Islamic and Kantain ethics both converge on the idea that humans have innate agency in their life and can exert control over their behavior and life circumstance.

Rejecting the Compatibilist account of free will offered by preceding empiricists, Kant maintains that humans – solely based on the merit of being human – possess an innate and radical agency within the world. Essentially, he holds rationality and free will to be one concept defined under two words, arguing that the ability to rationalize liberates people from slavery to instinctual behavior.

In his Dialectic, Kant generally states that “insofar as we are perceptible biological bodies we are just as causally determined as everything else in the physical world, but insofar as we are rational beings who act for reasons we are free” [1]. The freedom which Kant affirms to exist in each human is not freedom in an anarchic sense, sanctioning a storm of immoral behavior simply because we are not subjected to direct control. Instead, it is the freedom of choice; for once a being can articulate its existence, it can also understand each pathway of a decision and the ramifications of these actions. Thus, humans are empowered with agency as a result of our inborn rational nature. We can understand (or, as Kant says, “articulate”) our impulses and, by extension, exercise restraint, giving humans power over our own actions.

The Quran echoes this same sentiment through more theological coloring, propounding humans to be effectual and in-control of life thanks to God-given free will. In discussing the “forgetfulness” (fall) of Adam, the Qu’ran comments that, unlike prophets who occasionally forget their covenant with God, “some individuals intentionally fail to follow divine guidance, whether or not they are tempted to do so by Satan” [1]. Rather than acting because someone has “‘God’” or the ‘“Devil’” in their heart, this statement suggests that people are capable of exercising complete control over their own actions, independent of divine will. Much like Kant’s conception of people as rational beings, Humans are painted as agents whose conscious actions have tangible effects.

Each philosophy recognizes, however, that humanity’s freedom of choice is not without consequence; both Kantian thought and Islamic philosophy resemble each other in identifying the root of human evil. Summarizing Kant’s position on the origins of “radical evil,” Leslie Stevenson writes, “But for Kant what is is radically evil in us is not our natural desires or the tension between these and duty; it is what he calls the ‘depravity’ of human nature – the freely chosen subordination of duty to inclination, deliberate preference for one's own happiness (as one conceives it) over one’s obligations to other people” [1].

Unlike the Christian model of sin (where even thoughts and urges can be sinful), Immanuel Kant maintains that biological desires are perfectly normal: “Kant’s position is not that radical evil attaches to our animal nature, which is innocent in itself” [1]. Rather, he identifies the greatest evil as humans using their free decision making ability to give in to selfish (and often animalistic urges), especially when they only benefit the self. Kantian ethics stress adherence to “duty,” where personal desires take a backseat to morally defined behavior.

This exact ethos is mirrored by the Islamic theory of morality, which emphasizes one’s suppression of potentially harmful (biological and non-biological) desires. In discussing the nafs (a concept akin to plato’s “appetitive soul”), the Qu’ran asserts that, “‘Evil’ is not a quality that inheres in human beings; it is the consequence of actions taken in pursuit of particular desires. In themselves, those desires are perfectly natural…” [1].

It is interesting that both Kantian and Islamic belief recognize desires as unavoidable parts of our human experience, and hold them to be completely amoral. When reconciled with humanity’s gift of rationality, this belief emphasizes personal accountability for individual actions. Humans are not slaves to animalistic desires; we transcend animals because we are able to rationalize. Thus, we have a choice in determining which actions to carry out and which actions we will suppress. By extension, worldly evil is not something created by the doctrine of “original sin,” by Satan, or by God; it stems from humanity's lack of discipline and failure to withhold potentially damaging urges from affecting other people.

While Kantian ethics and Islamic thought define human nature and the origin of evil on virtually the same terms, the two schools of thought are put into practice in very different ways. This divergence stems from a contradiction in marking humanity’s place in the universe.

While Islam constructs a sense of place around the conception of a singular creator (with humanity as his representatives on Earth), Kant argues that metaphysics are outside the limits of theoretical rationality, and therefore should not be bothered with. Leslie Stevenson summarizes his approach to religion (and thus humanity's place in the universe): “Kant’s approach is to reinterpret theology in terms of morality, and he suggests that the scriptures should be interpreted in that way, even when it is not their literal meaning. In this view there is no need for miracles, priests, rituals, or sacraments” [1].

Kant holds that religions are simply collections of philosophical ideas; vehicles created to transmit moral teachings. Conceptually, this seems like an inclusive approach to creating a “universal church” [1]. However, avoiding metaphysical debate detracts from the value of Kant’s morality. A cornerstone of his ethical philosophy is defined as doing the right thing “‘simply because it is right.’” But where is the incentive in suppressing desires if we cannot know where we fit into the world and how morality will help advance our own life condition? The value of being moral, then, is left up to personal reckoning.

Islam, at least, lays out a binding reason to conduct moral behavior: “When a human being acts, divine honor...is at stake, and God is anxious that his honor not be tarnished by the misdeeds of his servants” [1]. As humans are God’s “‘deputies,”’ Islam holds moral behavior on Earth to be supporting humanity’s relationship with a benevolent creator. People are presented with a higher moral imperative to act virtuously and, because of this, Islam has become one of the most practiced religions in the world (accruing around 1.8 billion adherents).

Regardless, the similarities between these two models of thought (despite geographical and chronological differences) speaks to the universality of certain fundamental truths concerning human nature and, by extension, the basal similarities of all human beings.

Reference(s):

[1] Thirteen Theories of Human Nature, by Leslie Stevenson, David L. Haberman, Peter Matthews Wright, and Charolette Witt, pages 149-185