1. Kant’s Moral Philosophy

2. In this lecture… Our moral duty Categorical imperative Universal law
Dignity and respect

3. Our moral duty
Suppose you have promised your friend that you will help her with her homework at 3:00pm. As you are on your way to meet her, you see an accident victim lying on the side of the road who desperately needs help. There is no one else around to help the injured victim.

4. Our moral duty
Should you stop to help the badly injured man? Is it morally wrong to break the promise with your friend?

5. Our moral duty
Remember the friend of yours who installed a hidden camera in your bathroom. Or think about someone you know who cheated on her exams and got away with it. No matter how much personal gain such actions might bring, they are still wrong.

6. Our moral duty
Not only are their actions unfair and unjust, these people make exceptions of themselves – their success depends on violating rules that most other people are following. The relevant question to ask is: What if everyone did that?

7. Our moral duty
Deontological ethics, or duty-based ethics, holds that we have a duty to perform or refrain from certain types of actions.
The most famous deontological theory is that of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

8. Our moral duty
Immanuel Kant ( ) emphasized the universal moral duty to do what is right for its own sake.

9. Our moral duty
According to Kant, we are rational persons living in a moral community populated by other rational persons.
The fundamental question of ethics concerns how we ought to behave based on an understanding of our duties towards one another.

10. Our moral duty
For Kant, morality is not something we learn from our parents or teachers. Nor do we learn to distinguish right from wrong by observing other people’s actions.
Rather, it is our own reason that tells us what we ought or ought not to do.

11. Our moral duty
Reason enables us to know what we ought to do (i.e. what we have a duty to do).
Since morality is founded on reason, everyone, except the very young and the severely mentally disabled, has the ability to know what is right and wrong.

12. Our moral duty
In Kant’s view, there is something right about truth telling and promise keeping even when doing so may bring about some bad consequences, and there is something wrong about lying and promise breaking even when doing so may bring about good consequences.

13. Our moral duty
As you remember, classical utilitarianism holds that happiness or pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good.
Thus, according to utilitarian reasoning, any action that promotes happiness is morally right.

14. Our moral duty
Kant rejects utilitarian reasoning by drawing attention to the fact that some pleasure (e.g. that of the rapist or torturer) is immoral and therefore bad.

15. Our moral duty
Kant rejects the idea that happiness is the ultimate value. Happiness has no value if it comes as a result of wrongdoing.
The same goes for other things such as wealth, knowledge or power, all of which can be misused.

16. Our moral duty
Kant claims that the only thing that is absolutely good, or good in itself, is the ‘good will.’
‘Good will’ can be understood as the intention to perform moral duty for its own sake. It is, in Kant’s view, a necessary element to any morally good action.

17. Our moral duty
Someone acts with a good will when he or she performs an action simply because he or she knows that it is the right thing to do (i.e. that he or she has a duty to do it).
From the standpoint of Kantian ethics, only those acts performed out of good will have moral worth.

18. Our moral duty
Morality for Kant has nothing to do with self-interests and desires. Consider the following examples:
“I like helping people because I expect them to return the favor.”
“I like helping people because it feels good to do so.”

19. Our moral duty
In the above examples, although helping others is the right to do, the action is not performed out of a sense of duty.
In each case, the act has no moral worth because it is not done with the right intention or motive.

20. Our moral duty
In Kant’s view, actions motivated by desire or self-interest have no moral worth because desire and self-interest can sometimes lead us to do bad or wrong things.
For Kant, only those actions motivated by duty have moral worth.

21. Our moral duty
Kant has us imagine two shopkeepers, each of whom does his duty by giving his customers the correct change. But the first does this only because he fears that if he were to cheat them, word would get out and he would lose business in the long run.

22. Our moral duty
The second store owner does the very same thing, but for completely different reasons. He treats his customers fairly because he thinks that cheating people is wrong, and he is committed to living up to the highest moral standards.

23. Our moral duty
The first shopkeeper does his duty (he ‘acts in accordance with duty’), but there is nothing morally worthy about his behavior.
The second shopkeeper does his duty for its own sake (he ‘acts from duty’), and as such his action is morally praiseworthy.

24. Our moral duty
To sum up: the moral worth of an action is determined by our ‘good will’ (our intention to do what is right because it is right).
Right action are actions done out of a sense of duty. An action that has moral worth is one that is done for the sake of duty.

25. Our moral duty
From the standpoint of Kantian ethics, it is not enough that we do the right thing. We must do the right thing for the right reason, i.e. not out of self- interest or desire, but because it is our duty to do what is right.

26. Categorical imperative
Kant believes that reason is the source of moral principles.
Moral duties, in his view, are commands of reason; it is reason that tells us what we ought to do.

27. Categorical imperative
‘Autonomy’ can be understood as the ability to make decisions for oneself.
As rational and autonomous beings, we humans impose moral duties on ourselves – we act under the laws that we give ourselves through reason.

