Kant's deontological ethics

Summary

The only thing that is good without qualification is good will.

Good will means acting for the sake of duty

You have a duty to follow the moral law

Moral laws are universal

You can tell a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative

The categorical imperative is two tests: contradiction in conception and in will

Finally, do not treat people as means to and end (the humanity formula)

Good will

One that acts for the sake of duty, this is the source of moral worth. So, if you save someone’s life expecting financial reward this action has no moral worth, you’re acting out of selfishness instead of duty. If you save someone’s life because you recognise that you have a duty to do so, then this action does have moral worth.

Duty

Kant argues we have a duty to follow the moral law, summarised by the categorical imperative

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.

Maxims

Hypothetical rules are qualified by an if statement (you should get a job if you want money) whereas categorical rule aren’t, they apply universally (You shouldn’t kill is a rule that applies to everyone i.e. universally). Moral laws are categorical. Kant gives two tests to see if a maxim will pass the categorical imperative. He also gives the humanity formula.

Contradiction in conception

For a law to be universal it must not result in a contradiction in conception. For example we might ask Kant whether it’s morally acceptable to steal - whether you should steal is a universally applicable maxim. If stealing was universally acceptable, you could take whatever you want from someone then the concept of ownership wouldn’t make sense - everyone has as much of a right to ownership as you. But if private property no longer exists stealing becomes impossible. You have a perfect duty to not follow maxims that lead to a contradiction in conception, it’s always wrong.

Contradiction in will

If there’s no contradiction in conception, we must ask if there’s a contradiction in will, i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not. There’s no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone else, but Kant says we cannot rationally will it. Sometimes we have goals (ends) that cannot be achieved without the help of others, to will the ends we must also will the means. So, we can’t rationally will such goals without also willing the help of others (the means). Kant argues an imperfect duty is where it is sometimes wrong to follow maxims such as “not to help others in need” as not all goals require help of others.

Humanity formula

Treat humanity never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end (don’t use people). E.g. pretending you love someone to marry them and take their money, treating them as a means to make money. The deception, according to Kant, undermines the rational agency of the other party by withholding your true intentions, you prevent the other party from rationally pursuing their own ends (to find a loving partner). If you’re honest with the other party, they can make an informed choice to whether this fits their ends (their goal may be marriage and not love). You can both rationally acknowledge each other’s ends and use each other for mutual benefit.

Problems

Not all universal maxims are moral, ignores consequences, ignores other valuable motivations, conflicts between duties, foot: morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives

Not all universal maxims are moral (and vice versa)

By tweaking the stealing maxim to “you can only steal from people with nine letters in their name” we can preserve the concept of private property, avoiding the contradiction in conception. Their rareness would avoid a breakdown in the concept of property, since they can be universalised it should follow that it’s morally acceptable. You can also argue maxims that can’t be made into universal law yet aren’t morally wrong, if my maxim is to be in the top 10% of students, it can’t become a universal law because by definition only 10% of people can achieve this, yet it’s not morally wrong to try for it.

Moral maxims response

Kant would argue modifying your maxim in this way (stealing from people with nine letters in their name) is cheating because the extra conditions aren’t a part of my choice. The categorical imperative is concerned with the actual maxim I am choosing to act on - and these extra conditions aren’t a part of my choice.

Ignores consequences

There’s a strong intuition that consequences (utilitarianism) are important in moral decision making. Kant would argue it isn’t right to kill one person to save five or even a hundred people. Utilitarians would argue it’s morally acceptable to steal food in some situations - for example stealing food to save your starving family’s life. The rules seem to be followed too strictly.

Ignores other valuable motivations

Kant would argue the only motivation that has moral worth is moral duty. Imagine a close friend is in hospital, if you visit them because you care about them this has no moral value, whereas if you visit them purely out of duty, even unhappily, this would have moral value. This seems absurd, good people are only those who act for the sake of duty, even if they don’t care about others.

Valuable duty response

Kant would distinguish acting for the sake of duty and acting in accordance with duty, there’s nothing wrong with being motivated by things such as love, but we shouldn’t choose how to act because of them. Instead we should always act out of duty, if what we want to do anyways is in accordance with duty then that’s a bonus.

Conflicts between duties

Kant argues that it’s never acceptable to violate our duties. Kant says we have a duty to never lie and a duty never to break promises, what happens if you make a promise but then have to lie to keep that promise. Or you promise to get something for your friend but that thing has been bought by someone else and you can only get it through stealing.

Conflict duties response

Kant claims a true conflict of duties is impossible, our moral duties are objective and rational, so it’s inconceivable they could conflict with one another. If there appears to be a conflict we must’ve made a mistake somewhere in formulating our duties. You cannot rationally will a maxim to be a universal law if it conflicts with another, that would be contradictory. Kant would argue we shouldn’t make a promise that would conflict with out duties (don’t lie/steal)

Foot: morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives

Philippa Foot argues moral laws aren’t categorical in the way Kant thinks - there’s no categorical reason to follow them. Instead, she argues morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives: I should do my homework because I want to do well in the exam - these desires provide a rational reason why I should act according to these imperatives. The reason for categoricals isn’t so clear - why shouldn’t I lie or steal, if I don’t care about these rules and have no desire to follow them, why should I? Foot argues there’s nothing irrational about disobeying the categorical imperative if you never accepted it in the first place, the imperative provides no rational reason to follow it.