Summary notes for Kantian ethics

Outline of Kantian deontological ethics

Kantian deontology is a normative ethical theory, meaning it attempts to guide our moral behaviour by identifying the criteria for determining which actions are good or bad.
A good will is one which has the right moral motivation. We must do our duty out of a sense of duty – not because of our own personal feelings or desires. E.g. we should give to charity because it’s our duty – not because we feel sympathy.
Hypothetical imperatives are of the forms ‘you should do X if you want Y’. They are therefore dependent on our personal goals/desires/wants.
Kant thought that our duty must be to follow the categorical imperative – which is of the forms ‘do X’.Morality cannot be dependent on our personal feelings – so our duty must be categorical, not hypothetical.
The first formulation of the CA – only do an action if it is universalizable – if it is possible for everyone to do it.
If it’s not possible for everyone to do an action, then that action can’t be part of the universal moral law since that must apply to everyone in all situations.
The second formulation – always treat persons, never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end.

Kant on the ‘good will’

Kant argues the foundation of a normative theory must be in what is unconditionally good. Whatever is conditionally good depends for its goodness on something else. Kant says that E.g. happiness is conditionally good on it being deserved.
‘Will’ refers to our intention. What would make happiness deserved is that it was achieved by someone doing what is morally right because they dutifully willed to do what was right.
So, the only thing that is unconditionally good, which couldn’t possibly not be good, is a 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, to attain a good will we must then act on our duty purely out of a sense of duty.
Humans are motivated by all sorts of personal feelings and natural desires. To have a good will we must avoid being influenced by them and just do ‘duty for duty’s sake’.
Kant illustrates with a shopkeeper who lowers their prices out of a sense of fairness to their customers. This person has a good will. Another shopkeeper might do the exact same action but out of greed to attract more customers. Even if both are following duty, the difference in intention prevents the latter one from having a good will.

The distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty

Acting in accordance with duty is when a person does their duty, but their feelings motivated them to do it.
For Kant such actions cannot have genuine moral value. This is because if that person did not have those feelings which motivated them, they would not do the action.
So their doing their duty was coincidental. They didn’t do what was right because it was right. So technically they are not following the moral law.
Acting out of duty is when a person does their duty because it is their duty. Their intention was simply and solely to do their duty for the sake of their respect for the moral law.
Kant says such people have ‘good will’. The only morally valid motivation for an action is acting out of duty; out of 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.

The distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives

Imperatives statements about what we should or ought to do.
Hypothetical means conditional.
A hypothetical imperative could be “if you want X, then you should do Y”.
E.g. “If you desire to be seen as a good person, you should help others”
Categorical means in all cases.
A categorical imperative could be “You should do X”.
E.g. “you should help others”.
A moral law discoverable by reason must be universal. It cannot be conditional on anything particular to an individual. It cannot depend on things like our desires, our particular situation, or the consequences our action might have. This means hypothetical imperatives cannot be moral.
Kant concludes that the moral law involves categorical imperatives, which we have a duty to always follow. Rational beings adopt all sorts of ends in life that are hypothetical, because of our desires. That’s acceptable, so long as we put them aside if that’s required to follow the categorical imperative.
Kant thought there was only one categorical imperative discoverable by reason, though it comes in three formulations. The first is to only follow maxims that can be rationally willed as a universal law.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative (inc. contradiction in conception vs in will)

Contradiction in conception. 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 is 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
It is acceptable to treat someone as a means, so long as you also treat them as an end.
Kant justified the second formulation through the first formulation. Treating someone as a mere means is not universalizable because it is a contradiction in will.
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 2nd 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.

Clashing duties

Sartre claimed duties can clash.
A soldier could either go to war to defend their country, or they could stay home and look after their sick parent.
Both actions are universalizable and neither treats people as mere means, therefore both actions are their duty according to Kant’s ethics.
Yet, they cannot do both.
A duty is something we ought to do.
It is incoherent to say we ought to do something which we cannot do. Kant himself admitted this, when he said that ‘ought implies can’.
If maxims clash, then we cannot do one of them. In that case, it can’t be something we ought to do, and thus cannot be our duty.
Kant says a duty is whatever passes his tests of the formulations of the categorical imperative.
If two maxims pass those tests yet clash, then Kant’s theory doesn’t actually determine what our duty is.
This suggests Kantian ethics fails in its aim as a normative theory, to identify what is morally right and guide action accordingly.

Not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral; not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral

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 29th 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 a million pounds 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.

