Immanuel Kant
Famous dead German (not Hitler)
Immanuel Kant was a hugely
influential philosopher.
Kant thought it was possible to
develop a system of ethics and
morals based on reason.
• Kant, along with other philosophers of the
‘enlightenment’, attaches great importance to
man’s ability to reason
• A human being is essentially, a rational being.
• Reason, says Kant, is an innate, intellectual
power existing more or less equally in all men,
it enables the individual to resolve problems
in a way, more or less acceptable to everyone.
• If reason is universal, the moral commands
generated by reason will be universal and
applicable to all men.
Kant’s Morality
• Morals have an absolute value
- absolutist, realist, objectivist
• They’re not ‘out there’
• Morality is inside of us,
we all have a sense of
moral duty
• Wanted a universal
moral law
don’t
Bentham and
utilitarian
II am
theagree
ghostwith
of Immanuel
KantMills’
--- ooooohh!!!
theories because I don’t think moral actions are
based on consequences. I think they are based on
motives and the actions themselves. Let me show you
an example!
My sister’s being
bullied. Some of
my friends are
really hard and
they have started
to bully her too. I
am worried about
her. I want my
friends to like me
though and if I
stand up to them
they will bully
both of us.
What would utilitarians say about this?
According to utilitarian theory, it would be
okay for the boy to do nothing about her
sister because that would result in the
greatest pleasure for the greatest number.
What do you think I would say about this?
According to Kantian ethics, this boy should
not even think about the consequences it
would have for him or his sister. He should
just follow his inbuilt moral code and do his
duty. He has this duty because he has
reason.
You see, all human beings have reason. In order to
act morally, therefore, everybody must follow their
duty. Their duty is to follow the moral law.
We all have an in built awareness of what we should
do and we should follow that. We should not be led
by our emotions or our experiences because we
know what to do from our duty.
Reasoning
The boy makes the right decision. He protects his
sister. This makes him good… why?
The boy is good not because he has saved his sister, or because he has made
himself feel pleased with himself. He is good because he has made sure the
‘greatest good’ (summun bonum) is done. This is an act of good will. Someone
of ‘goodwill’ is not good because of what they achieve/accomplish
(consequences) but because he/she acts out of duty. A person performs an
action not for wealth, prestige etc because it is your duty.
“Good will shines forth like a precious jewel
It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even
out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification,
except a good will” (Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals)
Kant’s formula for ethics…
• Kant argued that rational duty was
behind ethics and morals.
• In other words, the motive behind
an action is very important.
• He believed the only truly good
thing is goodwill.
• Every other characteristic, like
being helpful, cheerful, kind, loving,
etc., could all be used for evil
intentions except for goodwill.
The Good Will
• Write down 5 possible
reasons for the
younger person’s
actions in the picture.
• Consider whether the
action was good or bad
–what are you using to
formulate your
judgement?
A moral decision is not based on a
feeling of what is right, or the reward
that might be given for doing right, it
is based on duty.
Acting on
goodwill leads
us to do our
moral duty
purely because
it is our moral
duty.
• A shopkeeper who gives
the right change to his
customers because it is
good for returning
business is acting in a
morally wrong way because
he is not acting out of
duty.
If he had acted out of moral duty, giving customers the
right change because that it is the right thing to do,
then his action would be morally acceptable according to
Kant.
Or what if…
You help an old person carry their shopping across the
street. You may have done this because :
1. you felt pity and compassion for the old person
2. the people around you would think good things about you
for doing it
3. you would feel better if you helped and didn’t walk on by
4. your parents would be disappointed in you if you
didn’t help.
According to Kant all of these reasons are not
acceptable and do not make the action a moral act
because you should help the old person across the
road because you have a sense of duty to help the
elderly in society.
Motive is very important
in Kantian ethics. It means
your action can have
negative consequences but
still be considered a moral
act.
For example, if you stop
to help someone who has
been knocked down by a
car in the street and by
helping them you
accidentally kill them,
your action would still be
considered a moral act
because you tried to help
because you felt it was
your duty to do so.
Motive
What is it our moral duty to
do?
• Kant argued that moral actions are not
dependant on circumstances.
• For example, we must always care for our
children. This is not dependant on
circumstances or particular situations, it is
always right and is what Kant called a
categorical imperative.
Categorical imperatives
• Catergorical here means applicable in all situations, an
absolute.
• Imperative means something that must be done, an
obligation.
• In other words, a moral decision that you make must
be made because you think it would be good for
everyone to do. Are there some things that are
absolute rights? Can you think of some examples?
Care for the elderly
Protect children
Absolute
rights?
Consider others
Kant said …
‘Act as if the maxim from which you were
to act were to become through your will a
general law’
This has become known as universalisation,
which means a rule should apply to
everyone.
‘Principle of Universalisability’
• The right rules to follow are those which
can be applied to all people. That is, can
a rule be universalised or not? Would it
make sense for others to act in this way?
• Living by universalisation would prevent
anyone wanting to do anything that they
would not want everyone else to do.
• Does this sound familiar? It’s a bit like…
Treat others as you
would like
to be treated
Treat People as ends in themselves
• In other words treat others with the
respect that as thinking beings, they
deserve. Do not use people!
I am only
your friend
because I
fancy your
sister!
“You’re my best friend –
you can come for tea!”
