This page: full notes      A* summary notes      C/B summary notes

Introduction

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity” – Kant.

Enlightenment thinkers like Kant wanted to solve the problem that those of different faiths could never come to agreement. Religious warfare had been greatly destructive in Europe. Kant’s solution was to base religion and ethics on reason, not faith. Reason is universal in that everyone has it, but not everyone shares the same faith. If ethics could be based on reason, Kant conceived a more harmonious society would follow. There would at least be the hope of coming to agreement through rational discussion.

Faith-based morality push laws on people as if they were children. Kant thought humanity was ready for greater autonomy, figuring out and following the moral laws themselves through their own reason and choice. This new enlightened stage of civilisation would make global co-operation possible. A new kind of agency was emerging. The rational will of the individual can choose to align itself with universal laws. Not arbitrary laws forced on them by authority, but laws whose authority consists in the citizen’s autonomous adoption of them due to their rationality.

Kant’s ethics and philosophy in general was in large part a reaction to Hume’s empiricist ethical anti-realism. Hume denied that right and wrong existed, concluding that morality reduced to personal feelings.

Kant points out that reason discovers universal laws, e.g. of maths & physics. So, a moral law discoverable by reason will also be universal. It will apply to all people in all situations, i.e., it will apply ‘categorically’.

Basing morality on reason means it is not based on subjective desires. Morality is not contingent on our personal feelings, meaning it’s not hypothetical, it’s categorical.

So, a test of whether an action is morally right (part of the universal moral law) is whether it could be done by anyone, whether it could be done by anyone in any situation regardless of their personal feelings. Kant calls this universalizability. Universalizable actions are our duty.

Kantian ethics is deontological, meaning ‘duty-based’. Moral action depends on doing the right action with the right intention, regardless of personal feelings, the situation or the consequences.

Duty & The Good Will

A Good will is held by a person who has the right intention when performing their duty. Once we have used our reason to figure out our duty, we should then act purely out of a sense of duty. We should leave out personal feelings/desires and just do ‘duty for duty’s sake’. For example, if it is our duty to give money to charity, we should do it because it is our duty, not because we feel sympathy. That would be acting in accordance with duty but it would not be acting out of duty. The only morally valid motivation for an action is respect for the moral law. It’s not morally wrong to act on our desires in accordance with duty, but it can’t be morally right.

Kant illustrates with a shopkeeper who lowers their prices to attract more customers and another who does the same action but out of a sense of fairness to their customers. Only the latter has a good will.

Hypothetical vs categorical imperatives

Reason tells us that other people are also rational agents, so in that regard we are all equal. It seems to follow from this that if I did an action that couldn’t be done by everyone, then I would have to think that I was somehow special or better than others. However, reason tells us we are all equal. So, reason tells us that we should only act on principles that can be followed by everyone.

Kant called this the categorical imperative, something we have a duty to always do (you should do X). A hypothetical imperative is a moral action that a rational will adopts for reasons other than duty (you should do X if you want Y). As rational beings we may adopt ends that are not categorical, which makes them hypothetical. However, we have a moral duty to follow the universal moral law categorically, i.e., regardless of our desires.

“All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former present the practical necessity of a possible action as a means to achieving something else which one desires … The categorical imperative would be one which presented an action as of itself objectively necessary, without regard to any other end” – Kant.

“If the action is good only as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; but if it is thought of as good in itself, and hence as necessary in a will which of itself conforms to reason as the principle of this will, the imperative is categorical” – Kant.

Kant’s universal absolutist ethics was very influential on our current theory of human rights. He even invented the idea of the United Nations.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative

‘Act only according to that maxim by which you could at the same time will it become a universal law’. – Kant.

Contradiction in conception. This means that we should only act on an ethical principle if it is logically possible for everyone to act on it. This is the test of universalizability. The maxim of your will is the moral statement of what you want to do. The test if whether you can rationally will that everyone do what you want to do.

