KANTIAN ETHICS
RKUD 2020 ISLAMIC ETHICS
SEM 1 2018/2019
DR. FADZILAH BT DIN
SECTION 3
No. Name
Matric Number
1
AINI SYUHAIDA BT AZMI
1612886
2
NUR ALYAA BT HASHIM
1729224
3
NUR AIN AFIQAH BT HAMIDON
1622426
4
NUR SYAHIRAH BT MOHAMED
SHUKOR
NURSHAMIMI NATASHA BINTI
SHAMSUDIN
NURUL SYAZANA BT KHAIRUL
ANUAR
1722152
5
6
1711542
1719784
TABLE OF CONTENT
NO
CONTENT
PAGE NUMBER
1
Introduction
Biography Of Immanuel Kant
2
2
Kant on Moral Worth
2-4
3
Moral and Imperative
5-8
4
Kant Theory of Punishment
Methods of Punishment
8-9
5
Comparison Between Kantianism And
Utilitarianism
10-11
6
References
12
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BIOGRAPHY OF IMMANUEL KANT
Immanuel Kant was known well among the modern western philosophy that being influenced by
his theory. Without leaving the region of his hometown in, the philosopher changed the course of
ethics, moral philosophy, metaphysic and aesthetics.
Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg then East Prussia or now the place is known as
Kaliningad in Russia. Immanuel Kant was the fourth of nine children belong to Johann George
Cant and he is a harness maker and his wife was Anna Regina Cant. Both Kant’s parents were
devout followers from Pietism and 18th century branch of Lurtheran Church. Due to their family
was closely engage with the church so the pastor did realized the potential of the young man Kant
so he arranged the education for Immanuel Kant. While at school, Kant gained a deep appreciation
for the Latin classic. In 1740, Kant enrolled at the University of Konigsberg in Theology student
but however he attracted to mathematics and physic. Unfortunately, in 1746 his father died and he
was forced to leave the education at the university to help his family. For a decade he worked as a
private tutor to earn life and for the wealthy. During this time he published several papers dealing
with scientific question exploring the middle ground between rationalism and empiricism. In 1755,
he got back to the university and received his doctorate of philosophy and at the age of 31, he
obtained an unsalaried as a private docent at the Konigsberg University
At the age of 57, Kant published the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason. This work
of Kant is the most important work and difficult work in the western thought. Eventually, all of
Kant’s work develops his article theory and it is clearly defined in Groundwork of Metaphysic of
Moral, Critical of Practical Reason and Metaphysic Moral.
2.0 KANT ON MORAL WORTH
Moral worth can be defined as a particular way in which an action or an agent are valuable or
deserve credit or deserve discredit. A central thought about moral worth is that it involves the
agent’s motives for acting. An action is morally worthy when and to the extent that it is performed
2
for the right moral reasons. The moral worth of an action then should not be identified with its
value in producing good consequences or preventing bad ones including the very performance of
the act. According to the philosopher like W.D.Ross claimed that a wrong action can be morally
worthy or good and a right one can be morally unworthy or bad.
According to Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, he claimed that 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. Good wills are defined in terms of the intention to produce good
states of affairs. He said that a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or
because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end. Good will means that an action has moral
only when performed by an agent who possesses a good will. An agent has a good will only if
moral obligation based on a universally valid norm is the action’s sole motive.
According to Kant, a good will is a will that chooses a certain action because it is the action
dictated by duty. Kant on duty means that all persons must act not only in accordance with but for
the sake of obligation. A person’s motive for acting must rest in a recognition that what he or she
intends is demanded by an obligations.
Kant has something to say about what makes someone a good person. Keep in mind that
Kant intends this to go along with the rest of his theory, and what one’s duty is would be
determined by the categorical imperative. However, one can treat this as separate theory to some
extent, and consider that one’s duty is determined by some other standard. Kant argues that a
person is a good or bad depending on the motivation of their actions and not on the goodness of
the consequences of those actions. By “motivation” it means that the reason for doing something.
