Immanuel Kant
“The Categorical Imperative”
Kant vs. Utilitarianism:
•  Utilitarianism:
•  The previous reading
–  Morality is fundamentally
about the results of our
actions.
–  Acts are morally right if
they maximize happiness,
wrong otherwise.
•  In the end, what matters is
always/only happiness.
•  Kant’s moral theory:
–  Morality is fundamentally
about the reasons we have
acting.
–  Acts are morally right if
they are done for the right
reason.
•  In the end, what matters is
acting freely (that is,
acting for a reason rather
than because of a cause.
A Good Will:
Your Reasons for Acting
The Good Will:
“It is impossible to think of anything at all in the
world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be
considered good without limitation except a
good will.”
That is, it is your reasons for acting that make
an act good (or bad).
“A good will…
…is good not because of what it performs
or effects, ...
But simply by virtue of its volition.”
That is, in virtue of the reason for doing it,
or the general
principle it follows from.
“The moral worth of an action…
•  “… does not lie in the effects expected from
it ...
–  for all these effects ... could have been brought
about by other causes... [without] the will of a
rational being; whereas it is in this alone that the
supreme and unconditional good can be found.”
Free Will
as Autonomy
“Moral worth” requires “the will of a
rational being.”
•  That is,
–  moral value can be found only in the choices of a
being that can act in accordance with reasons or
principles,
–  i.e., in a being that is acting freely.
•  So, moral worth requires a free will.
For Kant, acting freely means …
•  Acting because of reasons rather than because
of causes.
–  Only “persons” act because of reasons; mere
things act because of causes.
•  Freedom means autonomy:
–  i.e., being self-legislating, or being the source of
the reasons one acts according to.
Which Reasons for Acting
Have Moral Worth?
That is, which general principles should
I act upon?
•  Out of duty:
–  The only reason for
acting that has moral
worth is acting because
it is the morally right
thing to do.
•  Not out of inclination:
–  Acting out of inclination
(i.e., simply because one
wants to act that way) in
and of itself has no
moral worth.
My desires (inclinations):
•  Are caused by “nature;”
–  i.e., they are not themselves freely chosen.
•  So, being free doesn’t require simply acting
according to my desires or inclinations, but instead
it requires that I choose the principles that I act
upon.
–  One can be a “slave to one’s passions.”
•  So, to act freely means to act in accordance with
general principles (that one chooses); it does not
mean acting merely on the basis of your desires
(or inclinations).
–  It does not mean simply doing what you most want to
do.
What is it to act
because it is the “morally right thing to
do?”
It is
To act in accordance with
The Categorical Imperative.
Imperatives:
What you ought to do
An Imperative:
•  An “ought”, an “obligation”
•  A statement or judgment about what you
ought to do.
Two kinds of Imperatives:
•  Hypothetical:
–  An “ought” that applies to
you because of some
hypothesis about your goals
or desires.
–  Example: You ought to
study hard, if (on the
hypothesis that) you want a
good grade.
•  i.e., because you want a
good grade (assuming this
is true J), it follows that
you ought to study hard.
•  Categorical:
–  An “ought” that applies to you
“categorically,” that is,
independently of any
hypotheses about your goals
or desires.
•  So, if an imperative is
categorical, it’s not
hypothetical.
–  Kant claims that moral
obligations are Categorical
Imperatives.
You: (to me): You ought to stop smoking.
Me: Why?
You: Because it’s bad for your health.
Me: So what?
You: Don’t you want to be healthy?
Me: Yes. Very much. It’s the most
important thing to me.
You: Then you should stop smoking!
Me: Why?
You: Given your desire to be healthy
and the fact that stopping
smoking will make you healthier,
it follows that you ought to stop
smoking.
Me: I see. Geez, I guess I’ve been a
moron.
Me: No. Not at all. What I really want is
to be sick, miserable, and die young.
You: That’s sick! What a crazy thing to
want.
Me: So, I “ought to” stop smoking only
if I want to be healthy. But your
hypothesis that I want to be healthy
is mistaken. My wants may be "crazy,
but my behavior is not irrational.
You: I knew you were a moron!
Hypothetical Imperatives
•  The previous example was a hypothetical
imperative.
–  There is an answer to “Why ought I do X?” (Why I
ought I stop smoking?)
•  The answer is because of my wants.
–  Given the hypothesis that I want to be healthy (and given the
fact that smoking is bad for my health), it follows that I ought
to stop smoking. It is because I want to be healthy that I ought
to stop.
–  But if I don’t want to be healthy, then this “imperative” (to stop
smoking) doesn’t apply to me.
Kant: You ought to tell the truth.
•  Me: Why?
•  Kant: Because you ought to tell the truth.
•  Me: I see. What you really mean is given that I want to be trusted,
and given that most people don’t trust liars, it follows that I ought to
tell the truth, right? (I’m starting to get a “feel” for this philosophy
stuff!)
•  Kant: No. Your obligation to tell the truth is not dependent upon
any upon hypothesis about your wants. It applies categorically, i.e.,
independently of your wants or desires.
–  (This guy really is a moron!)