E.g Kant thinks lying cannot be universalised because if everyone were to lie, there would be no such thing as honesty or truth anymore. However lying depends on honesty/truth, therefore by willing everyone to lie, we would be willing the undermining of the concept on which lying depends for its existence in the first place. A contradiction arises in the conception of everyone acting on that maxim. It is thus irrational to will lying be a universal law.

Contradiction in will. A maxim like “always refuse help from others” does not lead to a contradiction in conception. It is technically possible for everyone to act on it. However, Kant thought maxims like this could not be universalised because they contradicted our rational will to achieve ends. We might require help from others in our life to achieve our ends. We contradict our rational will if we attempt to universalise such maxims. It is irrational to will such maxims be a universal law. 

The second formulation of the categorical imperative

 “Always treat persons, whether others or in yourself, always as an end, never merely as a means.” – Kant

Rational agents have and seek goals which Kant called ‘ends’. To treat a person as if they were a mere means to an end is irrational. It contradicts the fact that they have their own ends

Every rational being knows they seek the achievement of ends. This is true for others too. The basis on which I will the achievement of my ends is the same basis on which others will their ends. If I treat others as a ‘mere’ means, I deny their will to achieve ends. Yet, their basis for willing their end is the same as mine. This makes it irrational to treat persons as if they only existed for my ends. It contradicts the

“every other rational being also represents his existence [as an end in itself] as consequent on the same rational ground as is valid for me” – Kant.

It is acceptable to treat someone as a means, so long as you also treat them as an end.

Kant illustrates this with the example of being waited on in a restaurant. Technically you are treating the waiter as a means. However, Kant says this is acceptable according to the 2^nd formulation so long as they are also treated at the same time as an end. This requires that you treat the waiter with respect. Although using them as a means, you are still treating them as if they have their own end in choosing to be a waiter and wait on you. If you disrespect the waiter, you are treating them merely as if they only exist for your ends.

The third formulation of the categorical imperative

This formulation is not really a test like the first two, but a reminder to always act on the moral law. If everyone followed Kant’s ethics we would live in a ‘kingdom of ends’, a world of rational beings where everyone was treated as an end. Kant argued we should behave as if we did live in that world. We must not put aside the moral law simply because others might not be following it.

The three postulates

Kant argues that reason can figure out this basis for ethics. However, he doesn’t think that ethics makes sense without three postulates. A postulate is something you have to assume to be true in order to have a basis for reasoning about something. Kant thought that there were three postulates we have to assume to be true if ethics is to be based on reason.

1. God.
2. Immortality (of the soul in an afterlife).
3. Free will. Kant thought that without free will, we could not be responsible for our actions and thus surely ethics would be pointless.

Kant pointed out that good people are not always rewarded in life, and some times bad people do seem to be rewarded. This was unjust. For ethics to work, there needs to be justice. So, Kant thought that there must be a God who lets us in to an afterlife where good people are rewarded with happiness. Kant called this the ‘summum bonum’, meaning the highest good.

The issues of clashing duties & Kantian autonomy

One of the clearest strengths of Kantian ethics is its ethical clarity

Kant’s precise rules and method for figuring them out is available to all rational beings. It doesn’t assert rules upon people from an external authority, which is primitive and how children are raised. People can recognize the rationality of moral rules through their own reason. This engages the autonomy of the individual in the way required for a civilised democratic society.

The issue of clashing duties

Kant said ‘ought implies can’. We must be capable of doing an action for it to be our duty. If duties clash and one cannot be done, then it can’t be our duty. However, if those duties were obtained through the Kant’s formula of the categorical imperative, then Kant’s ethical theory cannot tell us our duty.

Sartre created a classic illustration of a soldier trying to decide whether to go to war to defend their country, or stay home and look after his sick parent. They cannot do both, but both are universalizable and neither involve treating people as a mere means. It follows that both are their duty, and so there are clashing duties.

