Kant’s Moral Theory

Deontology Deontology: The morality of an action is to be judged on the basis of its adherence to rules. It has nothing to do with the action’s consequences.

Deontology The end never justifies the means. For example, truth telling and promise keeping are intrinsically right even when such actions may bring about bad consequences; lying and promise breaking are intrinsically wrong even when such actions may bring about good consequences.

Deontology Deontological ethics holds that we have a duty to perform or refrain from certain types of actions.

Kant’s conception of morality The most famous deontological theory is that of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant stresses the universal and necessary character of moral principles (i.e. the moral law).

Kant’s conception of morality Kant’s view of morality was a response to British empiricism, in particular the ideas of David Hume (1711-1776).

Kant’s conception of morality In Hume’s view, morality can be fully explained in terms of passions, desires, sentiments (feelings), and experience. For Hume, moral judgments depend in particular on the sentiment of sympathy, which allows one person’s feelings to be shared by others.

Kant’s conception of morality For Kant, moral philosophy addresses the question ‘What ought I to do?’ He thinks that Hume’s account of morality does not offer a satisfactory answer to that question.

Kant’s conception of morality In Kant’s view, the foundation of morality is not desires or feelings but our reason or rational will. Reason is sufficient for establishing the moral law as something universally binding on all rational beings (i.e. duty).

Kant’s conception of morality Kant believes that reason is the source of moral concepts and moral principles. Moral duties, in his view, are commands of reason; it is reason that tells us what we ought to do.

Kant’s conception of morality For Kant, moral principles are absolute (without exceptions), unconditional (always valid in any kind of situation) and universal (applicable to all rational beings).

Duty and autonomy What gives an act moral worth? For Kant, the answer is ‘duty.’ For an action to have moral worth, it must be motivated by duty. If an action is not done with the motive of duty, it is without moral value.

Duty and autonomy It is not enough that we do what is right. We must do the right thing for the right reason, i.e. we do what is right simply because it is our duty to do so.

Duty and autonomy Duty is self-imposed through reason. Right actions 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.

Duty and autonomy Thus, the moral worth of an action is determined by our ‘good will’ (our intention to do what is right because it is right).

Duty and autonomy In Kant’s terms, we must act from duty, not merely in accordance with duty. For example, if you help another person simply because helping people makes you feel happy, your action does not have moral worth.

Duty and autonomy Kant believes in the freedom of the will. Humans are rational beings with free will (the power or ability to make decisions). As rational beings with free will, we impose moral duties on ourselves – we act under the laws that we give to ourselves through reason.

Duty and autonomy Autonomy, in the Kantian sense, means having one’s moral decisions made by reason rather than desire, self-interest or anything capable of being influenced by experience.

Duty and autonomy Autonomy means ‘self-rule’ or ‘self- legislation’, i.e. we lay down the rules of action for ourselves. The will of a moral agent (moral person) is rational and autonomous – it both gives itself the moral law and can constrain or motivate itself to follow the law.

Categorical imperative An ‘imperative’ is any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. According to Kant, there are 2 kinds of imperatives: [1] hypothetical imperatives and [2] the categorical imperative.

Categorical imperative A ‘hypothetical imperative’ tells us what we ought to do given our wants and desires; e.g. if I want to pass the exam, I must study hard.

Categorical imperative Kant argues that hypothetical imperatives cannot be the basis for moral judgments because they only specify which means best achieve our ends (wants or goals); they do not specify what we ought to do as rational moral agents (they do not tell us which ends we should choose).

Categorical imperative The ‘categorical imperative,’ on the other hand, can be understood as the demands of the moral law (moral principles that hold without exception, in all circumstances). It is the fundamental moral principle of moral reason.

Categorical imperative Hypothetical imperative: We ought to do it to get what we want (i.e. as a means to an end). Categorical imperative: We ought to do it because it is right and we have the duty to do what is right.

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).

Categorical imperative There are 2 formulations of the categorical imperatives: [1] the formula of universal law, and [2] the formula of humanity.

Universal law “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.” “Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity.”

Universal law A maxim is a subjective rule that guides action. A moral maxim, according to Kant, must have universality (must be applicable to everyone).

Universal law When you are considering whether an action is morally right or wrong, you should ask yourself whether you would want everyone to act in that way.

Universal law To universalize a maxim is to conceive or imagine a world where all people necessarily acted in this way in the relevant circumstances and then see if the maxim and its associated action would still be conceivable in such a world.

Universal law If a maxim can be universalized, then we accept it, and the action is moral; if it cannot be universalized, then we reject it, and the action is immoral.

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. If everybody lies, then words lose their function to express truth.

Universal law Similarly, holding the maxim ‘kill anyone who annoys you’ and applying it universally would result in a world which would soon be devoid of people and without anyone left to kill. Thus holding this maxim is irrational as it ends up being impossible to hold it.

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. Our feelings and desires should also be taken out of the picture, too.

Universal law For Kant, keeping a promise is a maxim that can be universalized, and we cannot imagine a world in which promises are supposed to be broken. But what about breaking a promise to meet a friend for dinner in order to drive to hospital a neighbor who is seriously ill?

Universal law Kant maintains that truth telling is a moral imperative – it is the right thing to do under all circumstances. Suppose some Nazi executioners are pursuing a Jew that escaped from a concentration camp. You know where the Jew is hiding. You also know that the executioners would kill him if they found him.

Universal law When the executioners come to ask you the whereabouts of the Jew, what should you do? What is more important: telling the truth or saving the lives of innocent people? Are we responsible for the bad consequences of telling the truth?

Universal law One way out of this dilemma is to add qualifications to the universal principle: instead of the principle ‘never lie’, we have another principle: ‘never lie, except to save an innocent person’s life.’

Universal law But the trouble with this way of solving the problem is that there seem to be no limits on the qualifications: How about this one: ‘never lie, except to please my girlfriend’?

Universal law Another solution is to weigh two conflicting principles to determine what is the right thing to do in a specific situation. The first principle ‘never lie’ is incompatible with the second principle ‘always protect the innocent’.

Universal law So we choose the second principle instead of the first – lying to the Nazi executioners becomes our actual duty. Does it, however, imply that no moral principle is absolute?

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

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’?

Humanity, dignity and respect “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” “Always treat humanity, whether in yourself or in other people, as an end in itself and never as a mere means.”

Humanity, 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.

Humanity, dignity and respect ‘Dignity’ is the intrinsic worth of being human. Persons have intrinsic worth or dignity because they are rational agents capable of making their own decisions, setting their own goals, and guiding their conduct by reason.

Humanity, dignity and respect Only persons have desires and goals. Objects have value only as means to human ends (as instruments to satisfy our goals and desires), and it is human ends that give them value. Objects themselves have no intrinsic values or purposes of their own.

Humanity, dignity and respect In virtue of their dignity, persons ought to be treated as ‘ends in themselves’. They should never be treated as mere objects. Kantian respect is captured by this moral principle: Never use other people merely as a means to your own ends.

Humanity, 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.

Humanity, dignity and respect There is nothing wrong with treating a person as a means so long as you do not treat him merely as a means. To treat a person ‘as an end’ (rather than a ‘mere means’) is to act on the recognition that he has goals and purposes just as you do.

Humanity, 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.

Humanity, dignity and respect To use people as a mere means is to force them to do things which they could not in principle consent. To do so is to treat them as objects or instruments rather than as ends in themselves.

Humanity, 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.

Humanity, dignity and respect Infants, the unconscious, the severely mentally ill or disabled are not fully functional autonomous beings. Should we treat them as ends in themselves? Do you agree with Kant that there are absolute moral rules?