Background to Kantian Ethics
Kant was a Christian and was writing at a time when Europe was changing – the Enlightenment. People were liberating themselves from the Church. This became known as the “age of reason”. Kant was sceptical of the claims made by ‘rationalist’ philosophers about the extent human reason alone could grasp truths about the universe. He tried to discover the hidden rules and laws that govern how our mind understand the world, and how morality functions. He famously said: “Two things fill the mind with wonder and awe: the starry heavens above and the moral law within.” Kant believed that morality was independent of God’s will and the will of everyone else. We will see that Kant’s approach to ethics is deontological – it is based on the idea of duty, or what is right. It focuses on acts conforming to certain rules (that are achievable through reason). It is not based on achieving good consequences or developing a particular character. Kant also believed moral statements are a priori synthetic – they are knowable before experience, but can be right or wrong.
The Good Will and Duty
Kant said that ‘ends’ cannot be morally good in itself. Take “happiness” – a serial killer may be happy that they have killed more than once. How can we say this is morally good in itself? Another example to highlight Kant’s point could be that sometimes the right thing doesn’t bring you happiness, it brings you unhappiness. It doesn’t reduce the moral status of the action.
Kant believes that ends can only be good if they are accompanied by, or result from, a good will. He explains what he means by “good will”: A good will is one which acts for the sake of duty. Ultimately you do it because you know it is the right thing to do.
Duties are what we are obliged to do. We should use our reason to do our duty for duty’s sake and no other.
Kant believes that ends can only be good if they are accompanied by, or result from, a good will. He explains what he means by “good will”: A good will is one which acts for the sake of duty. Ultimately you do it because you know it is the right thing to do.
Duties are what we are obliged to do. We should use our reason to do our duty for duty’s sake and no other.
Humans as Imperfectly Rational
Humans, like animals, are driven by desires and instincts. Our ability to reason makes us different. Kant believed it is reason that reveals the moral laws that we have a duty to follow: desires tell us how to behave non-morally and give us goals to try and achieve. However, moral laws are objective and universal – applying to all at all times. If we were perfectly rational, we would permanently be doing the morally right thing. We are imperfectly rational as there is a conflict between our reason and our desires. This tension is what creates the possibility of duty. We do the right thing (saving the drowning man) because it is our duty. It is our duty because reason tells us that the right thing to do is to assist people in need.
This is what Kant meant by Good Will
This is what Kant meant by Good Will
Kant on Duty and Prudence
“For example, it is always a matter of duty that a dealer should not over charge an inexperienced purchaser; and wherever there is much commerce the prudent tradesman does not overcharge, but keeps a fixed price for everyone, so that a child buys of him as well as any other. Men are thus honestly served; but this is not enough to make us believe that the tradesman has so acted from duty and from principles of honesty: his own advantage required it; it is out of the question in this case to suppose that he might besides have a direct inclination in favour of the buyers, so that, as it were, from love he should give no advantage to one over another. Accordingly, the action was done neither from duty nor from direct inclination, but merely with a selfish view.”
The Hypothetical Imperative
“All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically… If the action would be good simply as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; but if the action is represented as good in itself… then the imperative is categorical.”
Kant believed there are two kinds of imperatives (statements of authority/commands): hypothetical and categorical.
The hypothetical imperative is qualified by an “if… then...” statement: if you want to be healthy, then you should exercise. You have a reason to do one course of action because it is a means to an end of another action. It is conditional and does not apply to everyone – there is no obligation to become healthy. The antecedent part of the hypothetical imperative is based on desire for a course of action. Kant said that morality should not be based on desire / inclination so the use of the hypothetical imperative cannot be used as a measurement of duty.
Kant believed there are two kinds of imperatives (statements of authority/commands): hypothetical and categorical.
The hypothetical imperative is qualified by an “if… then...” statement: if you want to be healthy, then you should exercise. You have a reason to do one course of action because it is a means to an end of another action. It is conditional and does not apply to everyone – there is no obligation to become healthy. The antecedent part of the hypothetical imperative is based on desire for a course of action. Kant said that morality should not be based on desire / inclination so the use of the hypothetical imperative cannot be used as a measurement of duty.
The Categorical Imperative
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
Does not have the antecedent “if”. Does not depend on desires or goals – allowing for moral imperatives. Moral commands are based on an objective a priori law of reason that applies to everyone. Categorical imperatives are arrived at through practical reasoning. Each person must act according to a sense of duty that comes from rationality not inclination. Categorical imperatives demand unconditional obedience.
Does not have the antecedent “if”. Does not depend on desires or goals – allowing for moral imperatives. Moral commands are based on an objective a priori law of reason that applies to everyone. Categorical imperatives are arrived at through practical reasoning. Each person must act according to a sense of duty that comes from rationality not inclination. Categorical imperatives demand unconditional obedience.