The view that consequences determine an action’s moral value

Kantian ethics holds that we have a perfect duty to always tell the truth, regardless of the consequences. Kant’s argument for this is that we cannot control or predict consequences, so can’t be responsible for them. We can only control and thus be responsible for what we do.
This goes against most people’s moral intuitions because of the terrible consequences to telling the truth in some situations. To use a modern example, if a Nazi asked whether we were hiding Jews and we were, it seems Kant is committed to the view that it’s wrong to lie.
This issue aims to show that Kantian ethics is incomplete for not including consequences as morally valuable. Including consequences would completely undermine his ethics, since then we couldn’t act purely on a universal duty regardless of the situation.
If the consequences issue succeeds, then consequentialism seems stronger than deontology and so again Kantian ethics would fail.
So, if Kant is indeed wrong to leave out consequences, that would show that Kantian ethics is false.
Kant’s logic is flawed. He claims we cannot completely control consequences and thus cannot be responsible for them.
The truth seems to be, however, that we can control consequences to some degree. It seems to follow that we are responsible for them to that degree.
Consequentialism doesn’t claim we can completely control the consequences, just that we should consider them when acting.

Kant ignores the value of certain motives, e.g. love, friendship & kindness

Stocker argues, imagine a friend visiting you while you are in hospital but they said they only came because it was their duty.
B. Williams argues such cases show how Kantian morality is unnatural and requires “one thought too many”. When doing good, a virtuous person need not be thinking about moral laws. They simply do good out of emotional habit.
Stocker argues that acting out of duty is incompatible with acting out of cultivated virtuous habit.
Acting on emotions like love and friendliness is good.
Stocker’s critique aims to show how emotions leading to right action can be more than just luck.
Emotions can be unreliable, but Aristotle argued we can rationally work on ourselves, trying to develop good emotional habits of behaviour. Aristotle called this cultivating virtue. We can get in control of our emotions, and then they can be relied on to motivate us appropriately in moral situations.
For example, we can intentionally cultivate the virtue of friendliness. We can then act out of feelings of love when visiting a friend in hospital. Emotion can be the reliable result of the rational cultivation of virtue. That’s how emotions can have moral value in an objective ethics.
This issue attacks the completeness of Kantian ethics. It suggests Kant’s theory of moral motivation was flawed. This caused him to exclude what are actually important and valid elements of human moral motivation.

Morality is a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives (Philippa Foot)

A categorical imperative is a statement with moral terms like ‘should’ which is stated unconditionally.
Foot argues that just because one can form a sentence where an imperative is stated categorically, doesn’t actually make it a rationally binding moral duty.
There are categorical imperatives in ordinary language which no one thinks it irrational or immoral to break.
E.g., the rules of etiquette (politeness), like “you should not eat with your mouth open” is technically an imperative stated categorically.
Foot argues there’s nothing special or different about Kant’s categorical imperative.
So, Kant has no basis for claiming it irrational or against duty to violate categorical imperatives.
Categorical imperatives often seem morally binding, but Foot explains that as resulting from our being socially conditioned to follow categorically stated commands. So, Kant’s categorical imperative derives from conditioning, not 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 imperatives hypothetical. Stealing/lying is only irrational if it undermines our ends.
E.g. ‘you should not steal if you want to be part of society’.
Kant seems to be without justification for its claim that objective universal moral laws can be derived from reason.

Kantian ethics model essay plan

Note that this model essay plan is merely one possible way to write an essay on this topic.

Points highlighted in light blue are integration points
Points highlighted in green are weighting points

Intro to Kantian ethics

A good will is one which has the right moral motivation. We must do our duty out of a sense of duty – not because of our own personal feelings or desires. E.g. we should give to charity because it’s our duty – not because we feel sympathy.
Hypothetical imperatives are of the forms ‘you should do X if you want Y’. They are therefore dependent on our personal goals/desires/wants.
Kant thought that our duty must be to follow the categorical imperative – which is of the forms ‘do X’.Morality cannot be dependent on our personal feelings – so our duty must be categorical, not hypothetical.
The first formulation of the CA – only do an action if it is universalizable – if it is possible for everyone to do it.
If it’s not possible for everyone to do an action, then that action can’t be part of the universal moral law since that must apply to everyone in all situations.
The second formulation – always treat persons, never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end.
A strength of Kantian ethics is its emphasis on universalizability and treating persons as ends in themselves was influential on our concept of human rights.

Kant ignoring the moral value of emotions

Kant’s views on emotions form an important pillar of his ethics. He argues that emotions are unreliable because they are transient and unreliable. 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. His argument is that when we act on emotion, our action depends on the way we feel. If we help others because we feel like it, then we aren’t helping others because it is good. So, we aren’t really acting morally unless we act out of duty.
This is his argument for leaving emotions aside.