It is what the caused you to do the action. Kant also argues that one can have moral worth only if
one is motivated by morality. In other words, if a person’s emotions or desires cause them to do
something, then that action cannot give them moral worth.
The motivation is what matters for example like you can imagine that you win the lottery
and you are wondering what to do with the money. So, you look around for what would be the
most fun to do with it like you can buy a yacht and travel in the first class around the world. Then,
you decide that what would be really fun is by giving the money to charity and you enjoy the
feeling you get from making people happy. According to Kant, you are not a morally worthy
person because you did it after you thought that was the most fun and there is nothing admirable
3
about such a selfish pursuit. Moral worth only comes when you do something because you know
that it is your duty and you would di it regardless of whether you liked it.
After that, what if we look at the Kant in term of wrong interpretation. We consider about
the case above about the lottery winner giving the money to charity. Imagine that the winner gives
to a charity and he intends to save hundreds of starving children in a remote village. The food
arrives in the village but a group of rebels finds out that they have foo and they come to steal the
food and end up killing the children in the village and the adults too. The intended consequences
of feeding starving children was good and the actual consequences were bad. Therefore, Kant is
not saying that we should look at the intended consequences in order to make a moral worth is
properly assessed by looking at the motivation of the action, which may be selfish even if the
intended consequences are good.
Therefore, Kant does not forbid happiness. A careful reader may notice that the example
above is about one of the selfish person’s intended consequences is to make himself happy and so
it might seem to be that intended consequences do matter. One might think Kant is claiming that
if one of my intentions is to make myself happy, that my action is not worthy. The consequence
of making myself happy is actually a good consequences, even according to Kant also the same.
You can get moral worth doing things that you enjoy, but the reason you are doing them cannot be
that you enjoy them. However, the reason must be that they are required by duty.
Keep in mind that what is said in the above has to do with how one evaluates people, not
actions. A person’s actions determine her moral worth, but there is more to this than merely seeing
if the actions are right or wrong. According to Kant a good person is someone who always does
their duty because it is their duty. It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must be the case that they
would do it even if they did not enjoy it. The overall theme is that to be a good person you must
be good for a goodness sake.
4
3.0 MORAL AND IMPERATIVES
Kant’s moral philosophy revolves around free will in three ways. Firstly, we as a human being are
impossible to avoid the Categorical Imperative, because this implicit in free-will being. Secondly,
the core of the morality is to will in according with moral’s demand. Lastly, the demand should in
line that we need to respect freedom of persons. Principle of Categorical Imperative describe on
how a perfectly rational being would act. For human like us as being an imperfect rational being,
it prescribes how we as human should act. Categorical Imperative typically does not contain ‘if’
because if it does, it will become hypothetical. By imperative, Kant does not means orders or
commands issued by other people.1
Immanuel Kant formulate several formulas to explain this principle. The first one is universal law.
Kant stated in his work;
Act on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become
universal law.2
Universal law means that the law is universalizable and applicable to all. The law cannot be
referred to this particular person for it to be part of morality. Besides, the universalizability of law
precludes or reject inconsistent willing. The following examples show how universalizability
work:
i.
Kant's example of a false promise (Using Test One)
Maxim: I may make a false promise in order to reap financial gain.
Generalized: Anyone may make a false promise to get something she or he wants.
This is self-contradictory because:
If anyone may make a "false promise," nobody would take a promise seriously; promising becomes
meaningless.
Result: I may not act on that maxim.
The maxim fails Test One.
ii.
Kant's example of the Bad Samaritan (Using Tests One and Two)
1
Atwell, John E. End and Principles in Kant Moral Thought. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986
Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991.
2
5
Maxim: I may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot pay me even though I could
do so at little cost to myself.
Generalized: Anyone may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot pay her even
though it would cost her little to help.
Can it be conceived? Yes.
Could you will this to be a universal law? Probably not, because you might find yourself in a
situation of extreme need and nobody else would help you.
Result: You cannot act on the "Bad Samaritan" maxim.
