Rousseau's Theory of Freedom Book

I've been fond of Kant ever since I first encountered him in university. Simply put, I admired the way he established ethics as a duty to treat every other man as an end in himself, and not merely as a means. I also admired the way he stated a universal command, known as the categorical imperative, or the moral law. It is a difficult ethics to follow, but I essentially understood his way of thinking.

I did have one qualm about him, however. Even our philosophy professor noted that his ethics was difficult to live by and live with: it was almost inhuman. Actions of moral worth are extremely difficult to come by, because they are done only in the sense of duty, and not outside it. A miser acts only with moral worth if he gives to other people without gaining anything from it: it is against his sensibilities, but he does it out of duty to his fellow man.

It's quite a difficult ethics to realize.

Schopenhauer, however, on the other hand, disagrees with Kant. The moral law, or categorical imperative, he argues, isn't unconditional after all. Even Kant's example, 'Thou ought not to kill,' has theological basis. What does man obtain from following the moral ought?

He obtains a reward, which is eternity. There is a giver of that reward, and a receiver. These are conditions. The unconditional ought is thus, a contradictio ad adjecto. What then, represents an action with moral worth?

Schopenhauer has a simpler reasoning than the complex theories of Kant: ethics can never be divorced from humanity, or experience. Ethics cannot be removed from being human. He then continues to state that man's actions are triggered by self-love, or egoism. We seek to promote our well-being, be it physical or mental, and we seek our own pleasures. It is thus our selfishness that triggers us to act.

Being egoistic is normal in human beings. There are, however, certain exceptions to pursuing our own ends and happiness. One is wishing and pursuing evil for others, and this is known as malice. The other reason, he explicates, is the only thoroughfare of any action to have moral worth: this is known as compassion.

By allowing the non-ego (other people) to cross into our own, we understand their plight and for a short while, pursue not our own ends but others'. Most of the time there is no immediate, or even distant reward to be had, but people nevertheless act for the good of others simply because they understand the others' condition. Schopenhauer argues that this is the only action that has any moral worth.

After reading this treatise, I was stunned with the simplicity Schopenhauer offered an alternative view of ethics. To me, it was simpler because it was more human and more humane, and I understood it because I felt and feel it. For doing that, I admire the author's capability despite the acerbic nature he has towards some great philosophers. It is a recommended antipode to Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, and is a great expression of ethics as well.