•  Me: Why? How can there be something that I ought to do that
doesn’t depend on what is useful in obtaining my wants?
•  Kant: Good question! That’s exactly what I’m trying to explain!
Kant’s Question:
•  How can there be a “categorical imperative?”
–  That is, since “imperatives” are obligations, and since
moral obligations are not hypothetical;
–  How can there be moral obligations?
•  In other words:
•  How can there be something that I ought to do where
this is not because doing so in useful in obtaining my
wants and desires?
–  Why should I be moral?
Kant’s Question:
•  How can there be a Categorical Imperative?
–  That is, how can there be an “ought” that applies to
everyone regardless of their individual wants and desires?
•  Hint: It has something to do with what it means to act
freely—
•  i.e., to act autonomously—
–  i.e., to act for a reason.
Acting Freely:
Acting for a Reason
Practical Reasoning: The Logic of
Acting According to Reasons
•  1) When in circumstance “C,” one ought to do
action “A.”
–  (This is what Kant would call the “maxim” or
“volition” of one's action.)
•  2) I am in circumstance “C.”
•  3) So, I ought to do action “A.”
Acting Rationally:
•  A minimal condition for acting rationally,
that is, acting for a reason, is that the
“maxim of your action”
•  (i.e., the general principle you are acting upon)
does not contradict itself.
But remember…
•  Practical Reasoning—
What it is to “act for
reason.”
–  When in circumstance
“C,” one ought to do
action “A.”
•  This is what Kant
would call the maxim
of one’s action.
–  I am in circumstance
“C.”
–  So, I ought to do action
“A.”
•  To act freely,
–  is to act autonomously,
•  is to act for a reason.
•  But reasons are always perfectly
general.
–  “When in circumstances “C,” one
ought to do “A” applies to
everyone at all times.
•  This is a kind of “universal law.”
•  So, to act freely is to “will” the
“maxim” of your action as a
“universal law” that applies to
everyone.
The Categorical
Imperative
The First Formulation of
the Categorical Imperative:
•  “Act only according to that maxim by which you can
at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.”
–  That is, Act only on those principles you could will
(intend) that everyone act upon without thereby
contradicting yourself.
•  What we just said is that whenever you act freely, you are
“willing” that your “maxim” should be a “universal law.”
–  What Kant is saying that we should not act on those principles that it
would be contradictory to will that everyone act upon.
Acting Immorally means acting
Irrationally
•  Acting morally or immorally requires that we act freely. To
freely act immorally is to freely act upon a selfcontradictory general principle. To act upon a self
contradictory principle is to act irrationally. It is to act upon
a reason that is not a reason. So, to freely act immorally is
to freely act irrationally.
•  This subverts our ability to act for a reason, that is, to act
freely.
–  To freely act immorally is to freely act on the basis of a reason that
is not a reason, i.e., to freely act unfreely.
•  So by acting immorally, we squander our own moral
dignity and in so doing treat ourselves as mere things rather
than as persons or rational beings.
Suppose I choose to lie
•  What is the general principle I am endorsing?
–  Kant: What is the “maxim of my action?”
–  “It is permissible to lie (i.e., to say something false when
people expect you to tell the truth) whenever it is
convenient to do so.”
•  When I act freely (i.e., on the basis of a principle), I
am endorsing that general principle.
–  So, when I lie, I am endorsing ( “willing”) the above
principle (maxim).
But, what am I “willing?”
•  I am willing that everyone lie when it is convenient.
–  But, if everyone did this, there would be no expectation of
truth telling.
•  But without the expectation that people will tell the truth, it is
impossible for anyone to lie.
•  So, I am willing that everyone act in a certain way
(lying) that makes it impossible for anyone to act that
way.
–  i.e., the principle I am endorsing (the maxim that I am
willing) is self-contradictory.
So what?
•  The problem with lying:
–  Isn’t (just) that it brings about bad consequences.
–  is that by acting on the principle that everyone lie whenever
it is convenient, I am endorsing that principle.
•  The problem with endorsing the principle that
everyone lie whenever it is convenient:
–  Isn’t that this would bring about bad consequences
–  is that what I am willing is self-contradictory,
•  i.e., I am willing that everyone act in a way that makes it
impossible for anyone to act that way.
So what?
•  The problem with acting upon a self-contradictory principle:
–  Isn’t (just) that it’s nutty.
–  is that I am “squandering” or “abusing” the very feature that
distinguishes me from mere things.
•  Persons have moral dignity because they can act for a reason
rather than, like mere things, only because of a cause.
–  So, if I act upon a self-contradictory principle, I am acting upon a
“reason” that isn’t a reason,
•  because it is self-contradictory.
–  I am (ab)using my freedom (my ability to act for a reason) to act unfreely.
•  I am treating myself as a mere thing.
The Kingdom of Ends Formulation of
the Categorical Imperative:
•  “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your
own person or that of another always as an end
and never as a means only.”
•  So, persons have a moral dignity that should never
be violated. They must never be treated as mere
things (as mere means to my ends), but always as
having value in and of themselves (i.e., as “endsin-themselves”).