Phil 160
Kant
Opposing Utilitarianism:
• Kant provides a way of looking at morality that
is different from Utilitarianism in two main
ways:
– First, it is the action itself, not its consequences
that contains the right-making characteristics.
– Second, the reasons that people act are a factor in
whether the action is right or wrong.
Building Blocks:
• The building blocks of moral theory, for Kant,
are the following:
– The only unconditionally good thing is a good will
– The faculty of reason operates the same way in all
rational beings.
– Duties are discovered by means of reason.
Duties
• The concept of duty is of central importance to
deontology. In fact ‘deontology’ means “The
study of duties.”
• For Kant, there are three reasons to act:
– Acting against duty (doing the wrong thing)
– Acting in accord with duty, but nor from duty (doing
the right thing, but for the wrong reason)
– Acting from duty (doing the right thing because it is
the right thing to do)
• The only reason that gives an action moral worth
is action from duty.
Imperatives:
• A duty is a kind of obligation, and Kant says that
there are two sorts of obligations (or
imperatives):
– Hypothetical Imperative: If ______ then you should
______. E.g. If you want a burrito, you should go to
Chipotle. This hypothetical imperative has no hold on
anyone who does not want a burrito.
– Categorical Imperative: Do what reason reveals as
your duty. This is “categorical” because it applies to
the whole category of rational beings.
The Categorical Imperative:
• Kant identifies a number of ways that reason
demonstrates what is the categorical
imperative. We will focus on two of them:
– Universalizability
– Autonomy
Universalizability (1)
• One way that reason can demonstrate to us
what is our duty is cy the procedure of
universalizability. Kant says that the
Categorical Imperative is to act only so that
one’s maxim can be made a universal law.
• A maxim is a general principle for action.
Universalizability (2)
• So the reason that we should not kill is that it is
not possible for everyone to kill.
• It is not okay to lie because it is not possible for
everyone to lie (lies only exist when truth-telling
exists)
• (If reason reveals what our duties are, and reason
operates the same in everyone, then everyone’s
duties will be the same. Therefore, anything that
cannot be done by everyone cannot be a duty)
Universalizability (3)
• The idea behind the universalizability
constraint is plausible. If it is not okay for
anyone else to do something, it is not okay for
you either. The rules are the same for
everybody and are consistent.
Universalizability (4)
• Consider:
• “It would not be possible for everybody to go
to the Chipotle on 6th St. at noon today, so it is
not moral for me to go there today at noon.”
• Kant would reply that the above is not a
maxim. It is too specific. Only a general
principle of action is a maxim. Anybody at any
given time, could in principle go to a Chipotle,
so it can be universal.
Universalizability (5)
• Note that this only tells us what our negative
duties are. We certainly can’t do things whose
maxims are not universalizable, but we are
not obligated to do everything that is
universalizable.
• For our positive duties, we need another
principle.
Autonomy (1)
• The word ‘autonomy’ means ‘a law of one’s
own’.
• This is important to Kant in the sense that for
him, what it means to be a rational being is to
be a law-giver.
• An autonomous person is one who makes
their own decisions, and acts from their own
principles, or is ‘a law unto themselves’.
Autonomy (2)
• This autonomy is such an important part of
being a rational being that ignoring it is a
severe violation of duty.
• Kant puts it this way: The categorical
imperative states that one should always treat
rational beings as a kingdom of sovereign
ends, never as means only.
Autonomy (3)
• The general idea behind this is plausible.
People are not things, and should never be
treated as things.
• Slavery, rape, and lies all treat people like
things, like they do not make their own
decisions, and this is why they are wrong.
• This gives us a sense of our positive duties.
We should actively treat people as
autonomous.
Autonomy (4)
• This is not to be confused with a version of
subjectivity. It is not “everyone gets to do what
they want because they are all sovereign ends”.
• Rather, it is only because they are rational that
they are law-givers, and since reason works the
same way in everyone, everyone gives the same
laws (the same moral laws apply to every rational
being, and they have the duty to adopt those
moral laws).
On the Supposed Right to Lie…
• Common opinion would seem to indicate that if a
person had to lie to save someone’s life, they
would be justified in doing so.
• Kant is criticized for not bowing to this opinion,
and in “On the Supposed Right to Lie…” replies to
the criticism. At heart, Kant recognizes that a
deontological ethic can have bad consequences,
but maintains that the consequences of actions
are irrelevant to morality.
The objection:
• Benjamin Constant (who Kant is replying to)
objects that in some cases, general moral
rules may be discarded.
• This kind of objection is known as the “dire
consequences objection” to deontology.
• The idea behind this objection is that when
the consequences of an action are significant
enough, they must surely be taken into
account.
Some distinctions employed by Kant:
• Uttering a falsehood vs. telling a lie: A falsehood is
something that is not the case. A lie is saying
something that you believe to be false, not
necessarily saying something that is false (so a
person has a right to truthfulness even if they have
no right to the truth).
• Avoidable vs. unavoidable speech: If you must speak,
and must “say yea or nay”, only then is speech
unavoidable. (it’s not clear whether speech is
unavoidable when confronted by the prospective
murderer)
Kant’s reply
• Telling a lie is always wrong, and seriously wrong because it
damages the fabric of civil society and morality itself.
• The consequences to truth and lies are irrelevant. It is the nature of
the action itself that determines its rightness.
• If you tell the truth you are not legally (or morally) responsible for
what happens as a result, while if you tell a lie, and try to
manipulate the situation, then you are legally (and morally)
responsible for the consequences, no matter how unforseeable.
• Once consequences are admitted into the principle for action,
moral luck becomes a factor, and there should be no such things as
moral luck
• In telling the truth, you are controlling the one thing in the situation
that you can control (whether to be moral yourself or not).
• Lying to someone to manipulate their behavior treats them as a
means only.
Other objections:
1. Conflicts between duties need to be resolved
somehow. (the previously mentioned case
might be just such a conflict)
2. The “paradox of negative stringency”: If all
duties are categorical, then failure to obey
one should be just as bad as failure to obey
any of them (so lying is as bad as murder).