Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Kant’s Moral Philosophy
Note : Kant is a systematic thinker, by which I mean that his
moral philosophy is an integral part of a coherent system of thought and is
interlaced with his metaphysics, his epistemology, aesthetics, philosophy of
religion, political philosophy, etc.. As such it is difficult to do justice to
the rational support he offers for the moral claims he makes without making
reference to the entire system of Kantian thought. (If you are interested you
might look as my notes on Kant's
Metaphysics and Epistemology.) But as this is more detail then necessary
for the present purposes, I will not include them here. I begin from a certain
"starting points" although Kant supplies reasoned defenses of each.
Starting Positions:
1. From a moral perspective, (considered as a moral agent) we are all equal. No one is privileged.
2. The consequences of our actions are morally irrelevant.
(The only things for which a person can be held morally accountable are those things which are under one’s own control. The consequences of our actions are NOT under our own control. Thus we cannot be held morally responsible for the consequences of our actions.
3. However, our WILL is completely under our own direct control (usually, at least in healthy adults) thus our will is the only basis for moral evaluation of our actions.
Thus Kant claims that the only thing that can be good without qualification is a good will. This is not to say that there are not other good things. It is only to say that they are "qualified" goods (only instrumentally good).
People can have courage, resoluteness, etc. but not be good. In order for a person to be morally good, he must have a good will. A person can have various gifts of fortune (wealth, health, intellect) or gifts of character (courage, discipline, friendliness) without being a good person- (think of the healthy, intelligent, courageous and friendly murderer).
Like Aristotle, Kant distinguishes between:
1. intellectual uses of reason (Pure or Theoretical Reason)
2. moral uses of reason (Practical Reason)
Unlike Aristotle, Kant claimed that moral behavior does not guarantee one will attain happiness. Rather Kant claimed only that good will is indispensable for deserving happiness.
The Good Will
What is the good will for Kant?
The good will is the will which acts from freedom and respect for the moral law. A person can act rightly, (in accord with the moral law), but such action have no moral worth if it is motivated by selfish or emotional factors. Consider if one is forced to give money to charity or if one donates money to a charity merely to get one’s picture in the paper. These would be actions in accord with the moral law but not done out of respect for the moral law and as such lack moral worth. Neither would be instances of a "good will."
Note: Kant places a great deal of stress on the intention behind the action, something completely overlooked by consequentialist ethics with their focus on "the bottom line."
An act has moral worth (i.e., is morally good) if and only if it
1. is in accordance with the moral law (right- morally permissible or obligatory);
2. it is not performed merely from inclination, regardless of whether or not the inclination be selfish or benevolent and;
3. is performed from respect for the moral law.
The shopkeeper who acts from a selfish reason when not cheating his customers acts prudentially, not morally.
The shopkeeper who acts from feeling of compassion in not cheating his customers acts, not morally because it is motivated by personal emotion.
(This might strike us as strange initially since many think that emotions (more precisely sympathy and compassion) are precisely what ground and motivate moral actions (see Hume). But Kant denies this. Kant’s point can be seen more clearly if you consider, "What if the shopkeeper wasn’t feeling particularly compassionate that day?" If the only reason he is acting morally is because a feeling, there is no guarantee that he is moral or is interested in morality nor is it any sign that he acts rightly or has considered the rightness of his act. Many immoral things have been done and are done in the name of love and compassion. (Think of the mother who killed her five children.)
If an act is right if and only if it is in accord with the moral law and it has moral worth if and only if done out of respect for the moral law it is good even if it has bad consequences.
Kant Posits a Moral Duty: Necessity to act from respect for the moral law.
Respect for the Moral Law: A person who has respect from the moral law is to be moved to act.
Respect for the moral law may motivate a person to do what he otherwise would not choose to do and not to do what he does want to do.
Moral Law and Right Action
Now was sort of "Law" is this moral law?
Kant distinguishes two types of imperatives:
1. Categorical: Applies to all in the category without exception.
2. Hypothetical: Applies only to some under certain circumstances.
("If X then do Y." or more usually, "If you want x then do y. )
Note: The imperative "Don’t smoke!" may look categorical. But it is really an hypothetical imperative of the form, "If you want to avoid lung cancer, throat cancer, mouth cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and prematurely wrinkled skin, then don’t smoke."
