Kant's Moral Theory: Deontology and the Categorical Imperative
Core Principles of Kantian Ethics
- Kant is a deontologist (from the Greek for “the science of duties”). Morality is defined by duties, not by consequences, emotions, or external factors.
- The good will is the only thing that is good in itself and intrinsically valuable. The will grounds the intention of an action and is good when it acts from duty.
- Other valued goods (e.g., knowledge, courage) are not intrinsically good in all situations because they can be used for evil or cause harm (e.g., knowledge can be used to commit atrocities; courage can be exhibited by a suicide bomber). Hence they are not good without qualification.
- Therefore, the good will is the sole intrinsically good thing; it is good when it acts from duty.
- Kant acknowledges that it is difficult to determine one’s intentions, so he distinguishes between acting in conformity with duty and acting from duty.
- A practical distinction emerges: an action can be performed in line with duty but not from duty; only actions performed from duty have true moral worth.
- The will acting from duty grounds moral evaluation; the motives behind actions matter, not just the outcomes.
The Good Will and Moral Worth
- Example to illustrate intention vs outcome: three young men help an elderly woman across the street.
- However, only Man C’s action has genuine moral worth because it is done from a sense of duty.
- Man A helps to avoid guilt (driven by an emotion or fear of guilt, not from duty).
- Man B helps because of a reward (neighborly relationship and cookies) rather than duty.
- From a utilitarian perspective, all three actions yield the same outcome (the woman is helped; happiness or well-being increases), so they would all be praiseworthy.
- For Kant, only Man C’s action has moral worth; A and B act in conformity with duty but are not acting from duty.
- Duties are principles that guide actions and are interrogated as imperatives that tell us what to do.
Hypothetical vs Categorical Imperatives
- Imperatives express “oughts.” Kant distinguishes between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives.
- Hypothetical imperatives: commands that apply only if one has certain goals or interests; they depend on your goals.
- Examples: If I want to be a good basketball player, I ought to practice free throws; if I want to go to law school, I ought to take a logic class.
- If I change my goal (e.g., become a baseball player or a welder), my oughts may change accordingly.
- Importantly, hypothetical imperatives have nothing to do with morality.
- Categorical imperatives: commands that are necessary and binding regardless of desires or goals; they determine our moral duties.
- If I have a duty to help others, my ought is binding even if I would rather not.
- These are the tests that determine whether an action is morally permissible.
- Kant offers three formulas as tests to determine whether a principle or act is moral. Think of them as logical tests that each action must pass.
- Statement: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Procedure: Consider the maxim (the rule or principle behind your action) and ask whether it could be willed as a universal law for everyone to follow.
- Example: Stealing bread
- Question: Can I will that everyone steal bread whenever they face hunger?
- Answer: No. The maxim would be self-defeating, as universal stealing would undermine private property and make the act of stealing impossible.
- Conclusion: If your maxim cannot be universalized, the action is morally impermissible.
- Statement: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.
- Explanation: Humans have intrinsic worth due to autonomy and rationality; we must respect this and not instrumentalize people for our own ends.
- Implications:
- Treat all persons with respect and dignity.
- Help others achieve their goals when possible.
- Avoid using others merely as tools to advance your own goals.
- Statement: Act according to maxims of a member of a merely possible kingdom of ends.
- Explanation: Extends the first two formulas from an individual to a social level.
- Concept:
- Consider yourself as a member of a community of rational agents who legislate moral laws for themselves.
- Your actions should be such that they could be accepted as part of a system of universal moral laws endorsed by rational beings.
Kant's Moral Theory: Method, Autonomy, and Objectivity
- Kant’s method rests on:
- Reason: rational capabilities to determine universalizable maxims
- Autonomy: capacity to give oneself moral law; self-governance of moral life
- Logical consistency: coherence of moral principles across cases
- Objective morality: Kant proposes absolute duties that are binding regardless of personal desires or outcomes.
- The formulas serve as objective tests to ensure acts are morally permissible.
Connections, Implications, and Real-World Relevance
- Relationship to utilitarianism: Kant emphasizes moral worth of the motive and universalizability of the maxim, not just outcomes or happiness.
- Ethical implications:
- Respect for autonomy: never treat persons merely as means
- Duty-based obligation to help others when possible, even if it does not maximize overall happiness in every case
- Moral rules are objective and binding across rational agents
- Practical relevance: Real-world decisions require evaluating maxims for universalizability and considering whether actions respect the inherent worth of others.
- Foundational role: Reason, autonomy, and consistency underpin moral judgments, suggesting issues like coercion, manipulation, and exploitation are morally problematic regardless of consequences.
Summary of Key Terms and Concepts
- Deontologist: ethics focused on duties rather than consequences.
- Duty: moral obligation expressed as an imperative guiding action.
- Good Will: the will that acts from duty; the only intrinsic good.
- Hypothetical Imperatives: contingent on goals; not morally binding.
- Categorical Imperatives: universally binding moral duties.
- Maxim: the principle behind an action.
- Universal Law: test to see if a maxim can be willed for all.
- Humanity as End in Itself: treat persons as ends, never merely as means.
- Kingdom of Ends: community of rational agents following moral laws.
- Autonomy: self-legislation of moral law; rational self-governance.
- Absolute Duties: duties binding regardless of outcomes or desires.