28. Categorical imperative
Kant believes that there are universal moral rules that all rational persons have a duty to follow.
We can use reason to work out a set of absolute moral principles. To do so, we have to start with the question: ‘What ought I to do?’

29. Categorical imperative
Kant observed that the meaning of the word ‘ought’ is confusing in everyday language.
It is therefore necessary to distinguish between hypothetical ‘ought’ (which is non-moral) and categorical ‘ought’ (which is moral).

30. Categorical imperative
Kant makes a clear distinction between two different kinds of imperatives; namely, ‘hypothetical imperatives’ and ‘categorical imperatives.’
An ‘imperative’ is a command that tell us what we ought to do.

31. Categorical imperative
A hypothetical imperative tells us what we ought to do to get what we want: e.g. ‘If you want a good job, get a good education’; ‘If you want to arrive on time, you ought to leave early.’

32. Categorical imperative
A categorical imperative, on the other hand, tells us what is the morally right thing to do, e.g. ‘You ought to keep your promise,’ ‘You ought not to torture innocent people.’

33. Categorical imperative
To sum up, a hypothetical imperative
specifies a means to an end
is always in the form of a conditional sentence
is about satisfying a goal or desire
has nothing to do with ‘morality’

34. Categorical imperative
In contrast, a categorical imperative
specifies what everyone has a duty to do as a moral person
has nothing to do with satisfying goals or desires
is the basis of universal moral law

35. Categorical imperative
The categorical imperative is discovered within ourselves through reason alone; it is not discovered from experience (e.g. not through observing other people’s behavior).

36. Categorical imperative
There are two formulations of the categorical imperative:
the formula of universal law
the formula of humanity as an end in itself

37. Universal law
Kant believes that our actions ought to be guided by universal moral laws, i.e. moral principles that hold for everyone.
For Kant, moral laws are binding on all persons at all time. No one can regard himself or herself as special, from a moral point of view.

38. Universal law
In other words, the same moral standards apply to everyone. A person cannot consistently think that he or she is permitted to act in ways that are forbidden to others, or that his or her interests are more important than other people’s interests.

39. Universal law
The formula of universal law: ‘Act only on that maxim which you can will as a universal law.’

40. Universal law
When we are considering whether an action is morally right or wrong, we must ask ourselves whether we would want and expect everyone to act in that way.

41. Universal law
In Kant’s view, beneath every action there is a maxim, i.e. the reason you give yourself when you are about to do something.
A ‘maxim’ can be understood as a personal rule that indicates the intention or underlying reason for action.

42. Universal law
For an action to be moral, its underlying maxim must be one that can be universalized.
In other words, an action is morally right only if it accords with a rule that you can universally apply to yourself and others.

43. Universal law
If the maxim can be universalized, then we accept it, and its corresponding action is seen as moral.
If the maxim cannot be universalized, then we reject it, and its corresponding action is seen as immoral.

44. Universal law
Suppose I need some money and am considering whether it would be moral to borrow the money from you and promise to repay it without ever intending to do so.

45. Universal law In this example, the underlying maxim of my action is:
M: Whenever I need money, I should make a lying promise while borrowing the money.

46. Universal law
Is it possible for me to universalize the maxim (M) of my act? When I try to do so, I get following principle:
P: Whenever anyone needs money, that person should make a lying promise while borrowing the money.

47. Universal law
It is easy to see that the principle (P) is self-defeating or contradictory.
Why? Because no one in his or her right mind would take promises as promises if they were meant to be broken (i.e. no one would be willing to lend money to others).

48. Universal law
Now let us consider the opposite maxim (M1), one based on keeping one’s promise:
M1: Whenever I need money, I should make a sincere promise while borrowing it.

49. Universal law Is it possible for me to universalize the new maxim?
P1: Whenever anyone needs money, that person should make a sincere promise while borrowing it.

50. Universal law
The new maxim can be universalized. There is nothing self-defeating or contradictory in P1, and thus the principle can be considered as a universal moral law.
In short, making a sincere promise is moral, whereas making a lying promise is immoral.

51. Universal law Can we universalize the following maxims?
If you cannot afford something you want, steal it.
Stop polluting the environment.

52. Universal law
Kant asserted, for example, that lying cannot be conceived as a universal maxim. If it were universal, it would not work.
It is impossible to conceive a world in which lying is a universal law because no one will trust another person anymore.

53. Universal law
Kant asserts that if a maxim cannot be universalized, we must reject it as immoral.
One of the problems with his formula of the universal law is that maxims that cannot be universalized are not necessarily immoral.

54. Universal law
Consider these maxims: ‘never speak unless you are spoken to’, ‘don’t start eating until someone else does’, or ‘leave early in order to avoid the traffic’.
None of these maxims can be universalized because it would be self- defeating for everyone to follow the same maxim. But are they all ‘immoral’?

55. Universal law
A common ‘Kantian’ argument against homosexual sex is: if everyone did that, disaster would soon follow, for the human race would quickly die out.
Can we draw the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral because homosexual sex cannot be a universal law?

