Philosphy of Evil from a Kant and St. Augustine Perspective

Saint Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin and Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative are two different ways of looking at evil. Although different to the point where Kant decides to completely reject Augustine's Doctrine, there are still some similarities. Where Augustine thinks that humanity is evil because of the faults of Adam and Eve, Kant believes that although we are evil by nature, we must first bypass moral law to be evil, thus we can only be held responsible for our own conscious acts. With such opposing thoughts on evil, it is not hard to see why Kant rejects Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin and also at the same time, surprising that two such different thinkers could come to an agreement that humanity is, by nature, evil.

According to Saint Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin, sin and evil exists because of Adam and Eve's defiance of God and since we are all descendants of Adam and eve, we are automatically born into sin and are thus, evil sans choice. Since we are naturally evil, we as humans can commit evil just for the sake of committing evil, or even to attempt a taste of God's powers. Though no one alive today or in Augustine's time even remotely knew Adam and Eve or were in any way directly influenced by the couple, Augustine could still maintain that we are evil based purely on the fact that the human race is descendant from Adam and Eve. After all, if we can, for example, steal, just for the sake of committing an evil act, then we as humans must be evil by nature because of Adam and Eve.

Immanuel Kant on the other hand, comes at evil from a different standpoint than that of Augustine's. Kant's considers every single person who is in control of his actions to be bound by morality, therefore, unable to commit an act without first going through morals. Morals control our primal instincts, wants, and self love, which Kant seems to consider evil. Another

Duong 2

interesting aspect of Kant's philosophy is that he does not consider an evil person evil based on the actual evil act that the person committed, rather, Kant looks deeper to the inclination, or maxim that was driving the act. Thus we have Kant's Categorical Imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law", which is the way to determine if a maxim is a "good" maxim, and not evil. The Categorical Imperative basically states that if your intention can still work if every single other person can have the same intention, then it is a good intention. Though both philosophers had differing views on evil, they seem to agree that humans are born into sin, even if for opposing reasons. Augustine claims that, because of Adam and eve's defiance of God, all humans are automatically born into a state of sin, and are therefore evil. Since Kant considers instincts, wants, and self love evil, and the only way to be good is to follow your morals that will ensure good maxims. Morals are an aspect of life that is learned from living, not something we are born with, therefore Kant must, like Augustine, believes that humanity is born into a state of sin, since without morals, we are essentially just a bunch of evil people. With differences aside, both Kant and Augustine stand by the claim that humans are born into a state of sin and are therefore naturally evil.

Although these two thinkers agree that humanity is naturally born into a state of sin, Kant completely rejects Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin. The main differing view here is that Kant believes that a person is considered evil based not on the act itself, which may or may not be evil, but instead on the maxim or intent behind the act. If an evil act was committed upon a maxim that is congruent with Kant's categorical imperative, for example, a time traveler assassinating Adolf Hitler under the maxims that he is being a hero, then the person committing

Duong 3

the evil act is not evil at all. In order to disregard moral law and have a maxim that is incongruent with the Categorical Imperative, a person can only be judged evil upon what he himself does, hence why Kant rejects Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin. The Doctrine of Original Sin just says that humanity is all evil not because of what each individual chooses or does, but because humanity was unlucky enough to be the descendants of Adam and Eve, whose faults deem us as evil. With Kant believing that we can only be held responsible for what we controllably commit, and Augustine believing that we are naturally evil because of the faults of two people that no one alive even knows, it is surprising that the two thinkers had any agreements.

Augustine may have opened the doors to many modern thoughts on evil, but it is Kant who expands and defines these thoughts. Although a person deserves just punishment for an evil act he commits, he should not be considered an evil person if the maxims he based his acts on were pure. Kant's rejection of Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin is also a good rejection, after all, how can you consider a person evil based on something he had absolutely no control over?

With such opposing views on evil, these two thinkers are interesting to look at, especially since they actually have some common agreements, such as humans being naturally evil. Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin claims that every person is born into sin because of the faults of Adam and eve, and Kant's rejection of the doctrine with his own categorical imperative stating that all acts are backed by maxims, and we can only be judged evil by our own acts since evil is judged on our maxims that are not congruent with the categorical imperative. These opposing views show that there are many ways of looking at evil.