Grace > Kantian Moral Philosophy

Reflecting on Kant’s formulation of morality, I see distinct differences between his thought and Christianity. For Kant, pure reason is the ruler by which humanity finds its end in acting morally. The individual defines a universally applicable rule, or maxim, that ought to be dutifully followed for the welfare of all. Thus, according to Kant, goodness enters the world through the volition of the human will in accordance with this law. Consequently, dignity is treated as something morally established by adhering to this high principle and by treating others as ends in themselves, rather than as means.

Christianity would not disagree that we should not treat people merely as means rather than ends. However, it does posit that the dignity of the person comes not from following purely rational principles, but from the inherent goodness of the Imago Dei—that is, being ontologically created in the image of God. In the Christian worldview, man is not merely good due to what we do, but by who we are created by. And, to murder, lie, or commit adultery is not simply wrong because it treats others as a means for selfish gain, but because it is a transgression against God’s truly good and beautiful creation.

Secondly, humans endowed with freedom and the capacity to reason are not the ultimate mantle-bearers of moral law. God gives us the capacity to gather wisdom and understanding, but this does not make man the ruler of morality. Nor are we Prometheus, running from the Ancient Greek gods with the fire of rationality. Instead, we must go to the Lord for wisdom and guidance. As Scripture says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and “The LORD looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if any understand, if any seek God.” Yet, it also states, “All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

It is not in our own capacities that we do anything truly good. Instead, goodness is enacted throughout the world by the Christian only through the outflow of the Spirit of God. To create our own rule of morality and determine our own self-worth is to inauthentically discount our unrighteousness and fallenness under God. As Christ says in the Lord’s Prayer, “Lord may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Through repentance and the turning of a heart of stone to the will of the Father, He changes our ways to a higher principle than what our own reason can conjure—to a law of love that is supernatural and transcends this world.

Finally, what of those who fail to follow the universal laws of the Enlightenment? Where does a person go once they have failed? I would hope that even Kant recognized that the categorical imperative cannot always be followed to completeness. Here, Christianity differs from moral philosophy by saying: here is Christ, and here are your sins, failures, and mistakes. Through Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, they are forgiven and forgotten. No longer are you in debt to your morals; you are now free to live in accordance with the Creator who lavishly gives grace upon grace.


References: