Lesson 11: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS:
IMMANUEL KANT
Kant’s principles require universalizing one’s contemplated action or policy. Here, we will be
asked to consider what constitutes proper treatment of persons as persons. According to Kant, one key
characteristic of persons is their ability to set their own goals. Persons are autonomous. They are
literally self ruled, or at least capable of being self-ruled. As persons, we choose our own life plans, what
we want to be, our friends, our college courses, and so forth. We have our own reasons for doing so. We
believe that although we are influenced in these choices and reasons by our situation and by others, we
let ourselves be so influenced, and thus these choices are still our own choices. In this way, persons are
different from things. Things cannot choose what they wish to do. We decide how we shall use things.
We impose our own goals on things, using the wood to build the house and the pen or computer to
write our words and express our ideas. It is appropriate in this scheme of things to use things for our
ends, but it is not appropriate to use persons as though they were things purely at our own disposal and
without a will of their own.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
After studying this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Explain the meaning of deontological ethics and categorical imperative;
2. Appreciate and articulate the role of duty in crafting an ethical life; and
3. Create a concept map summarizing Kant’s idea of Deontological Ethics.
LECTURE NOTES
Immanuel Kant
Born 22 April 1724 to a religious and lower middle class family,
Immanuel Kant had his education at the local Pietistic Friedrichskolleg
of Konigsberg, East Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). His interest in
Philosophy started when he continued his studies at the University of
Konigsberg. From 1746-1755 Kant worked as a tutor for the rich families
of his city until he got an appointment as instructor at his own
university. He was an effective teacher and in 1770 was awarded full
professorship. "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing
admiration and awe... the ember in the stars and the moral law within."
These occupied the studies of Kant that he made a name
through his opus writings: General Natural History and Theory of
Heavens (1755), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785).
In the photo: Immanuel Kant
Critique of Practical Reason (1788), Metaphysics of Morals (1797)
and Religion within the Limits of Reason (1792/94). He was never married Photo source: medium.com
though he enjoyed a vibrant social life. He died on 12 February 1804 with the last words es ist gut (It is
Good).
Introduction
Franz Kafka once gave voice to the solitude of man and his/her task to find his/her own way.
Kafka wrote the story of “an imperial message” directly addressing the reader as the pathetic subject.
The story started with the sending of a message from the farthest distance. A dying king ordered his
39
Herald to bring his whispered message. After confirming the accuracy of the message, the Herald was
sent breaking down obstructing walls and going beyond the great ones of the empire at first. Eventually,
however, he is slowed down by the huge crowd and the infinite distance that lie between him and the
receiver of the message. The reader to whom the message is addressed in the end sits by the window
dreaming of the message that may come. The reader is directly addressed by Kafka and invited to move
out of dreaming and end his/her pathetic passivity, left on his/her won, he/she is tasked to find his/her
own way and not give in to dreams of fullness of knowledge that are given to him/her or the discovery
of a path that is yet to be revealed. A professor once situation by asking,
"If early morning tomorrow you wake up so sure that there is no God, what would you do?"
The German thinker Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 proposed a viable human solution to this
quandary. His philosophy views man as autonomous and most of himself/herself as not subject to
external conditions, results, and mandates. If left to himself/herself, is it possible for the human person
to be ethical? Immanuel Kant thinks so. In fact, he was so confident in the ethical system that he came
up with what he declares its systematic independence from religion and even asserted that it is religion
that is in need of his foundational ethics and not vice versa.
Autonomous Reason, Goodwill, and Duty
Kant insists that every time we confront moral situations there are formally operative a priori
principles that can be brought to the fore. Highlighting these a priori truths can better help the learner
of ethics sort through his/her task of living ethically. Kant's research on ethics has named these as
reason, goodwill, and duty. These are, for Kant, respectively, the foundation (reason), source (goodwill),
and motivation (duty) of ethical living.
Human Reason
The foundation of a sound ethics for Immanuel Kant can only be the authority of human reason.
The voice of God not heard directly today while man is living in this passing world. Voices of ministers
and priests who claim to speak for God are but other human beings who make use of their own reason
in trying to understand what goes on around them. This common human reason is also what they use as
they comprehend the revelation that is said to be the foundation of their particular religion. Given that
they share the same humanity with everybody else including the students of ethics, what they say ought
to pass through the norm of reason that is internal to the moral subject himself/herself. Otherwise,
arbitrariness holds sway in their claim to authority and what they capriciously hold as binding or
gratuitously free.