According to Kant, it is said that there are 2 kind of inconsistent willing. The first type of
inconsistent willing is that some maxims strictly cannot be universalized which means it is
impossible to universalize maxims. This give rise to perfect duties which means act that one must
not perform at any time. To explain, no matter what happen, one cannot perform that act. The
second kind of inconsistent willing is that some maxims are not strictly self-contradictory when
universalize but they are inconsistent with some natural end that a rational person would will. This
maxim render imperfect duty which act that generally one should perform, that means at some
time one should perform the act. Nevertheless, perfect duty and imperfect duty is crucial to
differentiate between law and virtue. The following are examples of Kantian Ethics that shows
perfect duty and imperfect duty:
Examples of perfect duty to ourselves:
i.
Someone miserable is contemplating to commit suicide and Kant shows how the
categorical imperative entails that the person has a duty not to commit suicide
regardless of how miserable they are.
ii.
Someone wants to borrow money promising that they’ll pay it back, but they know that
they will never be able to pay it back within the agreed time limit of the loan. Kant
believes the categorical imperative to show that making false promises cannot be
universalised and it cannot be a duty because it is morally wrong.
Examples of imperfect duty to ourselves:
i.
Someone with natural talents let them go to waste because they are lazy. Here Kant
uses the categorical imperative to show that it is wrong for us to waste our natural
talents. We must at least choose to develop some of them as this is why it is an imperfect
duty because we can choose to let some of our talents rust.
6
ii.
Someone who is doing pretty well in life is considering helping out other people. Kant
shows that although it is possible to universalise the maxim don’t help others, it is not
possible to make this to happen because we would not want to be in a situation where
we need assistance and yet no one wants to help us.3
The second formula is respect for persons based on what Kant had stated in his work;
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of
another, never as a mere means but always at the same time as an end.4
This statement explains that a rational person should value the fact that persons have free-will.
This kind of will must be determined by an end therefore cannot be based on any desire. The word
‘mere means’ here means being nothing just than an instrument for accomplishing goals. To
understand the statement of ‘treat someone merely as a means’ means that person is using another
person simply to get what they desire out of the situation. Basically, they are doing the action for
their own purpose, not for someone else. On the other hand, ‘all human beings treated as ends’
simply means that treat other as if they and their well-being are the goal. Thomson explained that
means exist only for sake of ends and ends exist merely for sake of guiding rational beings. 5 In
additional, Scruton stated that we cannot treat rational agents merely as the means through which
external forces operate: to do so is to deny their autonomy and therefore to violate their claim to
our respect.6
The third one is autonomy. Kant stated that:
So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through it
maxims.7
This formula is just similar to the first one. When we regard a being as a rational, we regard him
or her as making universal law. This statement means that human being should regard their will as
making universal law.
The last formula for the principle of Categorical Imperative is kingdom of ends. Kant stated that:
3
Garrett, Jan Edward. “Kant's Duty Ethics”. 2006. http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/kant.htm
Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals
5
Thomson, Garrett. On Kant. Australia: College of Wooster, 2003.
6
Scruton, Roger. Kant. London: Oxford University Press, 2001.
7
Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals
4
7
Act on maxim of a member who makes universal law for a merely possible kingdom of
ends.8
This formula rises an idea on each rational human being in a community should reckon his or her
maxim also be applicable to guide others action. By this way, rational human being can treat one
others as ends. Thomson refer kingdom of ends to a community of persons each one of whom act
autonomously without infringing autonomy of the others.9
4.0 KANT’S THEORY OF PUNISHMENT
Immanuel Kant’s concept of punishment is what we can say as retributivist. Retributive
justice is a theory that holds that the best response to a crime is a punishment proportional to the
offense committed and inflicted because the offender deserves the punishment.10
According to Kant, punishment must only be imposed for the sake of Justice. If the
intention of the punishment is to give lesson to the community, it is considered unethical. This is
because it can be considered as manipulative and according to Kant, human must not be
manipulated.