56. Universal law
How about those who have decided to remain lifelong bachelors, such as Kant himself (who remained unmarried throughout his life)?
What would it be like if everyone follows his example?

57. Universal law
For Kant, the rules derived from the categorical imperative – such as ‘never lie’ and ‘always keep your promise’ – are universal and without exception. It is our duty to obey the commands of the categorical imperative, regardless of consequences.

58. Universal law
All moral duties are categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives command us to do things whether we want to or not.
If we ignore or disobey them, we are acting contrary to reason, according to Kant.

59. Universal law
The year is You are an ordinary Austrian citizen. In your home you are hiding an innocent Jewish woman named Sarah, who is fleeing Nazi officers. When the Nazis knock on your door and you open it, they ask if Sarah is in your house. What should you do? Should you tell the truth or lie?

60. Universal law
Kant’s advice is to tell them the truth: “Yes, she’s in my house.” You have done your duty: telling the truth when asked a straightforward question. You are absolved of any responsibility for the harm that comes to the innocent woman.

61. Universal law
Most people, however, would find Kant’s answer highly unsatisfactory. Some may even go further and argue that under the given circumstances, we have a duty to lie because there is no better way to prevent someone from doing serious harm.

62. Universal law There are two ways in which we might modify Kant here.
First, simply add qualifications to the universal principle, changing the maxim ‘Never lie’ to the more modest ‘Never lie except to save an innocent person’s life.’

63. Universal law
The trouble with this way of solving the problem is that there seem to be no limits on the qualifications that could be attached to the original principle.
How about this one: ‘Never lie except to please my girlfriend’?

64. Universal law
A second way is to ask ourselves whether any other principle is relevant in this situation. And we discover another one ‘Always protect innocent life’ also applies.
Thus, we have to decide which principle is more important: ‘Never lie’ or ‘Always protect innocent life’?

65. Universal law
An implication of the second approach is that there might be no such thing as absolute moral principles.

66. Universal law
Moral judgment requires us to weigh different options carefully with respect to the specific situations we find ourselves in.
Contrary to Kant’s personal view, perhaps there is no need for us to regard all moral duties as absolute.

67. Dignity and respect
Kantian respect for persons is captured in the formula of humanity as an end in itself: ‘Never use other people merely as a means to your own ends.’

68. Dignity and respect
The belief that people ought to be regarded as having the highest intrinsic value is central to Kant’s ethics.
The dignity of being human arises from the fact that humans exist for goals and purposes of their own. As such, they must be respected as ‘ends in themselves.’

69. Dignity and respect
The ‘formula of humanity’ requires that we always act in ways that respect the nature of persons as ends in themselves, i.e. to allow them, as rational beings, to decide for themselves what ends their actions are to serve.

70. Dignity and respect
Animals and inanimate objects have no intrinsic value. Why? Because they cannot choose what they wish to do.
We can use animate and inanimate objects for our goals and purposes because they do not have goals and purposes of their own.

71. Dignity and respect
For example, a pen does not exist for a purpose of its own; instead, it exists to serve a human purpose, i.e. to be used as a tool for writing.
The pen is not an ‘end in itself.’ It has no intrinsic value; it only has instrumental value, i.e. as a means to an end.

72. Dignity and respect
Only persons have goals and purposes. Objects have value only as means to human ends (i.e. as instruments to satisfy human goals).
For Kant, human beings have an intrinsic worth, or ‘dignity,’ which makes them different from all other animate and inanimate objects.

73. Dignity and respect
Persons are valuable in themselves, regardless of whether they are useful or valued by others. In virtue of their dignity, persons ought to be treated as ‘ends in themselves’.

74. Dignity and respect
According to the formula of humanity as end in itself, it is morally wrong to treat persons as mere means to our own ends, i.e. as mere objects for use.
There is nothing wrong, however, with treating a person as a means as long as you do not treat him merely as a means.

75. Dignity and respect
For example, in hiring a taxi I employ the driver to get me to where I want, thereby making use of him. But I do not treat him as a mere means because I also recognize his end of making a living by getting people to their destinations.

76. Dignity and respect
Morality requires us always to treat human beings with the dignity they deserve.
Treating someone as an end implies a degree of respect that is absent when treating someone as a mere means.

77. Dignity and respect
What does it mean to treat a person merely as a means?
People are treated merely as a means when they are seen as objects rather than ends in themselves, i.e. when they are forced or made to do things that they are unwilling to do.

78. Dignity and respect
We should never manipulate people, or use them to achieve our purposes without their consent, no matter how good those purposes may be.
To use people as a mere means is to force them to do things which they could not in principle consent.

79. Dignity and respect
It is wrong to force people to do things against their will because it violates their autonomy, i.e. their ability to decide for themselves how to live their own lives, according to their own desires and values. That explains why slavery, murder, extortion, deception and coercion are morally wrong.