1. Recap Of Last Lesson
What does it mean to do your duty according to Kant?
Which of the following people is morally praiseworthy according to Kant? Why?
Liam – A man who looks after his children because he loves them and wants to see them grow up happy.
Tom – A man who looks after his children because he recognises it is his duty as a father, he actually dislikes children.
What is a hypothetical imperative? Can you give an example?
What is a categorical imperative? Can you give an example?
Why does Kant believe hypothetical imperatives should not be used to make moral rules?

2. A Quick Summary So Far…
Having good intentions (good will) is good in itself, regardless of what it achieves.
To have a good will is to be motivated by duty.
Being motivated by duty means doing what is right, regardless of desires / emotions.
Being motivated by duty therefore means being motivated by reason, rather than desires or instincts. This is something humans can do.
Even if our desires or instincts coincide with our duty (accordance) it’s still not morally praiseworthy to act on them. It’s only moral if we act purely out of reason / duty.
Reason is universal; the same for everyone.
Moral duties are universal; the same for everyone.
Reason should therefore be used determine what our moral duties are.

3. Lesson Objective
To identify exactly how we use the categorical imperative to form moral laws.
To examine and understand the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative.

4. What does a moral law look like?
Like scientific laws they should be objective (since being subjective would mean they are subject to peoples desires and concerned with consequences in individual situations).
They should also be universal (since all humans have the capacity to reason and therefore do their duty).
From this we can conclude that moral laws should be general rules that outline how we should act that we can then apply to specific circumstances.
Putting all this together Kant comes up with…

5. The Categorical Imperative
Categorical Imperatives are categorical because their function is not to advise us how to satisfy our self-interest or desires; instead, they command us how to act irrespective of our interests or desires.
The Categorical Imperative is therefore absolute; it is absolutely binding on us, irrespective of our desires or our situation.
Kant famously presents different versions or formulations of the Categorical Imperative. Although he considers them all to be part of the same principle that will allow us to discover moral laws.
The first two are absolutely central to his ethical theory, and it’s imperative that you know these inside out.
The Categorical Imperative
1.) “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
2.) “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.”

6. Can you think of 2 actions that can be universalised and 2 that can’t?
1. Formula of Nature - Universalisability
‘Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law.’
In order to pinpoint whether a maxim has moral worth, and truly springs from the ‘good will’, we have to ask ourselves the following question: Would you like other people, who find themselves in the same situation as you, to always act in the same way?
If not, you are involved in a contradiction and what you are thinking of doing goes against reason and the good will. This is immoral, because it goes against our nature as rational human beings.
Can you think of 2 actions that can be universalised and 2 that can’t?

7. 1. Formula of Nature - Universalisability
‘Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law.’
Take, for example, promise keeping. If we decide that we’re going to test the MAXIM “Always make promises you won’t keep”, then we can immediately see the issue Kant highlights.
Imagine if everyone else acted the same way. We’d then have a world in which no promises were kept… ever, despite them still being made.
That’s clearly a contradiction, since a promise, by definition, is something you keep, so if we had a world in which no promises were kept, we’d have a world in which we couldn’t make real promises.
Important Point:
A maxim that passes the universalizability test is not a duty according to Kant, it is morally permissible.
It is those maxims that fail the test that form duties (I.e. duties NOT to do something).

8. 1. Formula of Nature - Universalisability
‘Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law.’
Whilst hypothetical imperatives are based on desires and ‘ends’. Categorical imperatives are not, as desires are not universal.
So since desires and instincts don’t come into it - we can only base our categorical imperative on the idea of reason and rationality itself.
If I’m being rational, it makes sense to say that I should act in a way that all rational beings can.
Since all humans are rational beings, it makes sense to say that I should only act according to principles that we could all follow.
Thus I should only act according to principles that could be universalised (could be followed by everyone).