Another view of Kant is that a proportional punishment is also considered as equality as it
can help in restoring to what had been before the crime was committed.11 Based on this, a
punishment must be determined by a court of law only and not personal judgement, as it could
lead to unfairness and biasness. This is unethical as it is unfair towards the criminal if he were
sentenced something unproportioned with the offence he had committed. For example, it is
unethical and unjust to cut the hand of a person, if the only thing he steal are foods for him to
survive. Based on this, punishment must not be determined through utilitarianism as it could affect
the concept of equality.
8
Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals
9
Thomson, On Kant
10
Aune, Bruce. Kant’s Theory of Moral. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979.
11
Potter, Nelson T. Jr., "The Principle of Punishment Is a Categorical Imperative"(1998). Faculty Publications Department of Philosophy. 22. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/22
8
To compare it to the Muslim world, during the time of Umar al-Khattab, few slaves were
caught stealing from their owner. At first, he decided on amputation of the hand as punishment as
it was mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah. However, after further investigation, he found out that
the slaves only stole because after all the work they’d done, the owner did not feed them. Later, he
revoke back his decision and punish the owner instead.12 From this, we could say Kant’s view of
punishment is quite similar to the view of Muslims. What matters most is justice.
4.1 METHODS OF PUNISHMENT
As briefly mentioned before, punishment must only be inflicted for the sake of justice.
Only when the offender deserves it and the punishment must be proportionate. Many methods
mentioned by Kant is prohibitions against punishments that could violate moral obligations
towards other human being.13 Although this is not a specific method, it somehow provides control
restraint in deciding a punishment for a crime. Alas, despite the crimes they committed, criminals
are still human being and are not objects that can be handled without respect and care. Which is
why, Kant had strike out punishments such as torture, mutilation and others similar to it.
Plus, a way to determine whether a punishment is considered proportionate or not is to
make sure that the punishment is the closest to the crime committed. As an example, if the criminal
is a thief, the punishment must be to take away her property. If the person killed someone, his
punishment must also be death. As the saying goes, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and
a life for a life.” According to Kant, any other punishment which is not the same as the crime
committed is considered as unproportioned, therefore, unethical.14
Another point made by Kant is that, the principle of punishment is a categorical imperative.
What he meant by this is that the principle is not to be altered or derived for the sakes of someone’s
preference or convenience.15 Again, this is why, punishment must be determined by a person with
12
Faruqi, Muhammaf Yousuf. "Modes of Ijtihad in the Judgements." Intellectual Discourse 1, no. 1 (1993).
http://journals.iium.edu.my/intdiscourse/index.php/islam/article/download/329/286/
13
Hoffman, Robert. "A New Reading of Kant's Theory of Punishment" (2015). Publicly Accessible Penn
Dissertations. 1063. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1063
14
Aune, Kant’s Theory of Moral.
15
Potter, Nelson T. Jr., "The Principle of Punishment Is a Categorical Imperative"(1998). Faculty Publications Department of Philosophy. 22. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/22
9
capability instead of personal individual. More so if the person is related to the criminal or the
victim, surely there will be element of bias.
5.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN KANTIANISM AND UTILITARIANISM
Many confuse with the idea and concept bring up by both Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Despite
of their similarity in term of the normative kind of ethics by which there is an objective of good
can be sought, there are several differences between both Kantianism and Utilitarianism such as
categories of ethics, basic approach applied and test of ethical correctness in both ethical theories.
One of the differences between both ethical theories is the type of ethics categories in which
they fall. As for Kantian ethics, it has been categorized under non-consequential theory or also
known as deontological refer to the ethical doctrine that denies the consequences of an action is
the only criteria for determining the morality of an action. On the other hand, utilitarianism is a
part of consequential theories or in other word, teleological refer to theory that measure the
morality of action on the basis of their non-moral consequences. An action is determined as right
by considering the ratio of good to evil that the action produces. Both different category of ethics
theories leads to the different implementation of action according to the situation as well.
Furthermore, the basic approach in both ethical theories are also differ to each other as
Kantianism applies autonomy in making ethical decisions which means an individual has the
ability to make decisions about what to do rather than being influenced by biased-decision making.
