Deontological Ethics
Kant
Kant insists that morality must be grounded in reason, not empirical factors. Happiness is “too messy” to be the basis for morality
Unconditional value of the good will
only thing that is good without qualification is a good will
talents, intelligence, and virtues like courage can be misused if not guided by a good will
acts purely out of duty
Doctrine of moral worth: an action has moral worth only if it is done from duty, not merely in accordance with duty. The motivation behind the action determines the moral value, not the outcome
Acting in accordance with duty (amoral)
Performing a morally right action but motivated by inclination rather than duty.
Your friend gives money to a beggar because he feels empathy. While the action aligns with duty, it lacks moral worth because it is not done from duty but from emotion.
Acting from duty (moral)
Performing a morally right action because it is the right thing to do, regardless of inclination.
Example: Donating to a school anonymously, with no personal benefit or emotional motivation, purely out of duty.
Acting against duty (immoral)
Acting contrary to moral law.
Examples:
Making false promises (e.g., borrowing money with no intention of repaying).
Using people as mere means rather than respecting them as ends in themselves.
The moral law
Duty – necessity of acting out of respect for the law
The will (generally and the good will)
the faculty by which we act; a good will is one that follows duty rather than in clination
Human nature as compound – rational and natural (inclinations, etc)
humans are both
guided by reason
natural (subject to desires and inclinations)
Autonomy vs. heteronomy
autonomy (self-law): acting according to reason, gives moral law to itself
heteronomy (external law): acting according to external influences
moral actions must be autonomous, stemming from rational self-legislation rather than contingent factors
Hypothetical imperatives
commands that apply only if you have a particular goal
Skill & prudence (happiness)
skill: “if you want to build a house, learn carpentry”
prudence: if you want to be happy, exercise and eat well
not moral laws, because they depend on desires and are not universal
Categorical Imperatives – 3 formulations (you don’t need to worry about the specific wording but should be able to describe each one)
commands that apply to all rational beings, regardless of inclinations
morality is grounded in this because they are universal and necessary
Universal law formulation
one formulation of the categorical imperative
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time that it should become a universal law.”
Test: Can my action be universally applied without contradiction?
Example: Lying to get out of trouble—if everyone did this, trust would collapse.
Formula of the end
one formulation of the categorical imperative
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end, never merely as a means.”
Test: Does my action respect the dignity and autonomy of others?
Example: Using someone for personal gain (manipulation, exploitation) violates this principle.
Formula of autonomy
one formulation of the categorical imperative
“Act so that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims.”
Test: Am I acting as a rational, self-legislating agent?
Example: Making moral decisions based on reason, rather than external pressures or desires.
Guyer’s “Laws of freedom: The foundations of Kant’s moral philosophy”
Problem of the “normative force” for the moral law – FREEDOM
Guyer – freedom, which then leads to the FHE, which in turn leads to FUL and FA
How FUL and FA Follow from FHE:
FHE (Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself) states that rational beings must always be treated as ends, not merely as means.
Because all rational beings have dignity, moral laws must be universalizable (FUL) to apply consistently to everyone.
Respecting rationality also means we must be self-legislating (FA), following moral laws we give ourselves through reason rather than external influences.
Thus, FHE → FUL → FA, establishing Kantian morality as based on reason, universality, and autonomy.
Universality – if morality is to apply across people, time, and place, then it must be universalizeable (FUL) and apply to all of “humanity” (FHE)
If morality is to have objective validity across all people, times, and places, then it must be universalizable.
This is captured by the Formula of Universal Law (FUL), which requires that a maxim be capable of being willed as a universal law without contradiction.
The Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself (FHE) ensures that morality applies to all rational beings by requiring that they be treated as ends, not merely as means.
Any consideration that is specific, contingent, particular, or empirical must be excluded, leaving only a priori moral principles known through pure reason.
McCoy’s “Kantian Moral Philosophy and the Morality of Abortion”
You can use this article and our discussions as a means of illustrating the Kantian theory, but will not be asked specifically about it. In particular, you might think of:
FHE and Rational Agency:
The FHE implies that rational agents have intrinsic worth due to their capacity for self-governance and moral reasoning.
This leads to questions about whether fetuses qualify as rational agents and whether their exclusion is justified.
Being an End in Oneself and the Status of the Fetus:
A person is an "end in themselves" in virtue of their rationality and autonomy.
Since fetuses (and others who do not meet the threshold of rational agency) lack rationality, they may not be considered ends in themselves in the Kantian framework.
Problems with Universalization (FUL):
The challenge of formulating maxims for universalization arises, particularly regarding how much specificity is permissible.
Overly broad maxims risk failing the FUL test by allowing contradictions, while excessively detailed maxims might trivialize the universality requirement.
In abortion debates, this problem is evident when determining what level of detail should be incorporated into maxims regarding the permissibility of abortion.