9. Formula of Nature - Universalisability
‘Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law.’
For Kant there are two possible reasons a law could not be universalised:
Contradictions of the laws of nature / conception’ – these cannot be universalised as they are self contradictory. For example, ‘everyone should make false promises’ – impossible since promises require that someone would believe you, and if everyone made false promises, no one would believe anyone. This leads to perfect duties not to do something.
Contradictions in the will’ – these are not contradictory in themselves, but no rational being would wish to see them universalized. For example ‘don’t help others in need’ – something we all need at some point in our lives, so would not wish to see universalised. This leads to imperfect duties not to do something.

10. Complete the task on page 269 of the textbook.
The Four Step Program!
When it comes to applying Kant’s first categorical imperative then, there are four steps we should take:
Step 1: Work out the underlying maxim. A maxim is a general rule governing our actions. Remember it should be as general as possible.
Step 2: Can you conceive of a world where this is the law for everyone? (i.e. can it be universalised without contradiction?)
Step 3: Can you rationally will that this be a universal moral law? (i.e. would it make sense for people to rationally want this?)
Step 4: If the answer to all the above questions is yes – the action can be said to be morally permissible.
Complete the task on page 269 of the textbook.

11. Tasks – Whiteboard First!
How does Kant phrase the categorical imperative in his first formulation?
Give an example of a maxim (remember a general law!) that can be universalised.
Give an example of a maxim that cannot be universalized, explain whether it is a contradiction in conception (i.e. makes no logical sense) or a contradiction in will (i.e. no-one would rationally want it).

12. “Act as you wish, even if it impedes on someone else's autonomy.”
Second Formulation
Consider again the law of universalizability and couple this with Kant’s belief that all humans are rational and therefore valuable. Would it be possible to universalise the following maxim?
“Act as you wish, even if it impedes on someone else's autonomy.”
If not, why not?

13. Formula of Humanity
‘Act in such as way as you always treat humanity whether in your own person or on the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’
With this formulation of the Categorical Imperative, Kant hits on one of the fundamental principles of morality. We must never treat other human beings as means to an end, but as with worth in themselves.
In other words, we mustn’t ever treat others instrumentally, or use them, but treat them with the full respect that their humanity deserves.
How did Kant reach this? He sees it as a universal self-evident principle (a priori). It begins with a person observing that one is a rational and free agent and the idea that you cannot universalise impeding on peoples autonomy. Once you recognise this, you realise people in general have intrinsic worth and should not be used.

14. Let’s look at some examples…
Formula of Humanity
‘Act in such as way as you always treat humanity whether in your own person or on the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’
It’s important to note here that Kant thinks that this formulation has exactly the same meaning (and the same results) as the universal law formulation. He just thinks it presents the idea in a way that is more intuitive.
Let’s look at some examples…

15. Formula of Humanity How does this make you feel?
‘Act in such as way as you always treat humanity whether in your own person or on the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’
You acquire a new friend, Sam. Sam goes out of her way to be nice to you, pays you compliments, lets you borrow her fancy camera and even buys you a thoughtful birthday present. However, you find out in reality Sam doesn’t like you at all. She only became friends with you in order to meet your cousin who is an up and coming journalist. Sam thinks your journalist cousin could help make her famous.
How does this make you feel?
Was Sam’s behavior wrong? Why?
How does Kant express this?

16. Formula of Humanity
‘Act in such as way as you always treat humanity whether in your own person or on the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’
Which of the following treats people as “ends” not “means”?
Lying to a friend to get them to lend you money.
Paying a plumber to mend your sink.
Blowing up yourself to further a terrorist cause.
Blowing up someone else to further a terrorist cause.
Abolishing slavery.
Paying for something with fake £20 notes.
IVF.
Your plain has crashed; in order to survive you resort to cannibalism.

