Transcript Kant`s Categorical Imperatives

Author: John Waters
Kant
Socratic Ideas Limited © All Rights Reserved
A Concise Historical Overview
Plato
(428-374 BCE)
Isaac Newton
(1642-1727 CE)
Martin Luther
David Hume
(1483-1546 CE)
(1711-1776 CE)
Rousseau’s
Social Contract
(1772 CE)
Rationalism
versus
Empiricism
Kant’s
Enlightenment
W.D. Ross
(1927-1971 CE)
Two things fill the
mind with wonder
and awe: the starry
heavens above and
the moral law
within.
Kant’s view of Human Nature
Kant’s understanding of human nature is best appreciated
within the context of:
Animals
Desires
Inclinations
Animals follow their desires
and inclinations only. They
have no reason, so behave in
accordance to the empirical
realm of cause and effect,
led by their appetite
and instincts.
Phenomenal Realm
Human Beings
God / Angels
Reason
Desires & Reason
Human nature experiences
the tension of desires
and inclinations
(their animal self)
versus the voice of
reason
(their God-like self)
God and angels are
perfectly rational beings,
without appetites and desires
to lead them astray from
following reason and
objective moral laws.
Phenomenal and Noumenal Realm
Noumenal Realm
Noumenal Realm
•Intelligible world
Kant’s view
•Inaccessible world of things in themselves of human
nature
•Constant and unchanging
(sharing the
`animal self’
of desires /
Kant worked within a Platonic
appetites and
tradition, and, like Plato,
an `angelic
believed in two Realms of
human existence: the
self’ of
intelligible World, the
reason)
Noumena; and the sensible
means that
Real, the phenomena.
humans have
access to both
the noumenal
and
Phenomenal Realm
phenomenal
•Sensible world
realm.
•The world as it appears to us
•Changing and transient
Noumenal Realm
Reason
Intellect
Senses
Inclinations
Phenomenal Realm
Autonomy (Self deciding)
Versus
Heteronomy (Different laws imposed upon you)
Kant believed that morally human beings are autonomous
Autonomy
Heteronomy
The individual decides
their own moral laws
People have laws
imposed upon them by others
e.g. the church, the state, one’s family
A priori (before experience)
A posteriori (after experience)
Reason
Desires / Inclinations
Freedom of the will
Noumenal realm
Governed by laws of nature
Phenomenal realm
Categorical Imperative
Hypothetical Imperative
Nature
Morality
Newton’s laws of nature
Kant’s Moral Law
• Explains the sensible realm
(Realm of the phenomena)
• Located in the intelligible
realm (the noumena)
• Dependent on scientific
observation / empiricism
• Accessible by reason, which is
innate, within human beings
• A posteriori – dependent on
• A priori – not dependent on
Universal Laws
sense experience
sense experience
Just as Newton asserted universal laws of nature, so
Kant asserted universal laws of morality.
The difference being that laws of nature are a posteriori,
whilst laws of morality are a priori.
“The GOOD WILL
shines forth like a
precious jewel”
(Kant)
Sole intrinsic good
No need of qualification
Autonomy
Freedom of will
Based on Reason
(not empiricism)
Motive of duty
“Duty for duty’s sake”
The Good Will chooses to
follow the moral law BECAUSE IT
IS THE MORAL LAW.
The Categorical Imperative
Versus
The Hypothetical Imperative
Kant believed that the Good Will follows the Categorical Imperative
Categorical Imperative
Hypothetical Imperative
An unconditional command
A conditional command
Willed as an end in itself
“Do `x’ for the sake of `x’”
Intrinsic goods
Willed as a means to an end
“Do `x’ if you wish to achieve `y’”
Instrumental goods
A priori, through reason
A posteriori, desires / inclinations
Universal
Absolute
Relative
Dependent / Contingent
Deontological
‘Duty for duty’s sake’
Consequential
‘The end justifies the means’
Categorical or Hypothetical
Imperative?
• Be nice to your granny so she will leave
you money in her will.
• Use artificial contraception to avoid
unwanted pregnancies.
• Tell the truth so people will trust you.
How might you turn the first part of these
hypothetical imperatives into categorical
imperatives?
Kant’s Categorical Imperatives
(1) Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.
(2) Treat other human beings as an end in
their own right, never as a means to an
end.
(3) Act as though you are a member of a
law making kingdom of ends.
