Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 14 Immanuel Kant By David Kelsey

Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant: 1724-1804 was born in Konigsberg in what was then Germany. Interestingly, didn’t publish his first work, The Critique of Pure Reason, until 1781, when he was 57. Widely regarded as one of the most influential and important philosopher’s of all time. There are many versions of a Deontological Moral theory, but Kant’s is by far the most widely accepted.

Deontological Theories compared to Consequentialist theories Immanuel Kant’s moral theory is a Deontological theory not a Consequentialist one. Consequentialist moral theories put the good before the right They first specify what good is of value. What is right then is just whatever maximizes what’s good. Deontological moral theories put the right before the good. They do not first specify some good and then determine what is right by asking what will maximize that good. Instead, Deontological theories determine what is right through some other method and direct you to do what is right even if some other act would produce greater happiness. But Deontological theories don’t think consequences don’t matter. They think consequences are not the only thing that matters…

Deontologists Deontologists like rules. A rule tells us whether an action is right or wrong just on the basis of what kind of action it is, rather than on the basis of its consequences. For example, the Golden Rule: ‘Act the way you would like everyone to act’.

Kant’s picture Kant’s moral theory stems from his view of personhood. For Kant, a person is just an agent. An agent is rational. To be rational is to be capable of guiding one’s own behavior on the basis of reasons, directives and principles. As Kant puts it: “Everything in nature works in accordance with laws. Only a rational being has the power to act in accordance with his idea of laws-that is, in accordance with principles-and only so has he a will.” So to be rational is to be able to act for reasons or by principle. A primitive definition of rationality: beliefs, desires, intentions and will.

Kant’s freedom of the will A person is free when bound only by her own will and not by the will of another. We can be commanded only by our own wills. Freedom as a first cause: Freedom consists in seeking to be the first cause of one’s actions wholly and completely through the exercise of one’s own will. Her actions then express her own will. Internal authority: the authority of the principles binding her will is then also not external to her will. Kant then give us the Categorical imperative as this binding principle.

The Categorical Imperative Kant called his Supreme principle of morality the Categorical Imperative, which he said was to be distinguished from a hypothetical imperative. A Hypothetical imperative is conditional on some want or desire. A Categorical imperative doesn’t depend on desires in order to command. It simply commands you to do X, no matter what. Since the categorical imperative is categorical it commands you to act irrespective of the consequences of your actions. This is just to put the right before the good.

The Formula of the End in itself The Categorical Imperative: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end. Means vs. Mere Means: Kant does not say that you should never use another person as a means! What he says is never treat yourself or any other person as a mere means. So if you treat someone as a means make sure to treat her as an end in herself: respect her as an agent with ends of her own. Rational consent: To determine if you are treating someone as a mere means you need ask only Would this person rationally consent to being treated as such?

The Scapegoat So for Kant, what’s wrong with punishing an innocent person to prevent a riot? A Consequentialist moral theory might permit or even require you to punish an innocent person in order to prevent a riot and thereby save many other lives. The Formula of the End in itself explains what is wrong with punishing someone who is innocent merely to prevent a riot: You are not punishing him because he deserves punishment, You are using him as a mere means to save others.

The Good Will Kant thought that the only thing good in and of itself is a good will. To have a good will is to have a good moral character, which is just to act for the right reasons. For Kant, to act for the right reasons one must act always for the sake of duty. One acts for the sake of duty when: she performs some action and her reason for performing it is merely that it is what the moral law prescribes her to do. What is required in performing X is: one’s action be motivated by the moral law & that no other motives, even love or friendship, cooperate.

To sum up So the big picture for the Kantian looks like this: Following the Categorical Imperative gets you three things… But following the categorical imperative isn’t enough…

Counterarguments: Is Rationality the correct starting point? Kant’s view of morality stems from the notion of a person. Why should this be our starting point? Hume’s response Reason is slave to the passions

Counterarguments: Non-rational animals Non-rational creatures: What does Kant say about non-rational creatures? Do they have any rights? What do we owe them?

Counterarguments: The moral law Acting for the sake of the moral law makes the agent seem cold and heartless. Say you go to visit your friend in the hospital. She is very sick. So you bring her some flowers and a get well card. You say hello and chat with her for a while. Then you stay for a bit while she sleeps. For a Kantian, for the visitation to be a truly good action your motive for visiting your friend must be that it is your moral duty to do so. But don’t you really go for the friendship and loyalty you have for your friend?

Final thoughts? Final thoughts on Kant: Remaining objections and anything else