Immanuel Kant

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Who was Immanuel Kant?

Born and died in Konigsberg (1724-1804)

A leading figure of the Enlightenment

Emphasised the importance of a priori concepts in understanding the world

Most Famous Texts: Critique of Pure Reason (1781) Groundwork Concerning the

Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

Kant’s life

Kant entertained guests and discussed academic topics at the dinner table

Konigsberg before the War

Kant’s tomb and statue

What is Deontology?

Some acts are right or wrong in themselves because of the type of act they are

Deontological ethics is also known as Duty ethics Some actions are always forbidden and

others are always obligatory – they are your duty

Moral worth of an action therefore has nothing to do with the consequences Consequences are outwith our control so

can’t be the source of moral worth of an act Contrasts with both Consequentialist ethics

and Virtue ethics (as we find in the work of Mill and Aristotle)

The Sovereignty of Reason

Kant thinks that a priori concepts are as important in moral philosophy as they are in epistemology

Reason alone can deduce the principles of morality

The idea fits in with our moral intuitions: We feel that in acting morally we should act in a

disinterested and impartial way We also feel that moral duties should be

universalisable (i.e. should apply to everyone in similar circumstances)

This is why murder is wrong for everyone

A morality based on reason is binding on everyone. It has ‘authority’ or ‘sovereignty’. To break moral rules is to go against reason

The Sovereignty of Reason

The Good Will

What is the only thing that is good without qualification?

Answer: A good will Everything else can be used for bad ends Even if your action produced bad consequences

your “good will would shine through like a jewel” So long as your action has good intentions you can

be guaranteed that is good. Motives are more important than consequences

What motive should we act from?

Duty v Inclination

The only morally valid motive is duty Doing something

simply because it’s the right thing to do

Acting out of respect of the Moral Law

Duty must be contrasted with inclination

People who are naturally kind are not morally praiseworthy

We can only be praised for things we have freely chosen to do

The Honest Shopkeeper

He may have many motives for giving you the right change. It is only when he does so out of

duty that his goodness is conspicuous

We must distinguish between acting ‘from duty’ and ‘in accord with duty’. Even if we act in accord with duty,

our actions may not be morally praiseworthy

Maxims

Kant doesn’t identify specific actions we should do, he identifies maxims of behaviour

Maxims are underlying principles of action that we prescribe for ourselves.

A maxim is a principle beginning with the words “I will…” “I will always take other people’s property

when I can get away with it” “I will always pay my taxes on time” “I will always hold open the door for others”

The Categorical Imperative

The categorical imperative is Kant’s test for identifying appropriate maxims for our actions There are two types of imperative:

hypothetical and categorical Hypothetical imperatives are not morally

binding but categorical imperatives are The categorical imperative has at least

three different formulations in Kant’s work

The Categorical Imperative 1:

The Universal Law Formulation “Act only on that maxim through which you can

at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

Similar to the golden rule: “treat others as we would have them treat us”

However, it is in fact a test of the logical possibility of universalising our maxims

Kant is asking use to imagine changing our maxims from “I will…” to “Everyone should always…”

If we act on un-universalisable maxims we are behaving irrationally or in a self-contradictory way

There are two ways in which our behaviour can be contradictory though: Contradiction in Conception Contradiction in the Will

Contradiction in Conception

When the maxim of an action… “…cannot even be conceived as a universal law of

nature without contradiction, let alone be willed as what ought to become one”.

Some maxims attempt to will something that cannot be willed E.g. “Always make false promises”

Problems of interpretation: A Logical impossibility? You can’t even

conceive of the maxim. A Practical impossibility? You could

conceive it but you could not in fact make the maxim work because people would abandon promise keeping.

A Teleological contradiction? You could make it work but it would fail to achieve its intended goal or end.

Contradiction in the Will

When we try to universalise a maxim that isn’t logically inconceivable but is rationally incompatible with other maxims you may will E.g. “Never help others that are in

need” We can conceive that this maxim could

be universalised without contradiction However, when you are infirm the most

rational way to satisfy your desires would be to accept help from others

The Categorical Imperative 2: The End in Itself Formulation

“Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other , always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”

Our fundamental dignity as human beings is worthy of respect in its own right.

We should never use people solely as objects to meet our own ends E.g. Lying, stealing, some forms of

punishment do this A common misinterpretation is that we can

never use people as a means. E.g. Bank Teller This is OK, so long as we don’t merely use

them as a means

The Categorical Imperative 3: The Kingdom of Ends Formulation

“Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxims always a lawmaking member in the universal kingdom of ends.”

Captures the communitarian aspect of moral behaviour

We are not only law makers but are subjects of these laws

If a maxim could not be willed in such a community of ends then it can’t be a moral one.