Kant’s Moral Problem
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
Univers
e
Virtuous people
are happy
Wicked people
suffer
But in the world
I
R
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
Some virtuous
people suffer
Some wicked
people prosper
The Moral Law may be understood
a priori by reason, and requires us to
achieve the highest good
(Summum
Bonum)
Consequently
some
virtuous
people
suffer
Dietriech Bonhoeffer
But in the phenomenal world, of morally free
human beings, desires and inclinations tempt
people away from acting rationally
Therefore to maintain a belief
in a rational universe where
the highest good is achieved
Kant
postulates
1. The Existence of God
2. The immortality of the soul
3. Human beings have free will
are postulates of pure practical reason
Consequently
some
wicked
people
prosper
Machiavelli
Benefits of Kant’s
Categorical Imperative
Human beings are morally autonomous,
authors of their own morality
In the noumenal realm Kant
asserted humanity’s freedom to decide
for themselves the Good will, a priori,
through the use of reason
In the realm of the phenomena
Kant respected the determined
universal laws of nature,
as outlined by Isaac Newton
According to
Kant’s view of
human nature
(rational and
empirical selves)
it is up to the
individual
whether to assert
their freedom by
acting rationally,
or let themselves
be governed by
empirical desires
and inclinations.
N
O
U
M
E
N
A
P
H
E
N
O
M
E
N
A
The categorical imperative promotes
equality and is impartial
Kant was radical in challenging the accepted social convention
of the nineteenthqcentury which practised social discrimination.
Morality, grounded in reason, is impartial and egalitarian
Treat other human
beings as an end in
their own right, never
as a means to an end.
As all humans
are rational
Act only on that maxim
through which you can at
the same time will
that it should become
a universal law.
Deontological
approach
The categorical imperative provides a deontological
structure which enables the individual to decide for
themselves the specific moral content
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
U
M
Specific Moral Maxims decided
by the individual using the C.I. structure
Official
Church teaching
Individual
Autonomy
REJECTION OF
HETERONOMY (other laws)
Categorical
Imperative (C.I)
Structure
•Duty
•Reason
Universal
•People: end not means
•Good Will - Unconditional
B
I
B
L
E
D
I
V
I
N
E
C
O
M
M
A
N
D
e.g. 10 Commandments
(Decalogue)
In an increasingly secular age Kant’s emphasis on
duty plays a significant counter-cultural role in an
individualistic, egotistical society
To act as an antidote to an egotistical society the
idea of duty encourages people to think again about
their obligations to others. Duty tries to correct a
fragmented society where individuals think only of
themselves, by placing reason above desires and inclinations.
The achievement of his own
happiness is man’s highest
moral purpose
What is strong wins.
That is the universal
law.
Nietzsche
Ayn Rand
Dostoyevsky
Kant Values Intrinsic Human Goods
e.g. Freedom and Dignity
Kant was deeply influenced by Rousseau’s philosophy
which emphasised the inherent dignity
and freedom of humanity.
Such goods are not dependent
upon consequential gain or
benefits, but logically
discerned through reason
according to the Good Will.
Categorical, not
hypothetical,
imperatives.
Problems of Kant’s
Categorical Imperative
Acting out of a sense of ‘duty for
duty’s sake’ is cold and impersonal
Kant argues that the
good will requires
that an individual
follow reason and
acts out of a sense
of duty
alone.
Reason is and ought to be the
slave of the passions, and can
never pretend to any other
office than to serve and
obey them.
According to Kant the
person who enjoys and
takes pleasures in helping
someone is therefore NOT
acting morally – as they are
following their inclinations
and
desires.
For Hume reason simply
provides the means, the
devices, for gaining what
the passions desire.
Hume’s view of morality is
opposed to that of Kant, as
Hume believed morality was
based on a universal sentiment
of benevolence / fellow feeling.
Kant’s categorical
imperative is therefore contrary
to human nature as physical,
desiring human beings.
David Hume
For Hume sentiments such as
sympathy, altruism, cooperation and
mutual respect are grounded not in
reason or duty, but in what human
nature desires and feels.
It is worth making lateral comparisons with other
other moral philosophers … this demonstrates
higher order thinking skills.
Analysis / Application / Analysis / Application / Analysis
On the one hand Aristotle,
like Kant, recognises
the importance of reason,
“If the intellect is
divine compared with
man, the life of the intellect
must be divine compared to
the life of a human being.”