Hypothetical Imperatives are either:
a. pragmatic: imperatives of prudence
b. technical: imperatives of skill
Morality is NOT optional. All moral agents are obligated to act morally all the time. Thus, morality (the Moral Law) is a Categorical Imperative. That is, it applies to all moral agents, at all time, in all places, without exception.
Note: This almost HAS to follow from his claim that we are all equal from the moral point of view. Whatever duties applies to me apply to everyone else and whatever applies to everyone else would apply to me. I’m not "special" so that special duty or privileges apply to me alone.
Now, if doing y is not required nor forbidden by moral law you do not have to do it, but may if you wish.
Suppose the moral law requires us to do y. Suppose further that the doing of y also gives us what we want, viz., x, (if you want x then do y). Then the consequent of our peculiar Hypothetical Imperative is identical with that of the Categorical Imperative. The moral worth of the actions will depend on the motive behind the action
For Kant, it is very hard, if not impossible to know what our motive in doing something was, especially if our moral duty is also something we want to do.
Hypothetical Imperatives are empirical, i.e., discovered through experience.
Moral law is not a hypothetical imperative. You must follow the CI no matter what you might want.
Categorical Imperatives are known a priori--They are discovered by means of pure practical reason, not by experience.
Pure practical reason gives its commands: purely, unconditionally, and categorically
The Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative: Kant's term for the "Moral
Law." By this phrase he implies that it is an obligation binding of all
moral agents without exception.
This amounts to something like "Do the right thing!" The question then become, how does one come to know WHAT the right thing is in a given situation. Kant offers "formulations" of the Categorical Imperative to help us figure out what our moral duty is. This are not meant to be separate rule or duties, but rather different articulations of the universal moral command.
The First Formulation:
1. Always act in such a way that you could will that the maxim of your act become a Universal Law.
This is the requirement of Universalizablity (everyone could act the same way).
There are two ways of understanding this requirement.
1. The Kant-lite Way
This is fairly intuitive. It’s like when your mother would say to you, "What if everyone did that? You would like that would you? Well then you shouldn’t do it either." Again the idea is that you not singularly special so that different rule apply than do to everyone else. So when acting out of respect for the moral law or from the moral point of view you see yourself as an equal among equals and will for yourself only those actions you will others to do.
These is some similarity here between this reading of Kant and "The Golden Rule" however, the Golden Rule is a call to active ministry (DO unto others) while one could, arguably, satisfy the first formulation by staying home and avoiding interacting with other people.
2. The Logical
Contradiction of
The idea here is not merely that you wouldn’t want the maxim of you action to be a universal law, but rather whether you’d want it or not, you couldn’t will the maxim of you action a universal law. That is, you could not envision a society where this rule were the law that everyone obeyed. That such universalizing inevitably leads to a contradiction of will.
Consider for example, lying. You might be tempted to lie on an occasion (say when you have an assignment due for me, but neglected to complete it). You might even imagine universalizing the action. "Let everyone lie all the time." you might think to yourself. Then you approach me and tell me with your false story (my dog ate my homework). But, as were are now living in the society you willed, I am undeceived because WE BOTH KNOW the rule is "LIE." We both know that you are doing you best to deceive me. (I would be like a stage magician; since I know it’s a trick, I’m not really deceived. I know he isn’t really cutting a lady in half.)
Oddly enough, in a society which universalizing lying, one can’t lie (i.e. deceive). In order to lie and to lie effectively, that it, in order for the telling of intentional telling of falsehoods in order to deceive to have any practical value, the rule has to be "Don’t lie." And you know this AS YOU ARE LYING. You are counting on the rule being "Don’t Lie." or else you gambit will be useless. You are counting on me thinking that you are telling the truth.
So note what the state of your mind must be. "I will that no one lies." (Necessary for the lie to be possible at all.) "I will that someone lies (me)." This is what Kant calls a "contradiction of will." I suppose you are really willing something like "I will that no one except me lies." But why "except you?" What make you so special that special rule apply to you and no one else? From a moral point of view, absolutely nothing.