Similar to John Rawls’ concept of the “Veil of Ignorance”

Reconciling the 3 Formulations

All three formulations are supposed to amount to the same thing and prohibit the same actions. Our maxims should be logically

capable of being universalised… …universal laws require universal

compliance and consent and this requirement for consent is to treat people as ends and not means…

…these would be the maxims we would sign up for in a fair society

The Problem with Motives

Do consequences have no role to play in our moral deliberations?

Mustn’t morality have something to do with improving the world?

Would we be obliged to follow maxims which never led to good consequences?

Does Kant himself smuggle in consequences by the back door? In discussing contradiction in the will

he suggests that “others may pay you back in your own coin”

Critical Comment: The Problem with Maxims

Exactly what sort of contradiction do we involve ourselves in when we will a non-universalisable maxim? Logical? Practical? Teleological?

Some maxims that are universalisable aren’t moral at all E.g. “Always eat healthily” This isn’t moral, it’s merely prudent

Does the categorical imperative therefore only identify permissible maxims rather than compulsory ones?

Critical Comment: Discerning our Duties

Doesn’t your duty depend on how you choose to formulate you maxim?

“Always commit adultery” “Always promote sensual pleasure”

Isn’t a conflict of duties possible in certain situations?

E.g. promise keeping Can’t we be morally obliged to

deviate from certain duties? E.g. The Case of the Enquiring Murderer Kant thinks we should never deviate from

telling the truth We can’t predict the consequences of

either action Better avoid the evil you know Is there a way of formulating the maxim so

that it is universalisable

Critical Comment:Ignores other Good Motives

Does Kant’s account lack humanity?

Aren’t there other motives which are as morally worthy as duty? Love Art Joy

Aren’t people who lack these motives also morally lacking?

Can’t we be morally commended for our inclinations if we have spent a long time acquiring them? (Aristotle)

Gunther Von Hagens

Is art a motive that exempts Von Hagen’s actions from moral disapproval?

Criticisms of Kant:Misguided Perceptions of Duty

Is acting from duty always the right thing? Is the Committed Nazi

praiseworthy? “If I found out I were Jewish I

would want to be exterminated”

Is such a person being contradictory?

Kant might say our moral duties transcend any other culturally or politically relative ‘duties’

But is reason alone enough to protect us from immoral duties? Is Kant being naïve?

Punishment

Punishment

The 5 aims of punishment:

1. Protection

2. Retribution

3. Deterrence

4. Reform

5. Vindication

Kant on Punishment

Criminals are guilty of breaching the 1st formulation of the categorical imperative

“Act such that the maxim of your action could become a universal law”

Their maxims are not universalisable which is why murder, theft, deception etc are wrong.

Kant believes that punishment must always be proportionate.

“If you strike another you strike yourself; if you kill another you kill yourself” Critique of Practical Reason

The punishment must therefore fit the crime

Kant on Punishment

Kant believes in Retributive Punishment

People should be punished because they actually committed the crime

Because of the need for proportionality, the death penalty might well be justified for certain crimes such as murder

There must be no exceptions in the prosecution of justice

If an island society chose to abandon their home, their last duty should be to execute every last murderer, not release them, since Justice must always be done

Kant versus Utilitarianism

Kant’s retributive position contrasts sharply with the reformative stance of the utilitarians

“When someone who delights in annoying and vexing peace loving folk receives at last a right good beating, it is certainly an ill, but everyone approves of it and considers it a good in itself, even if nothing further results from it.”

Kant, The Philosophy of Law “Woe to him who creeps through the serpent

windings of Utilitarianism to discover some advantage that may discharge him from the justice of punishment”

Kant, The Critique of Practical Reason

Kant on Punishment

Kant rejects reform, deterrence and protection as justifications for punishment

Kant’s position is based on the 2nd version of the categorical imperative: “Always treat people as ends and never merely

as means” To punish people to set an example, protect

others or rehabilitate them is to use them as a means to your own ends.

By punishing people we are in fact treating them with respect and recognising their status as autonomous rational agents responsible for their actions

Utilitarians are just using people for social experiments

Strengths of of Kant’s Account of Punishment

Fits in with common ideas of justice: The Punishment should fit the crime An eye for an eye Punishment is largely about desert Punishment should not be visited on

the innocent Gives people responsibility for their

actions Treats people with dignity and

respect

Weaknesses of Kant’s Account of Punishment

Seems very harsh No exceptions or mitigating

circumstances allowed Even the very old and very young

should be punished Never forward looking

Utilitarians make something positive come out of something negative.

Do all crimes have an appropriate punishment? (Was hanging too good for Mussolini?)

War

War: Hiroshima Victims

What is War?

War is “armed conflict between 2 or more groups”

Since 1945, 40,000 people die every month from war somewhere in the world.

