Kant, Categorical Imperative

Main Claim

Everything with good consequences can also can lead to arrogance and corruption

> The only thing preventing this is a good will.

 Some character traits are regarded as virtuous.

> Kant admits that these are conducive and helpful to the good will.

> But they are not themselves, intrinsically good.

> A person without good will but who is brave, resolute,self-controlled can do that much more evil.

Supporting argument - good definitions

The value of the good will does not come from its results.

> It’s intrinsic value is greater than any possible consequence

Something is good without qualification only if adding it to a situation does not make the situation worse

Happiness ex: bringing about pain is bad, bringing about pain with glee is worse

Supporting argument 2 - Good will

> Acting contrary to duty is not to act from duty.

> Acting conforming to duty, but not because it is one’s duty is also not to act from duty.

> Acting from duty is to act with duty as the only purpose.

Kant’s example: a merchant might be honest, but not be honest from duty, but out of prudent egoism - If it becomes known that he is a cheat, he might lose customers.

Even if you take genuine pleasure in doing good, you might be merely conforming to duty, but not acting from duty.

> Because you are still working with your own pleasure as an end.

Taking pleasure in doing good may not be a genuine good will

Cont. - acting from duty + morality

Acting from duty is acting with disregard for your own inclinations and desires, merely because you know your duty.

> That is the true mark of a good will.

One’s duty: rules or laws that one is subject to, acting from duty: acting for the sole sake of following these rules.

Morality: doing what needs to be done

> Regardless of personal preferences or desires.

> Regardless of outcomes or aggregate happiness.

Supporting argument 3 - what needs to be done?

Very idea of concern for universal law sets by itself the standard of morality.

Rule 1: act as if there are laws to obey.

Every action has some rationale, an action is moral if it is rationally possible to want this maxim to be a universal law that everybody ought to follow.

> If I cannot rationally want this, then I am not acting from a concern for universal law

> Most rules are conditional (“If X, then do Y”).

> But acting from duty is unconditional (‘categorical’).

Cont. determining rationality

Determine rationale from which an act is done - why am i doing this?

Determine whether the action is successful even when its rationale is universal law - If everyone acted like you—would the action still work?

If making the maxim universal:

• destroys the possibility of success,

• creates a contradiction,

• or makes the world logically unworkable,

Then the action is immoral.

One logically cannot act from duty if one acts on a rationale that cannot be universalized to a law

Supporting argument 3 - means and ends

Could there be an “unconditional end”?

Something that is valuable in itself—not because of what it gets you?

Kant’s answer: Yes.

Every action: uses means, aims at an end

Most of our goals are conditional, depend on: desires, inclinations, personal motives

• You see your own rational life as important.

• And you recognize that others’ rational lives matter for the same reason.

It would be irrational to value your own rational nature but not value others’ because the same rational basis applies to both.

Cont. Absolute ends

Something you must respect no matter your desires, grounding for moral duty

Every moral action must have the protection of rational beings as its purpose

• You can use people as means (e.g., hiring a doctor).

• But you must never use them merely as tools or instruments.

• You must always respect their rational agency.

Counterpoint - uncompromising

Kant’s deontology holds that all deception is always wrong.

> This includes surprise parties, white lies, pep talks ...

> But also lying to a murderer about the whereabouts of the

would-be victim.

Argument makes morality very uncompromising.

Rebuttal

Maybe our intuition that lying to murderers is okay is mistaken.

Counterpoint 2 -  duties

We have multiple, conflicting duties.

> We have a duty to the murderer, but a conflicting duty to the would-be victim.

• If duties conflict and you can’t follow all of them at once, then at least one “categorical” duty must be broken.

There are no truly exceptionless moral principles, because real life forces us to violate one duty in order to fulfill another.