Apart from that, the approach being used by Utilitarianism is just that the greatest amount good or
happiness for the greatest majority number of people in ethical decision-making by which an
individual must acknowledge the consequences of an action in the future. For instance, a public
hospital is considering closing a service line that is having trouble meeting budgeted revenues due
to low volumes and difficulty recruiting needed physicians. After reviewing all the financial data
and market information, hospital executives find themselves at odds over whether to shut down
the service line or not. The CEO suggests they take a step back and look at the situation from an
ethical perspective. As in Kantian’s approach of autonomy, they would come out with several
questions such as; “Am I acting from the basis of reason alone?” “Can I rule out political influence,
monetary influence, and pure self-interest?” While according to utilitarianisms in this case, they
10
will definitely prioritize the majority number of patients who are maybe in suffering when they
decided on service line’s closure.
Another aspect to compare both ethical theories is the test of ethical correctness.
Kantianism bring up the idea of categorical imperative which formulated of universalization and
maxim in making and determining ethical decisions. However, utilitarianism focused on the utility
calculation where by actions taken should produce the highest amount of happiness and pleasure
to an individual. As long as an action creates the greatest happiness at the end, the action is morally
acceptable. For example, the euthanasia case of Brophy by which viewed in the definition of Kant,
passive euthanasia as ethically wrong. There is need for the family to uphold the dignity to the life
of Brophy, as highlighted in the decision made by the court. Such high regard for life will motivate
the family to support the hospital in offering care to Brophy to prolong his life irrespective of his
current hopelessness. This will demonstrate that they are responding to both the good will
principles and duty as defined by Kant’s categorical imperatives. Moreover, Kant highlighted that
it is the responsibility of the hospital staff to prolong the life of Brophy. In doing so, the doctors
will be responding to moral duty as according to Kantianism, ethical decisions should reflect moral
worth, goodwill and response to duty. On the other hand, utilitarianism is likely to support passive
euthanasia intended by the family because it would make him happy. The prolonging of life in the
vegetative state was not something pleasurable and therefore, passive euthanasia is the most ethical
action at the moment according to utilitarianism. Moreover, passive euthanasia will translate to
promoting common good because those people will leave the hospital bed and other resources that
were being used for other patients who present a higher chance of surviving.
As conclusion, both ethical theory of Kant and Utilitarian have different concept as well as
way to implement in the real-life situations. To recap, categories of ethics, basic approach applied
and test of ethical correctness in both ethical theories have been discussed as several differences
between both ethical views which shared same purpose of being moral in human actions.
11
7.0 REFERENCES
Atwell, John E. End and Principles in Kant Moral Thought. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, 1986
Aune, Bruce. Kant’s Theory of Moral. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979.
Bowen, Shann A. How Would Kant Approach This? A Model for Ethical Healthcare Business
Decisions. 2015.
http://www.hfma.org/Leadership/EBulletins/2015/July/How_Would_Kant_Approach_T
his__A_Model_for_Ethical_Healthcare_Business_Decisions/.
Faruqi, Muhammaf Yousuf. "Modes of Ijtihad in the Judgements." Intellectual Discourse 1, no. 1
(1993).
http://journals.iium.edu.my/intdiscourse/index.php/islam/article/download/329/286/
Garrett, Jan Edward. “Kant's Duty Ethics”. 2006.
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/kant.htm
Hoffman, Robert. "A New Reading of Kant's Theory of Punishment" (2015). Publicly Accessible
Penn Dissertations. 1063. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1063
Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. "Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy)". Stanford University. 2004. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.
Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991.
L. Anton, Audrey. "Kant on Irresistible Inclinations: Moral Worth, Happiness and Belief in
God." Minerva-An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 19, 2015: 109-131.
Potter, Nelson T. Jr., "The Principle of Punishment Is a Categorical Imperative"(1998). Faculty
Publications - Department of Philosophy. 22.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/22
12
Scruton, Roger. Kant. London: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Thomson, Garrett. On Kant. Australia: College of Wooster, 2003.
13