Immanuel Kantian Ethics

Something happens – injustice, a threat to a nation or a criminal act. Why is it that some people take actions against the so-called “wrongdoers” while some others remain silent? Who or what determines whether something is an “ethical” decision/action? I believe these questions eventually boil down to ethical dilemmas, which are a conflict between moral imperatives. According to me, no party can be judged to be absolutely right or wrong in any given situation; it is a lot more subjective. It depends solely on which imperatives you value most. Simply put, one decision may be unethical on the basis of the consequences of the decision (Consequentialists) but that same decision could be ethical based on the motives of making that decision (Deontologists).

Although I do understand that it is very difficult to know the true motives of an individual making a decision, I think it is less subjective than it is deemed to be. I peculiarly favor Immanuel Kant’s School of thought in the Deontological wing of Ethics. Kant’s moral philosophy is “Do the right thing, Do it because it is the right thing to do”. Kant believed that we should act from a sense of moral duty and act with the correct motives, without any regard to the consequences of our action. He emphasized that the motives would be morally correct if they adhered to two rules.

Of these 474 to 881 (around 17% to 26%) were civilian causalities . What I find even more disturbing than this inefficiency is that although these drone attacks are aiming to remove terrorism and terrorist organizations, they are instead cultivating breeding grounds for more terrorists by killing civilians. Is this decision of drone strikes to eradicate terrorism at the cost of innocent civilian lives ethical? I think it is instructive to invoke Kant’s theory of Moral philosophy to answer this question at its very