30 people are killed every day in Iraq, even now the war is over

There are many types of war: World war Civil war Nuclear war Guerrilla war Defensive war Pre-emptive war

Moral Issues in Wartime

Is there such a thing as a just war? Should you participate if your country goes

to war? Should conscription be used to force

people to fight? What conditions must be met to justify

being a conscientious objector? What should be done with prisoners of

war? How should civilians be treated during a

war? Are there methods or weapons that it is

never justified to use during a war? Are defensive wars any different from

offensive wars?

"I ain't got no quarrel with the Viet cong." Mohammed Ali

Kant on War

Does war fit in with the categorical imperative?

1st formulation: “Act such that the maxim of your action could

become a universal law” Can we universalise the maxim that we

should kill innocent people to win a war? Civilians Conscripts

Kant says no. War is a form of punishing the innocent (for the crimes of their leaders) which Kant has already ruled out in his consideration of punishment.

I could not rationally will that I should be punished when innocent of a crime.

Kant on War

2nd formulation of the CI: “Always treat people as ends

and never merely as means” During a war people are

conscripted into the army and used as a means to win the war

Sometimes civilians are used as human shields to prevent bombing of important sites

However Kant elsewhere suggests that defensive wars might be justified

Strengths of Kant’s Account of War

Fits in with common ideas of justice: We should never kill innocents Not because killing innocents

produces bad consequences But because it is wrong anyway

Kantians are committed to the concept of rules for fighting wars Killing should only ever be for military

objectives Torture and murder of innocents not

permitted Methods should never be

disproportionate to the intended objective

Weaknesses of Kant’s Account of War

Is Kant inconsistent in advocating defensive wars?

Is anyone innocent during a war? Munitions workers? Pregnant women?

There are never any exceptions to following the rules of war E.g. Should child soldiers be treated differently? This might actually lead to greater atrocities

Conflict of Duties What should we do when we have to choose

between 2 immoral acts? Should we kill the enemy soldier who is about to

find a group of children? Should we torture the prisoner of war who knows

the location of the next attack?

Euthanasia

What is Euthanasia?

Comes from the Greek Eu = well Thanatos = death Means “Dying well” or “a good death”

Technology allows us to sustain life longer but not always better

Science allows us to predict how long people have to live and what their quality of life will be

"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" (The Hippocratic Oath)

Legalised in the Netherlands in 2000 and in Belgium in 2002

Legalised in Australia in 1996 but revoked in 1997

Types of Euthanasia

Voluntary Euthanasia When a dying person asks for euthanasia

Non-voluntary Euthanasia When the views of the dying person can’t

be known Involuntary Euthanasia

When someone is not asked their opinion even though they could give one and is killed against their wishes

Passive Euthanasia Causing death by withholding treatment

Active Euthanasia Causing death by intervention

Protesters gathered outside Groningen Academic Hospital in the Netherlands over plans

to extend euthanasia to newborns

Kant on Euthanasia

Kant never discusses euthanasia. However he does discuss suicide It is the task of Kantians to try to construct a Kant-like

response to the issue of euthanasia from what he says about suicide.

Kant on Suicide

The 1st formulation of the CI: “Act such that the maxim of your action

could become a universal law” Kant might have said that we can’t

universalise the maxim that: “…from self-love I adopt it as a principle to

shorten my life when its longer duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction”.

This maxim, says Kant, is self-contradictory: “Now we see at once that a system of nature

of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would contradict itself, and therefore could not exist as a system of nature”

Kant on Suicide

2nd formulation of the CI: “Act that you use humanity, whether in

your own person or in the person of any other , always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”

The 2nd formulation applies to ourselves as well as others.

It is our duty not to kill ourselves because to do so would be to treat ourselves as means to an end.

Human beings have to be respected and valued which includes respecting ourselves

Could Kant support Euthanasia?

Universalisability: Committing suicide might fit in with the

universal moral law of acting from the maxim of self-love.

Shortening an unbearable life might be the best way of loving yourself.

Treating People as Ends: If someone asks to die are we not

respecting them as rational agents? We are going along with their wishes, not

ours. So perhaps Kant might support voluntary

euthanasia but not involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia.

Strengths of the Kantian approach to Euthanasia

Fits in with common intuitions: We are uneasy about euthanasia

even when it does have good consequences

Seems to respect the sanctity of human life

Urges us to seek positive solutions to difficult situations

Gives clear guidelines for a complex issue: The Categorical imperative outlines

our duty in such cases Avoids trying to second guess the

consequences: cures being discovered at the last minute; people coming out of 20 year comas etc.

Weaknesses of the Kantian approach to Euthanasia

Kant’s views on suicide might not apply to euthanasia Ill people aren’t just unhappy or depressed, they

objectively and medically have no hope Fails to recognise that there may not be positive

solutions in some situations Is there anything dignified about dying in agony?

The categorical imperative could be interpreted as supporting euthanasia: We could sanction a voluntary death as an example of

universalising the maxim of self-love We treat people as ends when we respect their

wishes Everyone else could subscribe to this practice as a

universal law in the kingdom of ends