Respect for people
• As well as this, Kant wrote that
people should be respected and
‘ends’ in themselves, never used as
‘means to ends’.
• Kant believed there was something
that separates human and nonhuman beings: the ability to
understand and use the concepts of
duty and reason.
• To Kant, ‘animals’ are dominated by
instinct and desire, their behaviour
shaped by these compulsions. For
example…
They eat
They fight
They have sex
• They sleep
Kant, of course, accepted
that human beings are no
different to animals in that
we share their instincts and
desires.
We eat
Fight
Have sex
And when its all over we sleep
However to Kant, what
separates humans from
non-humans is our ability
to REASON.
According to Kant it is
this faculty that enables
us to act freely against
our instincts and desires
if we so choose.
Problems with Duty and Reason
• Can there be such a thing as pure reason, and
if there is, can we apply it to moral-decision
making?
• How do we agree on what ‘ought’ to be done in
a given situation?
• Do we share the same concept of ‘duty’
universally? If not how can we agree on what
‘ought’ to be done?
Problems with Duty and Reason
• Can we really apply clear reason in the
real world?
• Surely consequences do matter…
• Can we really apply a moral rule like not
killing others to every situation?
Suppose one evening you hear
a knock on the door. You
answer and a woman is
standing there looking scared.
She tells you she is on the run
from a man who is trying to
kill her and asks for you to
help hide her.
What is the correct decision
according to Kant? Why?
What problems does this
raise?
In this case the fundamental
principle is whether you should
help someone who is in need.
Kant would have felt that this
was a right thing to do.
Using reason you could argue
that helping someone who is in
need is something everyone
ought to do (a duty).
It is also universalisable as
everyone should do it.
A few minutes later you hear
a knock on the door. A man is
standing there with an axe in
his hand. He appears to be
very angry, shows you a
picture of the woman you
have just hidden and asks you
if you have seen her.
What is the correct decision
according to Kant? Why?
What problems does this raise?
In this case the
fundamental principle is
whether you should lie.
Kant would have felt that
this was the wrong thing
to do.
Using reason you could
argue that lying should not
be allowed.
If I lie I am saying the
everyone else has a duty to
lie also. This is not
universalisable.
Is morality really as simple as Kant
makes out?
• Is making moral decisions really this simple? Does
Kant’s straightforward formula work in our
complicated world?
• For example, if it is right to always tell the truth
and always protect your friends, what do you do if a
murderer asks you to tell them where your best
friend is so they can murder them? Do you tell the
truth and lead the murderer to your friend or do you
tell a lie and protect your friend’s life?
• Can everyone really agree on
what is absolutely right
and wrong, what is our duty as
humans, all the time?
• What if someone believes it is
our duty to never get involved
in violence and someone else
believes it is our duty to fight
for our human rights?
• How do we work out the
categorical imperative here?
• Can we really not help
someone because we
feel compassion for
them?
• Is there really
something wrong with
helping an old person
carry their shopping
because we are
compassionate?
• Can we really not take
consequences into account?
• What if someone really believes
they are doing the right thing
while causing harm to others?
• What if your little sister dried
your dog in the tumble dryer? Is it
ok because she meant well?
• Is motive really the only thing that
is important?
Christianity on Kant’s Duty and Reason
• There is also an emphasis on
duty in Christianity.
• Clear guiding principles exist
within the Bible especially the
teaching of Jesus.
• ‘To love one another’ sounds
like a universalisable principle
and therefore the categorical
imperative.
Christianity on Kant’s Duty and Reason
• However these principles
require interpretation, meaning
that to keep one you have to
ignore another.
• For example: Christians think
you ought to protect the weak
and you ought to preserve life.
These principles may become
contradictory depending on the
situation
Viewpoints Independent of Religious Belief on
Kant’s Duty and Reason
• Humanists argue that we have a duty to
others and our common humanity should
trigger how we relate to one another.
• For example, to ‘Treat every human being as
equal’ is something we ought to do.
• However, this is because to a Humanist
certain basic human actions are right in
themselves, they need no justification.
• To Humanists, ‘responsibilities’ go hand in
hand with ‘rights’.
Moral scenarios
Would Kant
think this
was morally
acceptable?
YES
Tom gives 10% of his
earnings each year to
charity because his
religion says he should.
Gail was out shopping one
day and noticed a person
stuffing a bottle of
perfume into her bag.
She tells the security
guard.
Gareth’s granny is very old
and frail. He believes it is his
duty to care for her but his
wife says she will leave him
if his granny comes to live
with them. He invites his
granny to stay anyway.
NO
Do you agree with Kant?
Give two reasons for your answer
Quick recap - copy
• Kant argued that rational duty was behind ethics and
morals.
• Good = goodwill = duty.
• Catergorical means applicable in all situations, an
absolute.
• Imperative means something that must be done, an
obligation.
• Universalisation according to Kant is that a rule
should apply to everyone.
Learning check…
1. Who is Immanuel Kant?
1KU
2. Explain Kant’s theory on ethics. Give two examples to
support your answer.
6KU
3. Explain in your own words Kant’s term ‘categorical
imperative’.
2KU
4. What does Kant mean when he says we should decide
our moral actions based on having the ability to
universalise moral law?
3KU
5. Outline two arguments against Kant’s theory of
rational.
4AE
6. What are your views on Kant’s theory for ethics?
3AE