Michael T. Bendorf
PR 202

Horseman in the Kantian Sky

     In the year 1861, a Union sentry is asleep at his post on a high mountain cliff. Below him is a narrow valley that his military unit must go through in order to attack an unsuspecting Confederate army on the other side of the mountain. Suddenly, he wakes and sees an enemy soldier on horseback at the edge of the cliff observing the troop movement below. The sentry is struck by the beauty of the motionless figures silhouetted against the sky and is for a moment torn between a desire to preserve the beauty and to carry out his duty to kill the enemy. He remembers the last words of his father, a wealthy Southern gentleman who, saddened by his son's decision to join the Union army, nevertheless tells him to always "do his duty." The sentry lifts his rifle and fires; the horse and rider plunge from the top of the cliff. Minutes later, when the sentry is questioned by his sergeant, it is discovered that the Confederate soldier that the sentry killed was none other than the sentry's own father.

     Kant's deontology is perfectly illustrated in this story as the sentry is torn between emotion and duty. Two major choices are made by our hero, each on the basis of duty, and though neither were made lightly, they were reasoned and executed by following the code put forward by Kant. Carter Druse knows what his duty is: he feels a responsibility, an obligation,  to join in with the Federal regiment when it passed near his home. He may well have known his father's view, but his decision was made firmly and without regards to the consequents. His father's response further confirmed Kant, for the father realized his son was following duty, and only encouraged him to not falter from it. The heavier adherence to duty illustrated was the firing upon the Confederate soldier - knowing it was his father, but yet an enemy with significantly damning knowledge on the field of battle. This struggle is admirable in Kant's view. The sentry is not just doing what he desires to do, and it happening to also be his duty, but rather takes a good long look at what his duty is and puts aside all emotion and other baggage to fulfill his charge. Many of our duties come from job descriptions and the like, but just as the decision to join with the Union, this decision is motivated from a deeper place - perhaps the boy's soul  - and demonstrates Kant's deontology as Kant intended.

     Duty implies so much more than just what is in a job description. Sure those are referred to as duties, and in some occupations fulfilling the 'duties' of a job description can be challenging. What Kant was referring to I believe was more of the duties of life. Living an ethical life, being a good parent, mentoring children and being a role model, whether it is at an after school program, or as the leader of an entire nation, these are jobs that do not come with an instruction manual. Kant puts forward his deontology as an outline of what such a manual might look like. Not concerning oneself with pleasurable consequences but rather doing what one knows as duty should be what we all strive for. The intent, the motivation, is never for reward; not the most good for the most people, not to secure a place in Heaven, not for any reason other than the intrinsic value of having done one's duty faithfully. If everyone was to act on duty alone, the world would be a better place. His categorical and practical imperatives were maxims to truly live by. What if government officials never used people as a means but only ever as an end? What if Carter Druse decided he could not kill his father though duty told his so - and thus made it an edict for all fighting the Civil War? This story may be shocking, and it may not be one many enjoy reading, but I believe no one would say the sentry was wrong; that seems to shows some credence to what Kant was talking about.