Nichomachean Ethics
Yet, Aristotle would have
parted company with Kantian
duty which acts
in isolation from emotion,
“We may even go so far as to
State that the man who does not
enjoy performing noble actions is not
a good man at all. Nobody would
call a man just who does not enjoy
acting justly, nor generous who
does not enjoy generous
actions…”
Nichomachean Ethics
Duty, without guidance from human benevolence and
sympathy, can lead to rigid moral fanaticism
Trial of Adolph Eichmann, Chief Administrator of the Holocaust
Jerusalem 1961
Official Record of Adolph Eichmann’s pre-trial police examination
“Eichmann suddenly declared with great emphasis that he had lived his whole life
according to Kant’s moral precepts, and especially according to a
Kantian definition of duty… I meant by my remark about Kant
that the principle of my will must always be such that it can
become the principle
of general laws.”
‘Eichmann also cited, in support of his Kantian attitude to his duty, the fact that
out of the millions of cases that passed through his hands, he allowed sympathy to
sway him from his path of duty on only two occasions. The implication clearly is that on
other occasions he felt sympathy for the Jews he was sending to the gas chambers, but
because he believed one should do one’s duty unaffected by sympathy, he steadfastly
stuck to his duty, instead of being tempted to bend the rules and help the Jews.’
(Source: Peter Singer
How are we to live? p. 220)
Implications of Kant’s emphasis on
reason…the loss of the human spirit?
?
Reason
“Unless reason takes the
reins of government into
its own hands, the feelings
and inclinations play the
master over the man.”
Implications of
following Kant
and the exclusive
path of reason
Passions
“Reason is and ought
to be the slave of the
passions.”
• For Kant persons are respected
because of their rationality.
• Like Star Trek’s Data
intelligence, logic and
reason are morally significant.
• But where is the space for the
human spirit within an android?!
Resolving Conflicting Duties…?
Both positions can be universalized, as much depends on
whether the foetus is thought to be a life with potential or
a
potential
life.
Judith Jarvis
Mother Teresa
Thomson
believed she
What
believes
had a duty to
that a woman
happens
protect the
has a duty to
when
life of innocent
herself to pursue
duties
foetuses and
her own life and
conflict?
so opposed
if a pregnancy
abortion
interferes then
But
abortion is
acceptable
“Duty for duty’s sake”
Kant’s Contradiction?
For Kant is virtue not its own reward?
So why does Kant postulate a life after death where the virtuous are
rewarded by God with happiness?
Has the categorical imperative turned hypothetical?
Is happiness a reward
for virtuous conduct?
Virtue is its own reward?
Deontological
Intrinsic good
Willed for its own sake
Categorical Imperative
Consequential
Instrumental
“Means to an end”
Hypothetical Imperative
Kant is Speciesist
Lack of respect for animal rights
Although Kant does not uphold the
Biblical sanctity of human life (image
of God) as the Bible is based upon
revelation and faith… Nevertheless
Kant is speciesist, as he thought
human beings alone are rational,
and so non-rational beings (i.e animals)
have no moral significance.
But…
“The question is not
can they reason,
can they talk,
but can they suffer?”
(Jeremy Bentham)
“But so far as animals are
concerned, we have no
direct duties. Animals are
there merely as a means to an
end. That end is man.”
•Jeremy Bentham, founder of utilitarianism,
considered that sentience was an ethically
important characteristic – the ability to feel
pleasure or pain.
•More recently Peter Singer, a preference
utilitarian, has developed Benetham’s thinking
asserting that personhood is central to ethical
rights. Singer argues that many animals have
sentience, rationality and relationships
(e.g. chimps and dolphins) and so are
ethically significant.
The ‘Good will’ is not enough…
Consequences do matter!
Similarities between Kant and Marx
•Like Kant, Karl Marx considered that as people
are rational they are capable of making free choices
and should be treated with respect, ends in their
own right, not as means to a capitalist end.
•People should collectively act as though they were
a member of a law making kingdom of ends.
Historical Materialism
• Marx believed that it was
essential to change people’s
social situation.
• Having a good will is not
enough. The consequences of
moral action and social goals
which result in a fairer society
are extremely important.
“The philosophers
have only
interpreted the world
in various ways;
the point is to
change it.”
(Karl Marx)
H
O
W
E
V
E
R
The Case of the Inquiring Murderer
If a `would be’ murderer asked you where his next intended
victim was hiding (and you are sheltering her in your house)
should you lie?
