Immanuel Kant vs. P2P File Sharing
This is an essay written for my college Philosophy 107 class. The assignment was to write about German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, and how he would feel about P2P File Sharing. I have yet to receive a grade for my paper, but I can't wait to see what I get. Enjoy!
Over the past decade, Peer-to-Peer file sharing has exponentially spread among millions of individuals worldwide to engage in free and, in many cases, illegal downloadable content such as movies and music. Many would agree that stealing is wrong no matter how one justifies their actions. Yet, our society is accustomed to the idea of P2P file sharing and continue to distribute and download free content to other users. What would Kant think about P2P file sharing and its users? Well, in answering this question, Kant's philosophy must be addressed. Based on Kant's philosophy in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, one can see that Kant would disapprove of P2P file sharing because if file-sharing was a universalized maxim, no rational being would not want to live in that world, the negative impact on a person's good will, and the producers of music and movies would be used as a mean for their one's own end which contradicts fundamentals in Kant's philosophy.
First, one must understand categorical imperative and that is to "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that if it become a universal law"(4:421) and if any rational being would want to live in that hypothetical world. To reiterate, what Kant means is if we were to propose a maxim: I will download media content using P2P file sharing programs and websites; would a rational being want to live in that world where everyone followed our statement as their maxim and thus being a universal law? Hypothetically speaking, a world where everybody used P2P file sharing could exist, but it'd be a contradiction in will. For instance, If you were a musician or movie producer, you wouldn't be making any money into the work you created because, in it's essence, P2P file sharing is stealing and no rational being would want to work for pay only to be stolen from; thus no rational being would not want to live in this hypothetical world as a musician or movie producer. Therefore, Kant states, "we must be able to will that a maxim of our action become a universal law"(4:424) which suggests that individuals change their maxims to where other rational beings would be content with living in that hypothetical world if our maxim became universalized. Hence, the current maxim: I will download media content using P2P file sharing programs and websites, must be adjusted in that is in no way contingent on other individuals to thus become our imperfect duty. So if our maxim was to become: I will only download media content using P2P file sharing programs and websites if and only when producers of the media content legally permit me to do so; rational beings would want to live in in our newly created hypothetical world because both file sharers & producers can coexist freely in accordance to the law.
Moreover, Kant understands that some maxims are so distorted that no rational being would want to live there no matter how we attempt to rationalize and universalize the maxim. He says, "some actions are so constituted that their maxim cannot even be thought without contradiction as a universal law of nature, far less could one will that it should become such."(4:424) Thus, the notion would be a contradiction in thought. For instance, if one was to propose the moral proposition: It is permissible to steal; the idea would result in a contradiction in conceivability. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of property, but if universalized, then there could be no ownership of assets, and therefore the proposition has contradicted itself. Thus, according to Kant, it is an individual's perfect duty not to act on maxims in which are logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them.
Next, Kant would address the impact on a person's good will and whether or not the action will distort those who partake in those actions. Kant defines Good Will being "[Good will is] not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because of its volition, that is, it is good in itself and, regarded for itself, is to be valued incomparably higher than all that could merely be brought about by it in favor of some inclination and indeed, if you will, of the sum of all inclinations."(4:394) In other words, a Good Will is not good just for what is produced, but a will is good if it acts from duty "an action from respect for law"(4:400). For example, a salesman who charges each of his customer the correct amount for a sense of fairness (and not from fear of getting caught) has a good will. As Kant writes, "[Good Will] is easy to distinguish whether an action in conformity with duty is done from duty or from a self-seeking purpose. It is much more difficult to note this distinction when an action conforms with duty and the subject has, besides an immediate inclination to do it."(4:397-8) In regards to P2P file sharing, it would be obvious one would not have a good will, if one wanted to download free content, even though they didn't, but have the urge to do so. On the other hand, a good will would be true when one didn't use file sharing for free content because it's the right thing to do in accordance with the law and respect to the producer of that medium.
Furthermore, by using P2P file sharing programs and websites, one is using music and movie producers as a mean for their own self-gain which Kant strongly advises individuals not to do to others. Kant states, "every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." (4:438-9) Kant promotes the idea of a hypothetical "Kingdom of Ends"(4:438-9) where he suggests that all individuals should consider themselves as both means and ends, rather than to use others or allow oneself to be treated for solely a mean. Kant states, "act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."(4:429-30) To clarify, what Kant means is to act as if we were in the person affected as an end, and to not to be used as a means." In our case, P2P file sharing users are exploiting musicians and producers for their work without paying them for it. Kant also states that people should have the intentions where individuals ought to "act in accordance with a maxim that can at the same time make itself a universal law."(4:437) Simply put, individuals ought to create and act on maxims that would harmonize with a theoretical kingdom of ends.
In conclusion, I think Kant would disapprove of the idea of P2P file sharing, but only approve of it when all parties contingent to the act of file sharing are not negatively affected. Generally, P2P file sharing programs and websites attract users by allowing them to keep and distribute copyrighted media content without the consent or payment to those companies and affiliations it originally belonged to and thus creating ill-willed natured people. Individuals have the imperfect duty not to act by maxims that lead to unstable, undesirable states of affairs; conversely we have the perfect duty not to act by maxims that create disordered states of natural affairs when universalized. Because ultimately, Kant wants to believe that all rational beings would want to live in a world of "Kingdom of Ends" where everyone is a good willed rational person who acts in accordance with the law to do the right things for the right reasons.