You might also consider "cheating." If that were universalized then a 4.0 GPA would mean nothing (everyone would have one and they would indicate nothing about skill or competence). So the whole point of cheating would vanish in any society that universalized it. The person cheating will "That no one cheats." and will "that some one cheats." at the same time. The person cheating WILLS grades to accurately reflect skills and abilities (or else his GPA would be worthless) AND he WILLS that grades to NOT accurately reflect (his) skills and abilities. There again is the "contradiction of will."
The Second Formulation:
2. Always act in such a way that you treat Humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another as an end in itself and never merely as a means.
The "Anti-coercion" Principle or Requirement of Human Dignity (don't just use people).
According to Kant there are two types of beings persons and things. Persons have infinite worth while things have finite worth and a price and can be bought or sold. The second formulation of the Categorical imperative is based on this distinction between persons and things.
Like Aristotle, Kant believe that our rationality was the most salient feature of our nature. It was the source of our autonomy and dignity. One is morally obligated to respect this dignity and value in oneself and in others. It is not the human body that gives human beings their dignity, but their rationality and their status as rational beings as moral agents.
We have duties toward the humanity in ourselves and others.
Kant is not saying never treat another as a means; rather, never treat human beings as a merely a means. We use other people differently or for various purposes and this can be perfectly moral.
1. You are using me as a means toward earning 3 credits in philosophy (and perhaps as a means toward greater understanding of philosophical issues) .
2. I am using you as a means to a paycheck (and perhaps as a means to greater understanding of philosophical issues).
3. You go to the store to buy something use the grocer as a means to a loaf of bread while he uses you as a means to a dollar bill.
However, if these are to be MORAL exchanges, all parties must treat each other not merely as object of instrumental values alone (things with finite value) but as objects of intrinsic values as well. That is we must recognize one another as autonomous, rational beings capable of willing freely. We must not frustrate that freedom and autonomy, but rather enhance it by allowing the other to make a free autonomous choice. To frustrate that freedom through coercion (force, threats of force, deception) is always immoral.
This is what is meant by a "Free Exchange"
One cannot/ does not will that one be treated as a thing. Thus it is immoral to will that any other moral agent be treated as a thing.
The Third Formulation:
3. Always act in such a way that your are both legislator and legislated in the kingdom of "Ends."
Requirement of Reciprocity (would be considered fair from all perspectives).
Imagine a society where we were blind to the empirical differences among ourselves and other. Further, imagine that no one acted from inclinations (accidental preferences placed upon individuals by nature or society) but rather acted purely out of respect for the moral law. Notice, since all (morally irrelevant) differences among agents have been neutralized with respect to their behavioral consequences, everyone would act in the same ways and endorse the same moral rules. An action or principle that appeared moral from one vantage point in society (say a rich person’s point of view) would appear moral from all vantage points in society (say a poor persons point of view) and vice versa. This is the thinking behind his talk of "The Kingdom of Ends."
Universal kingdom of ends is a kingdom in which no person is excluded. Morality requires that, by our actions, we will moral rules to stand along side the physical laws of nature to govern society. (This is similar to Rawls’ original bargainers choosing principles of justice from behind the veil of ignorance.) For an action to be just, it must be rationally desirable from all perspectives in society. Notice, even the thief does not want things stolen from him. And the rich person would want someone to help him out if he were poor. Thus, morally requires that we will only actions which would be acceptable were "the shoe on the other foot," so to speak.
Two types of duties:
(1) unconditional or categorical
(2) conditional
a. prima facie
b. absolute
Prima facie duty is a duty that could be overridden by a more important prima facie duty. An unconditional categorical, absolute duty is to act in accordance with moral law out of respect for it to impose it on ourselves.
Can there be rights without duties? No. Duty is a central concept on morality. Not rights. Wherever there is a right, there is a duty.
Lying e.g., Prima facie duty not to lie can be overridden by another p.f. duty, e.g., not to allow someone to be killed. Your absolute duty is to fulfill the weightier duty, e.g., to save the drowning person.
Note: Kant's CI is not like
prima facie duties.