Do not lie
Lie
It is impossible to
universalize lying – as
people would stop
believing one another
•But by lying you might inadvertently
cause the death of the innocent person.
You can never know for sure that good
consequences will occur by lying. So
you should always avoid doing evil –
and so should never lie.
•Even if a murder does occur, it will
not be your fault, as you will have
acted out of a sense of duty, following
the categorical imperative.
But it would be possible to
universalize “Lie - if so doing
would save an innocent person’s
life.” There is no contradiction here
and it promotes beneficial
consequences.
James Rachels
* Kant is wrong to take such a pessimistic
view of our ability to predict
consequences with accuracy.
* It is highly questionable that one would
have no moral responsibility for the
person’s death – after all by not
lying one has aided the criminal
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties
An antidote to Kant’s absolute and universal approach
Ross asserted that we have
Prima Facie duties “at first glance”
which we recognise intuitively
through reason
Prima facie duties are
Prima facie duties are
therefore more flexible than
conditional duties
Kant’s rigid, absolute and
and ought be followed,
universal moral maxims as
and so become actual duties,
they may change according
unless circumstances mean
to the particular contexts
that there is an over-riding
and likely consequences.
reason not to follow them
e.g. I ought not to lie, unless
W.D. Ross
lying might mean saving
Intuitionist
an innocent life.
So Ross, like Kant, believed that
morality is objective.
But, unlike Kant, Ross did not believe that
morality was absolute and universal.
W.D Ross: Prima Facie Duties
Prima Facie duties “at first glance” which the mature
person recognises intuitively through reason
What should one do when intuitions conflict? For example:
Do you lie to a gunman to protect the intended innocent victim?
Protect innocent
life.
Do not lie
W.D. Ross
Prima Facie Duties are conditional,
not absolute, and may change
depending on the situation.
W.D. Ross was an intuitionist who argued that the
person intuitively knows what is good.
mature
Morals, like the principles of mathematics, are self-evident.
Morality is objective, but morals are conditional – whether
they should be followed depends on which is one’s over-riding
duty in the particular situation.
W.D. Ross takes a deontological, not consequential approach,
“Besides the duty of fulfilling promises I have and recognise
a duty of relieving distress, and that when I think it is right to
do the latter at the cost of the former, it is not because I think I
shall produce more good thereby but because I think it the duty
which is in the circumstances more of a duty.” (W.D. Ross)
W.D. Ross
Six Prima Facie Duties
•
•
•
•
•
•
(Duties one intuitively ought to follow,
in the absence of an over-riding duty) •Ross does not rank
Fidelity – faithful to promises made. these duties in order
of importance.
Gratitude – appreciation for support
•The mature person
offered.
intuitively knows
Justice – impartial, equal treatment of
these prima facie
duties are true and
others and distribution of pleasure
may
follow
the
Beneficience – help for others.
appropriate duty
Self-improvement – self-fulfilment
given the demands
Non-malificence - avoid harming
of the particular
situation.
others.
Case Studies
Kant
Is Hunting the Romanian Brown Bear Moral?
• Romania is the only country in Europe, apart
from the former Soviet Union, where the
`sport’ of hunting bears is legal.
• Aves, a nature protection group, are concerned
that current hunting will lead to the extinction
of the brown bear in Romania, home to the
largest European number of bears outside of
Russia.
• Would a Kantian support current Romanian
legislation which approves of such hunting.
Is Hunting the Romanian Brown Bear Moral?
Some further points to consider…
• There are currently 6,276 brown bears in Romania, 2004.
Romanian government officials claim this is higher than
the ideals figure of 4, 080 recommended by specialists
who have monitored the existing habitat.
• The Romanian government has licensed 658 bears to be
shot this season.
• Romania is a poverty-stricken country and earns a large
amount of foreign currency from hunting; last year
making £21 million.
• Brown bears are sentient beings, who fulfil many
of the personhood criteria outlined by Peter Singer.
• Hunting can involve cruel practises .
Should Tyrants and Terrorists
Face the Death Penalty?
Should people who deliberately inflict
torture and suffering on innocent
people, to the point of death, face
capital punishment for their actions?
Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are two
examples of those who have been
accused of committing crimes against
humanity.
How might a Kantian respond? Be
sure to offer reasons for your views.
Capital Punishment for Tyrants and Terrorists?
