KANTIAN ETHICS

by: Cecille P. Baniasen

 IMMANUEL KANT: BIOGRAPHY
 Lived 1724-1804 Eastern Russia
– Kant stands as part of the European
Enlightenment, the attempt to get beyond
authority & superstition & deal with the world
on the basis of human reason.
 received a stern education
 was raised in a Pietist household
 Kant went to college at 16 and studied
under a rationalist
 Kant never got married
 Terms
 GOOD WILL:
- A power of self-determination via rational
deliberation
- The only thing conceivable that can be
taken as good without qualification
- It’s virtue is completely separate from
any end
“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the
world…which can be regarded as good without
qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit,
judgement, & whatever talents of the mind one might
want to name are doubtless in many respects good &
desirable, as are such qualities as temperance, courage,
resolution, perseverance. But they can become
extremely bad & harmful if the will…is not good….a good
will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of
being even worthy of happiness”.

(Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals 1785)

4
 Terms
MAXIM (intention)
- A personal rule on which we make our decisions
- The principle on which the actor sees himself or
herself acting

DUTY
- Inbred, Self Imposed
- The obligation required of us as rational beings
- In order for an act to be morally praiseworthy, it
must be done for the sake of duty
 Terms
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
– moral requirements are based on a standard
of rationality
– a moral ‘ought’ that does not depend on
results
 Kant’s deontological ideas:
 Kant believed that the experience of moral law leads
to our awareness of freedom. This sense of freedom is
used when we make moral choices.
 He believed that these moral decisions are
independent of any thought of consequence.
 Acting morally is an end in itself.
 Being moral is a matter of the categorical imperative.
 There is nothing moral about carrying out an action
simply because of the intended outcome.
“The obligation to do our duty is unconditional.
That is, we must do it for the sake of duty,
because it is the right thing to do, not because it
will profit us psychologically, or economically, not
because if we don’t do it and get caught we’ll be
punished. The categorical imperative was Kant’s
name for this inbred, self-imposed restraint, for
the command of conscience within that tells us
that the only true moral act is done from a pure
sense of duty.”

 -- Admiral James Stockdale

 Duties and Realities
 Kant felt a moral obligation to act in a certain way and
tried to find an explanation:
 ‘is/ought’ is=matter of fact
ought=responsibility
 Our duty presents itself to us in the form of
“imperatives” (commands) that are absolute and
binding.
…i.e., categorical (no exceptions or excuses)
 The categorical imperative
comes in 3 forms:-
1 ‘So act that the maxim of your will could
always hold at the same time as a principle
establishing universal law’.

This form of the CI therefore provides a simple, logical

test. If you are content that everyone else should be
bound by the same principle upon which you are acting, then
what you are doing is logically consistent & therefore right.
If, on the other hand, what you want to do would involve a
contradiction, or be self-defeating, if everyone followed
that same maxim, then it is wrong.

10
 UNIVERSALIZATION
The first requirement is that when we are
considering an action we must ask whether
we can imagine our intentions for an action
as a general rule for everyone.
Kant intends that one’s actions become a
law that applies to all.
What would Kant do?
 Universal Principle
 Suppose…
– IED Victim
 Horrific Burns
 Brain damage
 Coma
 Life support

– $1,000,000 life
insurance policy
2 This formulation concerns the treatment
of other people. ‘Act in such a way that
you always treat humanity, whether in
your own person, or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means, but
always at the same time as an end’.
Note that Kant’s morality is a priori . It is established quite apart
from a consideration of possible results.
Kant firmly believed that a person experienced his or her own worth
primarily when acting in this way, based on a priori reason, & not
simply responding to sense experience.
His moral vision here is that a person should set aside all
considerations of personal gain & have a genuinely universal
sympathy. By doing so, one achieves what is highest in human
nature.
14
The Formula of the End in Itself
Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity as a means or as an end. To
finish-up formula of the End in Itself, since
we are using one or more of our maxims
then we should not look at how much
misery or happiness the act is likely to
produce.
 Antiutilitarian.
 Using Persons as Mere Means
 This is what it means to be a moral agent-
someone capable of reflection and can be held
accountable for his actions. This is why Kant
believes rationality is morally relevant. This is
what makes human beings capable of moral
reflection and action. This is what gives us
value and makes us “ends” deserving of respect.
That is why we should not treat people as
“means” because we deny them the respect
they deserve.
 Treating Person as End in
Themselves
 Put bluntly, treating people respectfully
but not complying with their wants or
maxims. This makes sense because if we
just complied with everyone's wishes we
may find ourselves doing unjust things.
Moreover, we would not require rules or
laws under this assumption. Additionally,
under this point, one should not use the
maxims of others to drive their decisions.
 Intentions and Results
 Good intentions lead to bad results
sometimes. Bad intentions lead to good
results sometimes. How do we choose?
3 The 3rd form of the CI highlights Kant’s view
that it is human reason that determines morality:
‘Act as if [you are] a legislating
member in the universal kingdom of ends’.

By the ‘kingdom of ends’, Kant means the society

of rational beings, each of whom are to be
treated as ‘ends’ rather than as ‘means’.
We are to be members in such a kingdom & also
its legislators. As free, autonomous, rational,
moral agents, we do not discover morality - we
make it.

19
 The “Categorical Imperative
Procedure” (CI3)
 “The Kingdom of Ends” – Reason is both the source of moral
law (legislator) and subject of the law (citizen).

 Accordingly: “Act always as if you were, through your maxims,

a lawmaking member of the moral community, bound to obey
the laws you impose upon yourself and others”
 Observations about
Categorical Imperatives (CIs)
 CI’s derive their authority from within
– from the rational impulse to obey the dictates of Reason itself
(as an expression of my autonomy)

 CI’s command absolutely, unconditionally, “no ifs, ands or buts”

(no strings attached)

 CI’s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change

 Duty and the institution of morality are like this

(Must comply- no alibi)

 “Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to
or not, whether anyone will notice, reward, praise, or blame you (or
not).”

See any issues here?

 Kant 101
Desire Duty Universal
What we want (or are What we know Obligation Principles
inclined) to do we should do
from reason (Categorical
Imperative)

Conflict
Good Will
Indicates Acts solely
Free Will,
we have a out of
choice Autonomy
What makes us Reverence for
human...not animals
Moral Law
 Kantian Ethics
Strengths
 Realm of duty, free from utility
 Respect for persons
 Golden rule – do unto others, expressed in rational
terms
 Reason based

Weaknesses
 Hyper-rationality and lack of emotion
 The irrelevance of inclination
 Overly formal and universal
– i.e., most of our duties are in social roles
 Inflexibility
 Lead in to Virtue Ethics
 How does Kant account for
heroism?
– Is it our duty to go “beyond the call
of duty?”

 Which person is more moral?

a) A pirate who returns a wallet
b) A priest who returns a wallet