First Formulation: Formula of the Law of Nature
Step 1: Work out the underlying maxim.
Step 2a: Can you conceive of a world with this maxim as a law (Contradiction in Conception)?
If no, then you have a perfect duty not to act on the maxim.
Step 2b: Can you rationally will that this be a universal moral law? (Contradiction in Will)?
If no, then you have an imperfect duty not to act on it.
If the maxim passes, then the action is morally permissible.
Test 1: Contradiction in Conception
For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception. A contradiction in conception is something that is self-contradictory. For example: if you want to take a gift to a party, but can’t afford it, should you steal it? Firstly, work out the underlying maxim (in this case “when in need, steal something when you can’t afford it”). Then you have to ask yourself if you can conceive of a world with this maxim as a law. If stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument against it. In fact, the very concept of ownership wouldn't make sense - as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do. So, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, the concept of private property disappears. If there is no such thing as private property, then stealing is impossible.
Therefore, Kant would say, the maxim "you should steal" leads to a contradiction in conception. Therefore, stealing is not morally permissible. If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a perfect duty not to follow that maxim. It is always wrong.
Test 2: Contradiction in Will
Assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, we must then ask whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will - i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not. For example, what if you could help someone when they need it but choose not to? Your maxim may be “I will not help those in distress, when I easily could, through selfishness”). Kant believes it is possible to conceive of a world where people do not help each other so it isn’t self-contradictory. The world wouldn’t be pleasant, but Kant says it’s possible. But can we rationally will it to be a universal moral law? Kant says no. We’ve all been in situations where we can’t help ourselves, and needed the help of others. We wouldn’t want to be in a situation where we need help but no one would help us. We need help to achieve our ends, so we couldn’t will that this possibility is denied to us. So we cannot will a situation in which no one ever helps anyone else.
Of course, not all goals require the help of others. Hence, Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty. In other words, it is sometimes wrong to follow the maxim "not to help others in need".
Step 2a: Can you conceive of a world with this maxim as a law (Contradiction in Conception)?
If no, then you have a perfect duty not to act on the maxim.
Step 2b: Can you rationally will that this be a universal moral law? (Contradiction in Will)?
If no, then you have an imperfect duty not to act on it.
If the maxim passes, then the action is morally permissible.
Test 1: Contradiction in Conception
For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception. A contradiction in conception is something that is self-contradictory. For example: if you want to take a gift to a party, but can’t afford it, should you steal it? Firstly, work out the underlying maxim (in this case “when in need, steal something when you can’t afford it”). Then you have to ask yourself if you can conceive of a world with this maxim as a law. If stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument against it. In fact, the very concept of ownership wouldn't make sense - as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do. So, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, the concept of private property disappears. If there is no such thing as private property, then stealing is impossible.
Therefore, Kant would say, the maxim "you should steal" leads to a contradiction in conception. Therefore, stealing is not morally permissible. If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a perfect duty not to follow that maxim. It is always wrong.
Test 2: Contradiction in Will
Assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, we must then ask whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will - i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not. For example, what if you could help someone when they need it but choose not to? Your maxim may be “I will not help those in distress, when I easily could, through selfishness”). Kant believes it is possible to conceive of a world where people do not help each other so it isn’t self-contradictory. The world wouldn’t be pleasant, but Kant says it’s possible. But can we rationally will it to be a universal moral law? Kant says no. We’ve all been in situations where we can’t help ourselves, and needed the help of others. We wouldn’t want to be in a situation where we need help but no one would help us. We need help to achieve our ends, so we couldn’t will that this possibility is denied to us. So we cannot will a situation in which no one ever helps anyone else.
Of course, not all goals require the help of others. Hence, Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty. In other words, it is sometimes wrong to follow the maxim "not to help others in need".
Second Formulation: Formula of Humanity
“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”
This formula is all about treating someone as a means to your own end. This means to use them to get what you want. So Kant is basically saying don't use people, without respecting them as an end in themselves. For example:
Quite suddenly 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 (yet inexpensive) birthday present. However, you find out that in reality Sam doesn’t like you at all. She only became friends with you so that she could meet your cousin, who is an up-and-coming journalist. Sam thinks your journalist cousin could help move her career forward.
She deceived you – so she overrode your autonomy, using you as a means to an end. This doesn’t mean you can never use people as a means. Every time you call a taxi or a plumber, you are using a person to further your ends. However, they have consented to the arrangement, and they too are using you as a means to an end – to make money. The moral problems arise when you do not have a chance to consent, and so your autonomy/rationality is undermined. When this happens, you are being used merely as a means to an end.