Some further points to consider…
George Bush is in favour of Capital
Punishment, believing in retributive
justice.
Alternatively Desmond Tutu adopts a
position of restorative justice – looking
to see how the grace of God may reform
perpetrators of evil and heal those who
have experienced dreadful wrong doings.
For Kant treating a person as an end in
their own right meant holding them to
account for their particular actions.
Is Compulsory Aversion
Therapy Moral?
In Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange the
film’s anti-hero, Alex, is a hostile and violent
youth who terrorises people in the community
In order to correct Alex’s anti-social
behaviour he is subjected to
cinematic brainwashing, a type of
aversion therapy, where he is
physically compelled to watch scenes
of violence and pornography which
cause him to be sick and so
condition his future behaviour.
Alex
Is Compulsory Aversion Therapy Moral?
Some further points to consider…
• A utilitarian might argue • Kant believed in retributive
justice where the individual
that greater emphasis
received the due punishment
should be placed on
their crime warranted.
reforming the offender,
• However, the autonomy of
not only for their own
the individual is vital. The
sake, but also for the
state should not manipulate
future safety and
people to its way of thinking
protection of society.
if this is contrary to their
personal wishes.
Psychological Autopsy
For Serial Killers?
Would it be moral to offer Serial killers
preferential treatment in prison if they
agreed to a `psychological autopsy’
with the aim of finding out more
about serial killing, so as to assist
police in preventing future crimes?
Offer a Kantian response to this
suggestion. Be sure to give
reasons to support your views.
Be sure to think about the
implications of your views.
Socrates Says Links
Plato (384-322 BC) The Republic
• Kant worked within a Platonic
tradition and, like Plato, believed in
two realms of human existence:
• (1) The intelligible world which Kant
called the Noumenal realm. (The
inaccessible world of things in
themselves; constant and unchanging)
• (2) The sensible world which Kant
called the phenomenal realm. (The
world as it appears to us. Changing
and transient)
Kant’s Lutheran Background
• The Lutheran background of Kant’s
parents emphasized intrinsic values
such as sincerity, honesty and integrity
as opposed to church doctrine (official
teachings).
• The foundation for Kant’s universal
idea of duty was also a feature of the
pietism of the Lutheran church and so
influenced this feature of Kant’s
categorical imperative.
1483-1546
Rousseau’s Social Contract
• There is an `urban myth’ of the time when Kant
was so engrossed by reading Rousseau’s Social
Contract that he was delayed for his famous
daily `philosopher’s walk’ – and the townsfolk,
who kept their watches by Kant’s daily walk,
were all late for their appointments that day!
• Central to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social
Contract is the freedom and dignity of all
human beings. This influenced Kant’s ideas.
• By having free will and following their
rational selves people are truly autonomous.
People are capable of establishing their own
code of morality; as opposed to having morality
imposed upon them by a moral law giver,
be
it God or the church.
Rationalism versus Empiricism
Rationalists, such as Rene Descartes,
thought that reason could explain the
working of the world; without
reference to sense experience.
Conversely John Locke’s empiricism
argued that the mind was like a
tabula raza (blank sheet of paper)
which was informed by the world of
experience.
Kant rejected Locke’s empiricism,
arguing that the rational mind
is
capable of structuring and
interpreting sense
experience.
Rene Descartes
John Locke
Newton’s Laws of Nature
• Newton explained the physical world as
being governed by universal laws of
nature.
• Kant accepted Newton’s laws of nature
as governing the sensible, empirical
world (which Kant called the
phenomenal realm)
• But Kant also asserted the intelligible
realm (which he called the noumenal
realm) accessible by reason alone. Such
a realm is the moral realm, accessible
through reason alone which, like
Newton’s laws of nature, is universal.
Kant showed great respect for David Hume as a philosopher.
For Hume sentiments of sympathy and benevolence
were the core of human morality.
However, Kant strongly disagreed
with Hume’s moral philosophy
that “reason is and ought to be the
slave of the passions.”
David Hume
“Unless reason takes the reins of
government into its own hands,
the feelings and inclinations
play the master over the man.”
(Immanuel Kant)
The Dawn of the Enlightenment
“Enlightenment is man’s emergence
from self-imposed immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use
one’s understanding without guidance
from another. This immaturity is selfimposed when its cause lies not in
lack of understanding, but in lack of
resolve and courage to use it without
guidance from another. Sapere Aude!
