Kant has come up with many theories .many have been criticized and here is an example of such critique. Kant tries to motivate in his definition of freedom and free will when he says that each and every event always has a cause, and he goes a head to claim that causation ought to be according to governing laws. He proceeds to conclude that free choices by human being have to always conform to the laws, or else a free will inevitably be considered an absurdity (p. 74), but he unfortunately he merely assumes without proving that laws are different from activities that human engage in which are non-free .clearly, then the laws must peculiar in some way. Kant further merely suggests that the governing laws to which human free should conform to are peculiar in the sense that they are developed by the will to thyself. According to him, inanimate objects get moved by not internal but external causes while human beings ,in most cases, tend to act due to internal causes. He again fails to prove beyond doubt.
According to Henry (1990) Kant fails to provided clear-cut evidence of his facts and ideas and therefore very little learning can go on here because the confusion inevitable. The type of 'laws' that comprise matters to do with morality are not very causal laws. They cannot be compared to the laws of nature. What can be considered to be a causal law is that which can be considered to be a description of how people and things behave .we can not try save the theory of the laws governing freedom by merely replacing the moral laws and guidelines with some correlative simple causal laws, claiming that that people should behave morally –exactly what ,if simply interpreted ,Kant meant-because that kind of a law will be false and in the process unwittingly concluding that human beings are not free -after all. That is, if the said freedom actually means behaving in a manner that is in line with such a laws. Kant's explanation appears to claim that no individual could at any point be blamed for behaving wrongly: because it is a free will making him or her to behave as such. If we are to believe, what Kant says then if one goes against a moral law, society will say that his actions were devoid of free will and blame some other external inclinations or causes and even go a head and believe that he is not responsible for that said action. Kant on many accounts does not come out clearly in an attempt to explain to people what he exactly means. He leaves arguments hanging.
Kant tries to tells us that the proposition that an individual’s will is a law on its own and responsible for all the actions but only expresses the idea that we should behave according to no any other maxim except that which also have itself as a law governing its object .He fails to clearly explain how exactly this is so, it is, in fact, puzzling because the very initial proposition is merely descriptive, and yet the principle he claims it to be normative. The claim that the will is a sort of law to its own , I suspect, only expresses the principle of what we should behave according to some of the maxims. That principle that Kent came up with is not true.
Also , my objections and reservations dispel the whole argument he came up with of foundations .He initially claims that he only derives what exactly morality would require of dictate in the event that we had moral laws. That we have such a thing called morality he should have proved in his works basing his argument on freedom of what he called the will. That argument, in fact, became pointless, when Kant confuses the connection between morality, behaviors, and freedom.
Furthermore, his attempts to defend how free the will is come across as very unconvincing. He argues that the human free will is possible, very consistent with natural laws , due to the fact that freedom could reign in things while natural requirements may rule when it comes to appearances.
Because of the fact that there is no contradiction between something in appearance when it is subject to particular laws of which it may be independent of .In this sense ,it sound as though if the intelligible and sensible worlds are really two very different places. There exists no contradiction in an individual acting differently while in different places at all .But to say that there exist no contradiction in an individual acting in one way in his appearance and acting differently in as afar as reality is concerned, is clearly false because that is like saying that one could appear to behave one way when in actual sense he was behaving differently (Henry, 1990). It is just the same as an individual claiming that there exist no contradictions whatsoever in unicorns being in their dreams but missing in reality. Unfortunately, this way of reaching a conclusion is basically to deny either of the two divergent propositions and failing doing away with the conflict. This is in regard to interpretation of the reality and appearance distinction, what Kant claims about freedom pitted against physical determinism actually ,normally, amounts to that the concept of free will is very true, while it seems to be true, is actually false. This can be, indeed, a sort of misinterpretation of the reality and appearance distinction.
Finally, the distinction presented between externally and internally caused actions-where Kant based his definition for freedom-looks a bit dubious. Its is obvious that Kant is not the one and only person who uses this idea –many other behaviorist sociologist and psychologist have attempted to put to use that concept while explaining how much an individuals environment effects or contributes to their personality .we all agree that to some extend an individuals external factors –the environment in our case-do greatly affect an individuals behaviors and also contributes vital aspects of their personality but we will be burying our head in the sand, just like the proverbial ostrich ,to assume that the environment is fully responsible .Other internal factors do contribute ,in fact greatly also.
Any action which any object or human being get involved in is actually the outcome of its properties together with some of the surrounding circumstances .I think he would have been safe not claiming which factor is more responsible for there is no single factor that can be said to be the most responsible. Again, there exists no such a thing as an activity or action caused merely by internal variables and factors. Dutiful behaviors and action on the side of human beings is not an example of that kind of a thing .They can never be actions of inanimate things which can be blamed on only external factors .In that case ,if at all physical determinism can be something truthful , then the human brain processes ought to be ones controlling all our behaviors .In short ,I don’t see the reason why Kant was trying to equate natural necessity to external causes and human being’s freedom to internal causes.