On Kant, Moral Law and Happiness

Back to some boring philosophical musings, you've been warned.

The plan was to do a series on the concept of happiness through the ages starting with the Greeks and moving towards modern interpretations. This probaly won't be happening but I am still going to discuss from time to time various perspectives on this idea.

I am going to talk about Immanuel Kant and his definition of happiness. Kant was an 18th century German philosopher and his work laid the cornerstone for much of modern philosophical thought.

Kant never truly defined happiness in-of-itself, but as part of a larger idea, the idea of moral law. Kant saw happiness as a nebulous concept based on needs and desires, not an iron clad rule or law in any sense.

To be happy was not necessarily important or a central tenet or goal of life. Humanity must be defined by the moral law, a law that all who are rational must adhere to, as an obligation, as a duty. Adhering to this moral law may bring bring happiness, but than again it may not. Kant writes in Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science that we must act in accordance with moral law in ways that have the "worthiness of being happy".

Morality trumps happiness and only acts that are moral can lead to any semblance of happiness. To Kant, morality can be measured, examined and quantified and is a law much like gravity. Happiness is merely a human construct and is subject to the whims and passions of the rational and irrational.

Maybe Kant is right and to much attention is focused on happiness, missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Or maybe Kant's belief in moral law as a natural law is mistaken and it is just another human construct like happiness. This does not mean moral law is unimportant but that it is not in fact a law like gravity, but a law that exists ii the eye of the beholder.

Kant is not easy to read and it is far easier to read about him than to read his actual work. Perhaps I am misinterpreting some of his ideas, or perhaps not. But to sum up: we may be happy, but we must be moral for any happiness to exist, even if we are not the recipients of it.