Sartre is an existentialist who thinks there can’t be any objective guidance for our ethical views. Kantian ethics cannot provide the moral clarity needed by the enlightenment conception of an autonomous individual.

Kant’s vs consequentialism

Strength: Kant’s critique of consequentialism

B. Constant criticised Kant with the murderer at the door scenario. If a murderer asked us where their victim was, and we knew, Constant argued we should lie. This fits most people’s moral intuitions. Telling the truth cannot be an absolute duty, it seems to depend on the consequences.

In response, Kant presents the issue of calculation as a strength of his deontological approach. We cannot control consequences, so we cannot be responsible for them. So, they cannot be relevant to our moral decision-making.

Kant illustrates that if we lied about where the victim was, yet unknown to us the victim had actually moved there, then we would be responsible for their death.

Weakness: consequences do have moral value

Kant’s approach goes against most people’s moral intuitions because of the obvious terrible consequences to telling the truth in such situations.

Kant’s justification for this appears flawed. He claims we cannot completely control consequences and thus cannot be responsible for them. However, it seems that we can predict and control consequences to some degree. So, it could follow that we are responsible for them to that degree.

This is what Consequentialist theories like Utilitarianism explicitly claim. While moral rightness consists in maximising happiness, moral obligation consists in doing what we are best able to judge will maximise happiness. It may often be difficult to tell what the right action is. However, our moral obligation is simply that we do our best to maximise utility. Bentham accepts that the best we can do is act on the ‘tendency’ certain actions have to produce pleasure. Singer says we ought act on a ‘reasonable expectation’ regarding what will maximise utility.

Kant fails to target the consequentialist’s actual position. So, he fails to explain why our intuitions about the ethical relevance of consequences are wrong. We should take consequences into account to the degree that we have knowledge and control over them.

Furthermore, what if we altered the scenario to one where a person was going to deploy nuclear weapons to kill billions if we did not lie. There always seems to be a limit where the most convinced deontologist would accept that consequences matter. Then of course we could ask well what if the person was going to kill everyone minus one person, and then minus a second person, and so on.

The role and value of emotions in ethics

Strength: Kant: emotions are unreliable and cannot constitute moral motivation

Kant’s views on emotions form an important pillar of his ethics. He argues that emotions are unreliable because they are transient and fickle. Reason’s ability to produce respect for the moral law is more stable.

For Kant, acting on emotion isn’t morally wrong, it just can’t be morally good. If we help others because we feel like it, then we aren’t helping others because it is good. So, only acting out of duty can be morally good.

Barbara Herman’s interpretation of Kant is that emotions can only lead to a right action by luck. When acting out of duty, we will the moral rightness of our action. The rightness of the action is a “nonaccidental effect” of one’s concern. Emotions can’t be moral motives because they do not provide the agent with a moral interest in the rightness of their action.

Weakness: emotion can have value as motivation for moral action

Bernard Williams, influenced by Aristotle, argues that Kantian ‘morality’ is too narrow. He distinguishes it from ‘ethics’, a broader account of how a person comes to be virtuous due to their emotional habits and personal relationships.

Michael Stocker agrees. He asks us to imagine being ill in hospital and a friend visiting us, but saying they only came because it was their duty. Clearly, acting solely on duty is ‘implausible and baffling’.

Williams argues such cases show how Kantian morality is unnatural and requires “one thought too many”. A virtuous person can cultivate their emotional reactions so that their feelings reliably motivate them to do what’s right. During moral action, a virtuous person need not be thinking about moral laws. They can do good out of habit. Stocker argues that acting out of duty is actually incompatible with acting out of cultivated virtuous habits, like love and friendship. The nature of love is that it wills the other’s good for its own sake, not the sake of anything else like duty. This is why the hospital example seems absurd.