17. Formula of Humanity Go through the situations on page 269 again.
‘Act in such as way as you always treat humanity whether in your own person or on the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’
Since this version of the categorical imperative is allegedly the same as the first formulation, we would expect the same results in the situations we looked at last lesson:
Go through the situations on page 269 again.
For each one ask if the act involved is treating people merely as a means to an end, or as an end in themselves.
Decide based on this whether or not the action would be judged right according to Kant’s second formulation.

18. The Categorical Imperative
Categorical imperatives are categorical because their function is not to advise us how to satisfy our self-interest or desires; instead, they command us how to act irrespective of our interests or desires.
The categorical imperative is therefore absolute; it is absolutely binding on us, irrespective of our desires or our situation.
Kant famously presents three versions or formulations of the categorical imperative. Although he considers them all to be part of the same moral law. It is these formulations that allow us to work out our duty in any situation.
The first two are absolutely central to his ethical theory, and it’s imperative that you know these inside out.
The Categorical Imperative
1.) “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
2.) “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.”

19. So what have we covered?...
Having good intentions (good will) is good in itself, regardless of what it achieves.
To have a good will is to be motivated by duty.
Being motivated by duty means doing what is right, regardless of desires / emotions. Following your reason.
Since reason is universal, it makes sense that we should only do things that all beings could rationally do / want (first formulation).
Since all beings are rational, it would also make sense for us to not use them in a way that violates their inherent value. This also couldn’t be universalised.
Therefore, rational beings should only be treated as an end in themselves, not merely as a means to an end (second formulation).

20. Tasks – Whiteboard First!
What is Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative?
What does Kant think about humanity that leads to this formulation?
Give an example of a maxim (remember a general law!) that would not involve treating a person as a means to an end.
Give an example of a maxim that would involve treating a person as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.
Do you think this is a more intuitive version of the categorical imperative than the first formulation?

21. How can you summarise this?
Lesson Summary
To identify exactly how we use the categorical imperative to form moral laws.
To examine and understand the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative.
How can you summarise this?

22. Comparisons to other theories…
A couple split up. A year later the ex-boyfriend puts various pictures of his ex-girlfriend on the internet. She doesn’t discover this. The pictures bring pleasure to others.
How would an act Utilitarian respond to this case?
How would a rule Utilitarian respond?
Do these responses seem intuitively moral?
What would Kant say in response to this?
What reasons would he give for this response?
Does this response seem intuitively moral? Why?

23. Comparisons to other theories…
A serial killer is on the loose. Thousands of citizens live in a state of fear and demand that the killer be brought to justice. Eventually the mayor selects someone at random from the protesting mob, a man with a known criminal record who is widely disliked. This man is quickly tried, found guilty, and executed. The mob disperses, feeling happy and secure again.
How would an act Utilitarian respond to this case?
How would a rule Utilitarian respond?
Do these responses seem intuitively moral?
What would Kant say in response to this?
What reasons would he give for this response?
Does this response seem intuitively moral? Why?

24. Kant and Human Rights
Kant’s focus on autonomy and the inherent value of all humans in ethics has been extremely influential. The development of human rights is closely linked to these concepts and many of Kant’s arguments have been used to support these ideals.
Slavery, false imprisonment, torture, and so on are all ways of treating people as a means to some other end and therefore undermine their autonomy.
The basis of all human rights is to enable individual, rational autonomy, and Kant’s philosophy played a significant part in their development.

25. Tasks – Whiteboard First!
Use the textbooks (255+) and the handouts to recap the main ideas of Kantian ethics.
Ensure you understand:
Why Kant argues that humans should follow our rationality over desires.
The difference between acting out of duty and acting in accordance with duty.
The difference between a categorical and hypothetical imperative.
The first formulation of the categorical imperative and some examples of maxims that would pass / fail.
The two ways a maxim can fail (failure in conception / failure of will)
The second formulation of the categorical imperative and some examples of maxims that would pass / fail.
How the theory might compare to Utilitarianism on the surface.

26. Strengths of the theory…
What are the strengths of Kant’s deontological ethics?