CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

LECTURE 6

KANT’S MORAL THEORY

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Our focus will be on his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785).

Fundamental idea: Moral obligation does not depend upon God, human authorities, or human preferences. It depends only upon reason.

NON-CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORY - REVIEW A non-consequentialist moral theory is one which claims that right and wrong are not determined only by the value of the consequences of actions.

Kant’s theory is notoriously difficult, but it is clearly non-consequentialist.

1 HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES 1 An imperative is a requirement or command regarding what one ought to do.

A hypothetical imperative has the form: If you want X, then you should do Y.

Such an imperative is hypothetical because it says what you should do IF you have a certain desire.

HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES 2 Only impose a requirement on those who happen to have the desire.

AND, if you don’t have the desire or goal, you have no obligation to do Y.

“An action necessary merely in order to achieve an arbitrary purpose can be considered as in itself contingent, and we can always escape from the precept if we abandon the purpose.” - Kant

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES A categorical imperative is one with the following form: You should do Y.

“A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself apart from its relation to a further end.” - Kant

• Apply to all rational beings, regardless of their personal and variable desires. • Cannot be escaped by changing ones desires or goals.

2 MORALITY AND UNIVERSALIZABILITY Kant’s Claim: Moral principles must be universal and apply equally to all persons. The only possible moral principles are those principles which can be principles for all agents.

So, if there are to be moral laws, they must be categorical imperatives.

MAXIMS A maxim is a principle or rule of action.

The maxim of the person performing an action is what must be examined to determine if the action is morally acceptable.

The actual consequences of the action are irrelevant.

“What is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may.” - Kant

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE Kant claims that there is one supreme moral law - The Categorical Imperative

We will consider two formulations:

[1] The Formula of the Universal Law [2] The Formula of the End in Itself

3 THE FORMULA OF THE UNIVERSAL LAW "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law."

The Test: Ask if it is possible both to act on the maxim and also to will that everyone else act on the maxim.

If the maxim of one’s action cannot be universalized, then the action is not morally permissible.

FIRST APPLICATION: THE FALSE PROMISE Maxim: I will promise falsely [when in need].

This maxim fails the universalization test.

Universalization: Everyone will promise falsely [when in need].

No one can consistently intend the latter to hold as a law of nature in a world of which s/he is a part and in which s/he intends to promise falsely. Why?

THE POINT Not that the consequences of everyone acting in a certain way would be bad.

Instead, that it would be impossible for everyone to act successfully on that maxim.

Morality requires acting on principles which could be acted upon by everyone.

4 SECOND APPLICATION: AID TO OTHERS Maxim: I will do nothing to help the needy.

This maxim fails the universalization test.

Universalization: Everyone will do nothing to help the needy.

No one can consistently act on such a maxim since everyone must will that they themselves be helped if in need.

AID TO OTHERS - DETAIL I must, as a non-self-sufficient person will:

[1] I be helped if I am in need.

The universalization of my non-helping maxim is

[2] Everyone does nothing to help those in need.

But [2] implies that I will

[3] I not be helped if I am in need.

THE POINT You cannot consistently and in full rationality adopt the maxim of doing nothing at all to help others.

While you can imagine a world in which everyone acts on that maxim, you cannot rationally will it.

This is not to say how much you must help others in need. When and whom you help is also left undetermined. - Unlike Utilitarianism.

5 THE FORMULA OF THE END IN ITSELF "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.”

To treat something as an end is to treat it as intrinsically valuable. To treat it merely as a means is to treat it as of merely instrumental value.

Test: If an action treats a person as a mere means, then the action is forbidden.

FIRST APPLICATION: THE FALSE PROMISE A person who intends to make a false promise uses another person as a mere means to gain what they want.

When you make a false promise, the other person simply could not consent to being so treated. It is impossible for someone to knowingly and genuinely accept a false promise.

So, false promising is forbidden.

SECOND APPLICATION: AID TO OTHERS To treat others as ends in themselves (as intrinsically valuable), we must support their activities as rational beings.

Entirely failing to aid others is failing to treat persons with the respect they are due.

Again, this duty is alleged to be more limited than the Utilitiarian duty to improve the world as much as possible.

6 OBJECTIONS TO KANT’S THEORY 1 [1] Can’t many immoral maxims be universalized?

'I will kill all those with red hair.'

[2] Which of the possible maxims is the relevant one? Can’t a person make a false promise when one’s life is at stake? Compare

‘I will promise falsely in order to get what I need.’ or ‘I will promise falsely in order to save my life’

OBJECTIONS TO KANT’S THEORY 2 [3] The theory forbids us from treating persons as mere means no matter how terrible the consequences. Is that correct?

• Isolating the carriers of a deadly disease. • Torturing one to save millions.

[4] There is no clear way to resolve conflicts of duties.

• The Murderer at the Door

VERDICT Kant’s theory is incredibly influential.

Not because it is thought correct in detail.

Because it provides a distinct way of thinking about morality according to which morality requires a certain kind of respect for persons which seems to many to be missing from utilitiarianism.

It also seems to limit one’s duties to aid others.

7