Perfect duties arise from people not being treated as an end. The example of Sam would generate a perfect duty if we were to devise a maxim from the scenario. If we take the imperfect duty of not helping others when we can (from the first formulation), we still have an imperfect duty. You are expected to respect and further develop human autonomy/rationality. This would include furthering your skills and helping others. Failing to do this does not contradict the second formulation, but it is not in harmony with it. Hence it remains an imperfect duty.
This formula is all about treating someone as a means to your own end. This means to use them to get what you want. So Kant is basically saying don't use people, without respecting them as an end in themselves. For example:
Quite suddenly 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 (yet inexpensive) birthday present. However, you find out that in reality Sam doesn’t like you at all. She only became friends with you so that she could meet your cousin, who is an up-and-coming journalist. Sam thinks your journalist cousin could help move her career forward.
She deceived you – so she overrode your autonomy, using you as a means to an end. This doesn’t mean you can never use people as a means. Every time you call a taxi or a plumber, you are using a person to further your ends. However, they have consented to the arrangement, and they too are using you as a means to an end – to make money. The moral problems arise when you do not have a chance to consent, and so your autonomy/rationality is undermined. When this happens, you are being used merely as a means to an end.
Perfect duties arise from people not being treated as an end. The example of Sam would generate a perfect duty if we were to devise a maxim from the scenario. If we take the imperfect duty of not helping others when we can (from the first formulation), we still have an imperfect duty. You are expected to respect and further develop human autonomy/rationality. This would include furthering your skills and helping others. Failing to do this does not contradict the second formulation, but it is not in harmony with it. Hence it remains an imperfect duty.
Issues
1: Problems with the application of the principle.
- Oddities – some maxims don’t make sense.
- ”In an exam, I will always try to come in the top half, to push myself”
- Not everyone can be in top half – fails Contradiction in Conception.
- We then have a perfect duty to not come in the top half (and also one to not come in the bottom half.
- The CI only reveals what we can’t do
- Maxims we can universalise are morally permissible. Not duties.
- Maxims we cannot universalise generate moral duties (a duty not to perform them or a duty to do the opposite).
- It only tells us what we can’t do (lie, deceive etc.); not what we should be doing.
- Imperfect duties are not clear
- If we generate an imperfect duty, when are we supposed to do/not do it?
- The CI does not tell us when it is right or wrong.
- Is it right to kill one person to save five people? Kant would say no, a utilitarian would say yes. But what about 100 people? Or the entire population of the world?
- There's a strong intuition that consequences matter. If you could stop a madman from detonating a nuclear bomb by killing him, surely it is justifiable to do so? However, Kant would argue that we have a perfect duty not to murder.
- The problem with such rigid rules is drawn out further in the lies section of applied ethics. Kant argues that we have a perfect duty not to lie - even if telling a lie would save someone's life.
- Thought experiments draw out the absurd results of ignoring consequences in ethical decision making. Take the axeman scenario and lying – Kant more concerned that we focus on what we can control – being rationally consistent in our actions. If everyone lived that way, there would be no murder, but they don’t. So the moral value of the act (lying or not), seems to reside in the consequence, not the motive.
- Kant often accused of a cold and calculating approach to ethics – demanding we put aside our feelings for the suffering of others.
- However – Kant is not against people wanting to do right actions, and positive emotions, but he is clear that acting from desire, not duty has no moral worth.
- Carol Gilligan and others use feminist critique – adoption of a dispassionate approach to ethics represents “male” patterns of ethical thought. She adapts the fable of the moles and the porcupine to highlight the fact that morality is about individual situations and about care (if the porcupine was friendly and jolly, the moles would still want to keep him around, even if they are inconvenienced by his size and spikes). In the axe man situation - nearly everyone would lie because they care.
- Bernard Williams argues that the impartial position Kant wishes us to adopt is only possible for factual, and not moral, deliberations. A factual one has a “Unity of Interest” because it is an attempt to reach an impersonal position where we all agree. With moral deliberations there is no longer a unity of interest as we have different desires and interests – our positions are personal.
- Kant believed that there could not be two rules that clashed as there must be an issue with how they were rationally conceived.
- Knowing which duties to prioritise is difficult. Also, the first formulation is theoretical. Hard to know precisely if it is a perfect or imperfect duty.
- Jean-Paul Sartre criticises Kant. Uses example from Nazi occupied France of a young man torn between his duty to his country, which compelled him to join the resistance, and his duty to care for his mother, who had already lost her other sons to the war. Sartre says that Kant’s ethical theory is no use and the young man must act on instinct (and not reason).
- Kant would disagree and say we have to look at the grounds for obligation and assess the strengths.
- Lawecing uses the example of a wife and a stranger drowning. You would not say that you would save the wife because she is your wife and it is your duty. You would do it instantly because she is your wife.
|
|
|
|