(Dare to Know) Have courage to use
your own understanding! That is the
motto of enlightenment.”
Kant, What is Enlightenment (1784)
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties
An antidote to Kant’s absolute and universal approach
Ross asserted that we have
Prima Facie duties “at first glance”
which we recognise intuitively
through reason
Prima facie duties are
Prima facie duties are
therefore more flexible than
conditional duties
Kant’s rigid, absolute and
and ought be followed,
universal moral maxims as
and so become actual duties,
they may change according
unless circumstances mean
to the particular contexts
that there is an over-riding
and likely consequences.
reason not to follow them
e.g. I ought not to lie, unless
W.D. Ross
lying might mean saving
Intuitionist
an innocent life.
So Ross, like Kant, believed that
morality is objective.
But, unlike Kant, Ross did not believe that
morality was absolute and universal.
This fascinating quotation illustrates an
essential aspect of Kant’s philosophy:
(1) The heavenly stars above show how
insignificant human beings are in relation
to the rest of the vast universe.
(2) Yet, because human beings have the ability
to reason they have intrinsic value and
dignity, as humanity is capable of being a
moral agent, unlike all other beings in the
world.
(3) The human will, a priori, can use reason to
comprehend the moral law of the universe.
Noumenal Realm
Reason
a priori
(prior to experience)
Discovers the
Moral law
Freedom of
the will
•The moral law is based on reason, a priori, which in order
to be valid must be universal – as otherwise it would be
contrary to reason. To claim that an action is right for me, Absolute
but wrong for you, in the same situation, is illogical.
Necessity
•Kant accepted Newton’s laws of science, explaining how the
phenomenal world is governed by universal laws of nature.
Isaac Newton
Causally
Determined
Empiricism
a posteriori
(Senses
experience) (after experience)
Discovers laws
of nature
Phenomenal Realm
• Kant considered that morality is a
priori, which individuals can freely
choose, in the noumenal realm,
when following reason.
• “The ground for obligation must be
looked for, not in the nature of man
nor in the circumstances of the
world in which he is placed, but
soley a priori in the concepts of
pure reason.” (Kant, Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals)
N
O
U
M
E
N
A
P
H
E
N
O
M
E
N
A
• The moral self is the noumenal self, the self as it is
in-itself.
• In the noumenal realm the laws of nature do not
apply, the individual can be truly free, untouched by
the laws of science.
• The noumenal realm is accessible by reason alone.
“When we think of ourselves as free,
we transfer ourselves into the
intelligible world and recognise the
autonomy of the will together with its
consequences – morality; whereas
when we think of ourselves as under
obligation, we look upon ourselves as
belonging to the sensible realm”
Groundwork of the Metaphysics
of Morals
“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.”
• Kant accepted that in the phenomenal realm Newton’s
laws of science applied, resulting in laws of universal
necessary causation where everything could be
determined according to the laws of nature.
• Physical functions of the human body are restricted by
the laws of nature in the phenomenal realm.
Isaac Newton
• According to Kant the good will is the sole
intrinsic good as it is good in itself and
requires no further qualification.
• It is different from other goods, such as
pleasure or courage, as other goods can be
misused by wicked people and so they cease
to be good.
• By contrast the good will always adopts a
motive of willing the good for its own sake,
according reason.
• The good will is grounded in the freedom of the
individual. It is not imposed upon someone by
the state, church or any other organization.
• The individual follows their moral, noumenal,
self and so is free from the causal necessity of
the phenomenal realm.
• The good will is known a priori through reason
and not a posteriori through sense experience.
• Sense experience, the empirical realm, is
dependent on peoples’ desires and inclinations
and as such it is no basis for the moral law.
• The Moral law acts in accordance with reason
and is therefore universal and absolute.
• Being known a priori, through reason, the good
will is a democratic ethic – open to every
rational human being and is therefore not
elitist – unlike some aristocratic regimes
who imposed moral laws on the under-class.
• The good will acts out of a sense of duty to the
moral law which is understood by reason, a
priori.
• The good will does not act out of a sense of
pursuing happiness, as Kant recognised that
happiness is:
• (a) not an unqualified good i.e. a person wishes
to be happy for a purpose and
• (b) happiness without good will is undeserved
luck and at the mercy of contingent factors of
the empirical realm.
(1) Act only on that maxim through which you
can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law.