The person who acts in accordance to drawn-up lists of what one should do complies through
the use of his/her reason that they are indeed an obligation for his/her. The reason, therefore, elects
such and such as morally binding and thus acts in accordance with what he/she thinks is so. His/Her
reason, therefore, functions as the very effort to think through moral principles and apply what he/she
knows to get to the right thing to do. In fact, this internal authority human reason is operative and takes
precedence every time the human person confronts a particular moral situation. This is human
rationality that is discursive, i.e., humans reason "talking to themselves," according to one of the
Philosopher-readers of Kant named Hannah Arendt.
What is ethical necessarily always implies the use of reason. Human acceptance of external
mandates also makes use of this same reason. Kant then tells us that reason in itself can only be the
sensible foundation of what is ethical for man. Kant then bids his students sapere aude that is "dare to
think for yourselves." Autonomous reason ventures to know what is ethical not on the authority of what
is external to the self but grounded on (reason) itself. The loudness of external authorities cannot bend
the autonomy of reason that on its own knows what should be done. What others say in turn is only
acceptable if it is found to be reasonable by the use of one's autonomous reason.
40
Goodwill
If reason is the foundation of what is ethical for Kant, in turn its source can only be goodwill.
This simply means that what is morally binding is rooted in reason as "doable for the human person."
The moral authority for Kant is immanent in man, that is, the origin of ethical obligation for man is
his/her own goodwill.
Instead of looking at the good as external to man, Kant locates the good in the very interiority of
the self. The good that is relevant to the person who through his/her reason knows what one ought to
do, is that which he/she can do and know as good. This goodwill implies the achievability of what is
known through reason. One who claims what one says is a moral obligation can do so by being free of
impositions from outside. That is, he/she is of his/her own doing able to carry out his/her obligation. It
can only oblige him/her insofar as he/she himself/herself through his/her own reason knows it as an
obligation. In the same way that it is an obligation insofar that it is something that he/she on his/her
own can manage to do.
Duty
Kant calls “duty” the obligation that follows what reason deems as the action which is most
worthy of our humanity. This duty is founded on human reason, that is, it passes through the sorting out
made by our autonomous and discursive reason Our duty is that which the reason determines as our
obligation. Inasmuch as duty is the doable obligation for the human person, it is not a duty if it is
impossible for man to do it. Duty, therefore, presupposes our ability for otherwise it is only a bother to
the human person. Duty, therefore, is a doable good for the human will. Duty, while founded on human
reason for determination, is at the very same time originating from the goodwill as a voluntary action
that is doable for the human being.
Duty or obligation is the motivation for reason and goodwill of the human person. If one asks
why he/she had to do what he/she ought to do, the answer can only be because it is his/her duty.
Reason tells the human person to do the obligation that is doable for the goodwill again since it is her/
her duty. The good that is reachable for the will of the human person is, therefore, owned by him/her as
a duty. This then excludes any other external or internal motivation for the human person for doing
what he/she ought to do: whether he/ she likes it or not; be it success or failure; whether it comes with
applause or accusation; his/her reason and goodwill simply binds him/her to do what he/she ought to
do because it is his/her duty.
Kantian Ethics and Religion
Immanuel Kant fully established the independence of his ethics from religion via the recognition
of reason as the foundation, goodwill as the source, and duty as the motivation of what obliges the
human person. In his essay “Religions within the Limits of Reason”, Kant went as far as setting up his
ethical system as that which is definitive in the recognition of true religion.
A “religion is not true to itself,” according to Kant, if it goes against what man “ought to do” as
defined by his/her autonomous reason and goodwill that reaches for universalizability. Only false
religion or cult falls unreasonably to superstition and does away with duty as an obligation for his/her
goodwill. It is, therefore, such Kantian ethics that is foundational for religion and not vice versa.
Kant, however, is not against religion. For him the value of religion rests on its reality as an
openness to “what one Can hope for.” Religion for Kant is the very openness of ethics to the
complementary strength that is provided by hope. Unlike Aristotle, Kant does not define “happiness” as
the motivation for his ethics of duty. What is ethical is indifferent to happiness for Kant and is purely
motivated by duty itself. One does the obligation to reach for happiness, that will be self-serving for
Kant and self-interest here moves away from the purity of duty.
41
Happiness, however, is understood by the human reason as reasonably related to ethics.