Weakness:

Stocker argues, imagine a friend visiting you while you are in hospital but they said they only came because it was their duty.
B. Williams argues such cases show how Kantian morality is unnatural and requires “one thought too many”. When doing good, a virtuous person need not be thinking about moral laws. They simply do good out of habit.
Stocker argues that acting out of duty is incompatible with acting out of cultivated virtuous habit.
Acting on emotions like love and friendliness is good.
This issue attacks the completeness of Kantian ethics. It suggests Kant’s theory of moral motivation was flawed. This caused him to exclude what are actually important and valid elements of human moral motivation.

Evaluation

Stocker’s critique is successful because it shows how emotions leading to right action can be more than just luck.
Emotions can be unreliable, but Aristotle argued we can rationally work on ourselves, trying to develop good emotional habits of behaviour. Aristotle called this cultivating virtue. We can get in control of our emotions, and then they can be relied on to motivate us in moral situations.
For example, we can intentionally cultivate the virtue of friendliness. We can then act out of feelings of love when visiting a friend in hospital. Emotion can be the reliable result of the rational cultivation of virtue. That’s how emotions can have moral value in an objective ethics.
Kant being wrong about moral motivation doesn’t destroy the rest of his theory. Kant could still be right about what our moral duty is and how to figure it out through the formulations of the categorical imperative, even if he was wrong about the requirements for moral motivation when performing that duty.
The most we could conclude about Kant’s failure regarding the value of emotions is that his theory is unconvincing and incomplete in its current form.

Clashing duties

One of the clearest strengths of Kantian ethics is its ethical clarity.
Kantian deontology has precise rules and a clear method for figuring them out which is available to all rational beings. Kantian ethics doesn’t simply force rules upon people from an external power. People can recognize the rationality of its rules through their own reason. This engages the autonomy of the individual in the way required for a civilised democratic society.

Weakness:

Sartre claimed duties can clash.
A soldier could either go to war to defend their country, or they could stay home and look after their sick parent.
Both actions are universalizable and neither treats people as mere means, therefore both actions are their duty according to Kant’s ethics.
Yet, they cannot do both. The very idea of duties that clash is incoherent. Kant himself admitted this, when he said that ‘ought implies can’.
Duties that clash cannot really be our duty.
Yet both duties passed Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative test.
If Kant’s theory produces the paradox of duties that clash, it is a failure. It cannot actually tell us our duty.
The issue of clashing duties is a more serious attack on Kantian ethics than Kant ignoring the value of emotions.
If the clashing duties issue succeeds, then Kantian ethics simply doesn’t tell us our duty and thus fails in its primary objective.

Evaluation

Actions like that are ‘imperfect duties’ – where there are multiple ways to fulfil them.
E.g. the soldier could help his country by staying home and making bombs
Or they could pay someone else to look after their sick parent.
Kant’s saying – you can find a way to fulfil both duties, so they don’t really clash.
However – Kant’s defence fails because there are situations where we can’t fulfil both imperfect duties. E.g. What if the soldier had no way to get anyone else to look after their sick parent – and what if their country didn’t need anyone else to stay home to make bombs..? Then the duties do clash.
So, Kantian ethics cannot tell us our duty and thus fails in its primary objective.

Kant vs 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 situation.
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:

The issue that Kant ignores the value of certain consequences.
Kant’s approach goes against most people’s moral intuitions because of the obvious terrible consequences to telling the truth in such situations. To use a more modern example, if a Nazi asked whether we were hiding Jews and we were, it seems Kant is committed to the view that it’s wrong to lie.
If successful, this issue would show that Kantian ethics is incomplete for not including consequences as morally valuable. However if Kant were to include consequences, his ethics would be completely undermined since then we couldn’t act purely on a universal duty regardless of the situation.
So, if Kant is indeed wrong to leave out consequences, that would show that Kantian ethics is false.
Kant’s logic is flawed. He claims we cannot completely control consequences and thus cannot be responsible for them.
The truth seems to be, however, that we can control consequences to some degree. It seems to follow that we are responsible for them to that degree.
Consequentialism doesn’t claim we can completely control the consequences, just that we should consider them when acting.
The issue of ignoring consequences is a more serious attack on Kantian ethics than ignoring the value of emotions.
If the consequences issue succeeds, then consequentialism seems stronger than deontology and so again Kantian ethics would fail.

Evaluation

So, although we can’t perfectly predict or control what the murderer will do, we have what Singer would call a ‘reasonable expectation’ about the consequences and so it is reasonable to act with them in mind and lie.
It looks like consequentialist forms of ethics are going to be in a stronger position than deontological forms, then.

Conclusion

So, Kantian ethics is unconvincing due to leaving out the moral value of emotion.
However, its leading to the paradox of clashing duties and failure to justify excluding the moral relevance of consequences allows us to draw the stronger conclusion that Kantian ethics is completely false.