•
This ensures that moral judgements are
impartial and objective and so avoids the
dangers of appealing to self-interest
•
Reason maintains that the moral law be
applied universally; to admit of exceptions
to the rule would be inconsistent and
therefore illogical.
•
(2) Treat other human beings as an end in
their own right, never as a means to an end.
•
People should be treated with respect and
dignity as all human beings are rational
beings and therefore are worthy of the
respect of the moral law.
•
Kant deliberately asserts a moral law that
upholds equality and does not treat people
differently according to class, wealth or
race. Such an ethic of equality was forward
looking in the eighteenth century.
•
(3) Act as though you are a member of a
law making kingdom of ends
•
Kant regarded the moral community as a
kingdom of people who should apply moral
maxims in such a way that showed respect
for others (based on their rationality) and,
in line with reason, moral maxims should
be universal in application – thus
maintaining the justice of impartiality.
• Understanding the word POSTULATE is vital to
appreciating Kant’s moral reasoning.
• Kant is NOT saying that he has proven the existence of
God.
• Rather, the term `postulate’ means “to assume without
proof, especially as the basis of an argument.”
• So, for Kant, in order for the universe to be rational it is
necessary to postulate that humans to have an immortal soul
which, after bodily death, is judged by God.
• God’s existence therefore is a necessary postulate; as God
acts as a moral guarantor – ensuring that justice occurs.
Those who have lived a moral life on earth in accord
with the good will receive eternal happiness.
• It is worth noting that whilst Kant claimed that “people
should be treated as an end, never as a means to an end”
there are seriously implications of this assertion.
• Kant believed that justice requires holding people to account
for their moral actions. For example, believing in retributive
justice Kant was in favour of Capital Punishment for serious
offences. “Even if a civilised society resolved to dissolve
itself with the consent of its members… the last murderer in
prison ought to be executed before the resolution was
carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one
may realise the deserts of his deeds, and that blood
guiltiness may not remain on the people.”
Imagine you are a mother of twin boys: Immanuel and David.
You receive two birthday cards
sent by contrasting philosophies…
HAPPY BIRTHDAY
MUM
I should send mum a card (this can be
universally applied and respects her
rationality – end in own right) - but I must
make sure I take no pleasure and don’t enjoy
writing Happy Birthday.. (!?)
A celebration to enjoy!
Birthdays are an opportunity to
express our love and appreciation.
A son cannot love a mother for
duty’s sake. Acting out of a sense of
`duty for duty’s sake’ is cold and
impersonal and is a denial of what it
is to be a (per)son!
(Mum)
• A serious criticism of any philosophy is that of
inconsistency; and it is this weaknesses that is charged
against Kant.
• Kant’s “good will” emphasises intrinsic values, and yet at
the last moment Kant seems to appeal to a consequential,
hypothetical imperative, as justification for behaving in a
virtuous way.
• This consequential justification, that virtue will be rewarded
by happiness after bodily death, suggests that the good will
is not followed purely for its own sake – but rather for the
posthumous prize of eternal happiness, so undermining
the whole of Kant’s supposedly deontological ethic.
• It seems ironic that Kant should reject belief in God
as the authority for ethics (on the grounds that
human beings would cease to be autonomous) and
yet, in order to make sense of his belief in justice,
Kant ends up postulating the existence of God as a
divine moral guarantor.
• One may also ask `Why does one need a God to act
as a moral guarantor? Why not simply a powerful
angelic being?
• Kant’s understanding of humanity’s duty toward
animals only arises indirectly.
• Kant would argue along the lines that, “Inhuman
treatment of animals blunts our sympathy with their
suffering and thereby weakens our natural disposition
which is very helpful to our morality in relation to other
people.”
• In short, if human sympathy with animal suffering is
blunted, then people may start to lose the inherent
respect (person end in own right) of other people.
James Rachels argues that by offering specific categorical
imperatives it is possible to overcome the rigidity of Kant’s
universal application of moral maxims.
Alasdair MacIntyre has argued a similar point, “with sufficient
ingenuity almost every precept can be universalized. For all that
I need to do is characterize the proposed action in such a way
that the maxim will permit me to do what I want while
prohibiting others from doing what would nullify the maxim
if universalized. e.g. ‘I may break promises only when….’ The
gap is filled by a description devised so that it will apply to my
present circumstances but to very few others. In practice the test
of the categorical imperative imposes restrictions only on
those
insufficiently
equipped
with
ingenuity.”
(A Short History of Ethics p. 198)