Kant's theory applied to a decision in Middlemarch chapter 48

Applying Kant's theory to a specific descion form Middlemarch: Chapter 48, G.Elliot

The Metaphysics of Morals in Middlemarch

Immanuel Kant's metaphysics of morals established a close connection between the reasoning faculty which is proper only to human beings and the ability to act morally. Kant based his ethical theory on a famous concept which represented the standard of moral action: the categorical imperative. In Kant's view, the morality of an action can be established through logical argument, thus demonstrating that reason is the foremost faculty of man and the locus of virtue. A very interesting case for decision making and moral action is presented in chapter forty-eight of Middlemarch. Here, Dorothea is confronted with an extremely arduous choice: she is peremptorily urged by her husband to make the promise of acting in a certain way that is dictated by him, after his death. The decision is even more complicated as Casaubon does not reveal the actual nature of his request. The context of the decision is also significant as Dorothea has to perform with difficulty a number of duties in her marriage, all of them keeping her yoked to the philosophical work done by her husband. The moral conduit of Dorothea is apparent in the sincerity and devotion with which she performs her marital duties that nevertheless exceed what would normally be required of a wife. She does not genuinely love her husband yet she confers on him a dutiful affection. She does not believe in his work, yet she helps him by reading aloud to him, highlighting his readings with a pencil and assisting him in every other way possible. When she is faced with the unwonted request of an obscure but firm promise, Dorothea spends a whole night in searching for the right answer to the moral dilemma she is faced with. She suffers from terrible qualms as she wavers between committing herself to her husband's wish or refusing his request. During this process, it is obvious both for Dorothea and for the reader that the decision was actually resolved from the moment the request was made: Dorothea torments herself over the decision, spending a sleepless night, but she is inwardly aware that she is unable to say no. She is bound by compassion and humaneness to grant the wish of her husband, since he is helpless and distressed. She knows very well that the work he does is absolutely vital to him, and in refusing to get involved with it she would crush his hopes and wound him terribly. Nevertheless, she does not give her consent freely merely because she feels that her freedom as an individual is threatened by this commitment. Furthermore, Dorothea sees the futility of her husband's intellectual work and feels a natural repulse towards dedicating her life to such an empty prospect. Thus, although she honorably makes the decision instantly and is aware that she is incapable of refusing him, she defers her answer because she is unnaturally compelled to devote herself to an inutile purpose. Dorothea thus knows that she is morally bound to do her duty and knows that she could not do otherwise. Nevertheless, her hesitation is giving the terrible promise is understandable and to a certain degree even laudable: her good nature prompts her to be repelled by something that is useless and irrelevant as such.

In a similar situation I would probably act the same way as Dorothea did, because I would find it very difficult to accept the burden of causing an extreme distress to someone. However, I would feel equally distressed since I would be bound to serve a purpose I did not believe in.

Kant's categorical imperative offers a very interesting perspective on Dorothea's difficult situation. Thus, according to the first formulation of this principle, an action is moral if its scope could be extended and made into a moral law that would not contradict itself at any point. The close connection between morality and logical reasoning is apparent here: in Kant's view, a moral law is true if it can be verified as a universal law.. The first formulation of the categorical principle thus requires that one should act only in accordance to laws that can be made universal and that are not merely circumstantial:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."(Kant, 30) Thus, Dorothea's action coincides with the first formulation of the categorical imperative. Had she determined to refuse the request made by Casaubon, the law would have contained a contradiction in itself and thus would have been violated. It is arguable that when asked for help, a person should grant it at the expense of his or her personal comfort. The contrary law could not have any validity since it would deny the existence of kindness and selflessness among people. Dorothea acted selflessly, although she did waver to make this sacrifice simply because she did not feel the actual end of the action would be noble enough. Nevertheless, the immediate end, that of completing her duty to her husband as a fellow human being, is a noble end in itself, and this is why Dorothea chose to fulfill it. Dorothea significantly rejects the circumstance- that of having to perform something which is both toilsome and futile- and makes the morally correct decision of respecting her duty for her husband: "Neither law nor the world's opinion compelled her to this -- only her husband's nature and her own compassion, only the ideal and not the real yoke of marriage."(Eliot, 523) She is thus evidently compelled by an 'ideal' rather than a real, immediate duty.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative sheds new light on Dorothea's decision. According to this beautiful principle thus, everyone should act in a way in which humanity, both in oneself and in the other fellow beings should be treated as an end and not only a means: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."(Kant, 36) This is to say that a person should not only aim at being humane but at actually cherishing and emphasizing humanity as an abstract and probably the most important quality in a human being. Thus, Dorothea's action is plainly the most acceptable one, since she envisages an ideal principle of marriage and duty towards her husband. She aims not only at treating him kindly, but ultimately her selflessness tokens the absolute respect for her humanity as well as for his. She is unable to hurt him precisely because she knows she would damage his soul: "She saw clearly enough the whole situation, yet she was fettered: she could not smite the stricken soul that entreated hers. If that were weakness, Dorothea was weak."(Eliot, 523) Dorothea's action is thus both humane and aiming at a higher respect for humanity as an abstract virtue in human beings.