“He/She who has lived justly by doing his/her obligation dutifully is the most fitting for happiness.” This
truth, the human reason knows and even goes as far as protesting the reality of just men living
miserably. “Happiness ought to be related to the ethical task of man,” reason asserts in protest.
It is clear, however, that happiness cannot be a motivation for the ethical obligation of man,
according to Kant. He, therefore, suggests the determination of “happiness as gift” for the ethical man.
That is, “he/she who has lived justly is worthy of the gift of happiness.” Man cannot give this gift to
himself/herself and therefore in his/her striving to live ethically opens himself/herself in hope. Kantian
ethics, therefore, need not be hard-hearted in the pure preoccupation of duty as obligatory. The ethical
person is open to happiness he/she cannot give to himself/herself. His/Her duty can also be an
expression of hope that “he/she can make himself/ herself worthy of happiness.” For Kant, the ethical
human person is like someone who woos in courtship the person one likes. He/She cannot oblige the
other to give him/her a positive answer to his/her offering of love and devotion. He/She can only make
himself/herself worthy of a “yes.” Responding to his/her love is a gift he/she can only receive from the
other. The answer cannot be forced in the same way that happiness is something one expects to collect
after a lifelong striving of doing one’s duty. Happiness is a gratuitous gift that one recognizes as within
the realm of how.
LEARNING ACTIVITY
Answer the following questions concisely in a separate sheet of paper.
1. Why is autonomous reason the only acceptable foundation of ethics for Kant?
2. What is the importance of the Kantian shift from preoccupation with the external good to stress the
internal goodwill?
3. How does doing one’s moral duty become autonomous and at the same time universalizable in the
Kantian principle of “man as an end in himself/herself”?
4. What is the reasonable relationship between religion and ethics for Kant?
5. Explain hope as the tension between gift and task for Kantian philosophy.
TASK
Create a concept map summarizing Kant’s idea of Deontological Ethics.
Rubric for assessing Concept Maps
Identification of
concepts
Outstanding (5
pts)
Acceptable (3
pts)
Poor (2 pts)
Map identifies
the important
concepts and
provides
evidence of
understanding
of knowledge
domain on
Map includes
most
important
concepts and
provides
evidence of
understanding
knowledge
Map includes
some of the
Important
concepts
provides
evidence of
understanding
knowledge
No
Evidence/Inaccurate
(1 pt)
Map includes
few concepts with
most important
concepts missing
and limited or nonexistent evidence of
understanding
knowledge domain
42
multiple levels
domain on
some levels
Interconnectivity
among concepts
Evidence of
understanding
relationships
and how all
concepts are
interlinked with
many other
concepts
Evidence of
hierarchical
organization and
use of examples
All concepts are
organized
hierarchically
with clarity and
with extensive
number of
relevant
examples and
links
Critical thinking
and
communication
Map provides
evidence of
complex and
sophisticated
critical thinking;
most
appropriate
selection of
type of concept
map that allows
for exceptional
level of
understanding
Evidence of
understanding
of most
relationships
and how most
concepts are
interlinked
with other
concepts
Most concepts
are organized
in hierarchical
order with
considerable
clarity and
with
substantial
number of
examples and
links provided
Map provides
some evidence
of mostly
complex and
substantial
critical
thinking;
appropriate
selection of
concept map
that allows for
proficient level
of
understanding
domain on
limited or one
domain
Evidence of
understanding
of some
relationships
and how some
concepts are
linked to other
concepts
Evidence of
understanding of
few relationships
and how limited
number of concepts
are linked to other
concepts
Some concepts
are organized in
hierarchical
order with fair
with moderate
number of
examples and
links
Limited concepts are
organized
hierarchical or none
at all, and there is a
limited number of
examples and links
provided
Map provides
evidence of
moderate
critical thinking;
the concept
map selected
allows for
moderate level
of
understanding
Map provides
evidence of limited
critical thinking; the
type of concept map
allows for basic level
of understanding
REFERENCES
Pasco, Marc Oliver. Et al. General Education: Ethics. C & E Publishing, Inc.,2018
Kant, Immanuel. Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory Of EthicS,
translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Whitefish, NY: Kessinger,2007.
Loude, Robert. Kant’s mpure Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Reyes, Ramon. Ground and Norm 0f Morality. Manila; Ateneo Press, 1989.
Savater, Fernando. Apostatas Razonables. Barcelona: Mandragora, 2007.
Savater, F ernando. Etica per un Figlio. Roma: Laterza, 2007.
43