Kant’s mistake was accepting a false dichotomy. He thought we could either act out of duty or self-interested personal desires. He rejected the latter as unreliable and irrelevant to morality. Virtue ethicists argue there is another option. A rational cultivation of virtue allows a person to reliably control their habitual emotional reactions in a morally relevant and interested way. So, emotions can be reliable. They can also be ‘non-accidentally’ related to the goodness of an action. Virtue ethics also seems to be more naturally aligned with the practical reality of human psychology and relationships.

Debates over Kant’s meta-ethics inc. Philippa Foot

One strength of Kant’s ethics is that it provides an objective basis for a universal ethics based on reason’s recognition of morally equality.

This was instrumental in the development of human rights during the enlightenment period and as it exists today. The universal declaration of human rights uses Kant’s terminology of ‘dignity’, which for Kant is founded in our nature as autonomous rational end-seeking beings.

This saves morality from Hume’s reduction of it to relativistic socially conditioned emotional responses.

Without the categorical imperative, we only have hypothetical imperatives, which Kant didn’t think could really provide a basis for morality. If morality were a system of hypothetical imperatives, people would only do moral actions because it suited their ends. In all our motivations except respect for the moral law, Kant thinks humans are fundamentally motivated by self-interest. We would only choose to be moral when it suited us.

Weakness: Phillipa Foot’s critique that morality is a system of hypothetical rather than categorical imperatives.

Foot accepts that there are categorical imperatives, but denies that Kant’s claim that it is irrational to disobey them. This would mean reason cannot discover a universal moral law.

Foot’s argument involves pointing to non-moral language that appears to involve categorical imperatives, but no one thinks it irrational or immoral to disobey.

Think about rules of etiquette (politeness), like “you should not eat with your mouth open”. This contains the imperative ‘should’ and isn’t stated conditionally on desires or outcome, so it is a categorical imperative.

No one thinks it irrational to break the rules of etiquette. This raises the question of why it is irrational to disobey Kant’s categorical imperative.

Foot thinks Kant has no answer. We have no basis for claiming it irrational to violate categorical imperatives. Their power over us could simply be the result of social conditioning, not reason. So, Kant’s categorical imperative does not derive from reason.

“My argument is that they [Kant] are relying on an illusion, as if trying to give the moral “ought” a magic force” – Foot.

Foot concludes that it is only irrational to act against our own ends. Moral judgements are only rationally binding if we accept them as our end. This makes them invariably hypothetical. Stealing/lying is only irrational if it undermines our ends.

Kantian ethics seems to be without justification for its claim that objective universal morality can be derived reason.

Whether non/universalizable maxims are distinctly immoral/moral

Strength: universalizability is a philosophical encapsulation of a cross-cultural human intuition about fairness.   

Universalizability is a secularised version of the golden rule, to treat others as you would like to be treated. Similar ethical precepts are found in ancient Chinese and Hindu philosophy. Even teachers use this ethics when disciplining misbehaving students by asking them how they would feel if they were treated the way they had treated others.

Weakness: Not all non/universalizable maxims are distinctly immoral/moral

There are universalizable maxims that do not seem distinctly moral.

“It is very easy to see that many immoral and trivial non-moral maxims are vindicated by Kant’s test” – Alasdair McIntyre

McIntyre gives the example of “Always eat mussels on Mondays in March” and “Keep all your promises throughout your entire life except one”. No contradiction arises in conception or will when conceiving of everyone acting on these maxims. It seems Kant could not have intended us to think they are our moral duty, however.

What if someone decided they wanted to steal but used the maxim ‘it’s acceptable for people born on February 29^th to steal’. This could be universalised because if only a minority of people steal, the concept of property on which stealing depends would not be undermined by only a few people stealing.

There are also non-universalizable maxims that do not seem distinctly immoral. A rich person giving lots of money to charity is not something which can possibly be done by everyone. Yet, it seems absurd to think it our duty to avoid acting on that maxim if we can.

Kant’s first formulation seems to be overly abstract.