ones power and depends on luck, then happiness is very different from being good. He further noted that ethic ought to be universal and unconditional to eliminate chances for skepticisms as well as allow comparison. To him, goodwill does not require qualification as it acts for the sake of duty. Kant also argued that mans actions can be classified as actions in accordance with duty or for the sake of duty. Those acts done for the sake of duty are viewed as having moral worth.

Kant adopted a retributive view to punishment and believed that although wrong doers were rational beings, it is alright to punish them as long as the punishment accorded does not exceed their crimes in magnitude.  

Kant rejected Humes theory on the ideal theory of the mind. To him, analytical methods should not be used to explain what is physically evident. He noted that synthetic reasoning involves relating concepts that are not directly related to the subject concept. A prior knowledge can be used in the metaphysics study.

Kant described the categorical imperative approach where he sees all human beings as occupants of a special place in creation. People have different needs which ought to be satisfied using certain means. He uses the term maxim to refer to intentions or principle of action. Human beings should not act in a way that portrays other people simply as means to an end but as an end to itself. In working to attain the maxim people should not use others simply as means to an end. People used should benefit from the arrangement and their consent should be sought. To him, duties should be beneficial to people used in the process of attaining the goals.
     
Kant further noted that here are two types of imperatives. The hypothetical imperative tells of what we ought to do to achieve a goal while the categorical imperative leads to absoluteness as human beings are rational and can govern their actions. People should only act on maxims that can become universal law. To Kant, there are universal moral laws that are logically necessary. Peoples actions should therefore be performed according to the acceptable universal laws of morality. Individuals should act according to the same general, future and moral laws.
   
All people should be treated with moral respect. Deception should not be considered even when being applied for wrongdoers. To Kant, duties can be perfect or imperfect. Imperfect duties entail working to develop our talents since they are given to us for a purpose while perfect duties entail a duty to others.

Kant rejected the ethical force brought about by tradition and coined the modern idea of autonomy. He brought about the idea of centrality of rational thought. Each person can make free and autonomous choices and they are compelled by rationality and the categorical imperative in their decisions. Adherence to categorical imperative provides for autonomous ethical choice since people make their decisions rationally. In pursuit for various maxims all parties involved benefit from the arrangement. Autonomous means self legislating. Autonomy of the will is the ability of the will to be a will in itself while the will refers to the means by which a maxim can become a universal law. (Collins, 2000)
     
To Kant, objects do not have value but man gives them value through their rational goals and desires. Human beings have an intrinsic worth or dignity. They should therefore act in good will out of a sense of duty and use the categorical imperative. What we give to society comes back to us and we ought not to harm others but work in ensuring that they benefit from our actions.

Moral rules according to Kant have no exception and don not change with changing situations. He dismisses the utilitarian approach on ethics being based on consequences since such consequences are beyond peoples control.
 
Using the categorical imperative thought, to Kant, gay marriages are permissible.  According to the categorical imperative principle, as mentioned before, human beings are the ultimate objects of creation and there morals are founded on reason or what he refers to as the imperative. Simply stated, an imperative is an intention that can be deemed to be necessary in a certain circumstance. A categorical imperative on the other hand is a notion or a requirement that has a universal application.  According to Kant, once we establish that something is immoral, and then it should be deemed to be so universally. Likewise, if something is regarded to not immoral, then it should be accepted universally.  To really evaluate Kant thinking in regard to homosexuality, it is crucial to examine the societys standpoint on gays.  Less than two decades ago, the issue of homosexuality was highly controversial and homophobic attacks were the order of the day. However, as scientific research delved deeper to explain the homosexuality phenomena, it was revealed that homosexuality was indeed a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality and bisexuality.  This research hence discarded any thoughts of homosexuality being immoral but rather asserted the role of genetic predisposition. With these studies and increased activism from the gay community, homosexuality has come to be accepted by a significant proportion of the population as not being immoral and legislations have been put in place to safeguard their rights.

As stated, morals are based on reasoning any hypothetical moral notions cannot hence be used as the foundations of moral judgments.  People cannot be judged on such mere subjective considerations.  The idea of homosexuality being immoral was as a result of subjective consideration and not on categorical imperative. Having ascertained that homosexuality is not immoral, it is only justifiable that further rights be accorded to the community as part of the societys moral duty and also in the belief that such rights should be universally applied.