How compatible are Kant’s ethics with a religious
approach to ethics?
Each bullet point below offers analysis of this question. Can you see arguments, counter arguments and
possible responses in there?
1. Many regard the 21st century as a secular (a non-religious) era or age. Although Kant himself would
not agree that his theory could operate without God, it could be argued that the categorical
imperative is useful/helpful for those who reject the authority of the Bible or religious teachings.
However, Christian approaches to ethics could not operate or make sense without the existence of
God and His guidance on how we should live. Having said that, Kant argues that the moral law
within us was placed there by God.
COMPATIBLE or INCOMPATIBLE?
2. In Kant’s theory there is a reward (the summum bonum) for acting morally. In Christianity there is a
similar concept of heaven and, in Buddhism, a better rebirth for those who acted morally. None of
these are meant to be treated as goals so they all seem to take a deontological approach to morality.
COMPATIBLE or INCOMPATIBLE?
3. Kant’s principle of universalisability seems to mirror Jesus’s golden rule in Christianity, “do unto
others as you would have done unto you”
COMPATIBLE or INCOMPATIBLE?
4. The fact that Kant acknowledges an immortal soul and afterlife allows the theory to sit well with
other Christian beliefs
COMPATIBLE or INCOMPATIBLE?
5. Kant’s emphasis on morality being linked to intention has parts in common with certain Buddhist
beliefs about karma i.e. that intention plays an important role in the goodness of an act (and
therefore the karma acquired). Someone whose intention is bad but whose action coincidentally
produces a good outcome cannot acquire positive karma. In the same way, Kant argues that
someone whose intention is selfish but happens to produce a good outcome through acting will not
receive the reward of the Summum Bonum.
COMPATIBLE or INCOMPATIBLE?
6. Kant’s theory is absolutist; he believes that moral truths such as “killing is wrong” are fixed for all
time, and true in all circumstances. Joseph Fletcher’s Situation Ethics, a Christian ethical theory, is
relativist. Fletcher argues that sometimes moral rules need to be put aside to do the ‘right thing’.
Here, moral statements such as “killing is wrong” are true only in some situations and some
occasions.
COMPATIBLE or INCOMPATIBLE?
7. When respecting human life, Kant recognises the intrinsic worth of humans, as do most Christian
teachings. However, it is our moral reasoning that gives us our intrinsic value in Kantian Ethics. In
Christianity, it is our creation by God that makes us sacred and valuable.
COMPATIBLE or INCOMPATIBLE?
8. Kant argues that, despite not being rational themselves, humans have a duty to treat animals well
because respect for life is universalisable whereas cruelty is not. Another reason why Kant believes
we should respect animals is that this helps us to develop desirable personal qualities, such as
kindness, which can then be applied to the way we treat humans. Buddhists believe that animals
should be treated with respect. However, the reasoning is different. For Buddhists, the emphasis is
on positive karma and showing compassion to other living beings.
COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?
9. For Kant, human life will always be more valuable than animal life as we have the capacity for moral
reasoning. Buddhists believe in the precious human rebirth – that humans have the best opportunity
to practise the dharma (the teachings of the Buddha) and therefore human life is, ultimately, more
important and valuable than other life.
COMPATIBLE or INCOMPATIBLE?
To what extent is Kant’s ethical theory
compatible with religious approaches to
ethics? (15 marks)
Include brief points in the right column of this table to help you plan the essay:
Argument
Explanation/Evidence
Counter argument
Winner?
(more than one reason
Point or
can be given)
counter
argument?
TOTALLY
COMPATIBLE
INCOMPATIBLE
COMPATIBLE TO
SOME EXTENT
CONCLUSION
(circle as
appropriate):
TOTALLY COMPATIBLE
INCOMPATIBLE
COMPATIBLE TO SOME
EXTENT
Reasons. If undecided explain why. If
conclusion is too simplistic or
problematic explain why.
Guidelines for this essay’s conclusion:
1. If you have successfully argued anywhere that Kant’s ethical approach is compatible
with a religious approach your conclusion must state that Kant’s theory is at least
compatible to some extent but you can still pinpoint the areas in which it is incompatible
in your conclusion.
2. If you have successfully argued that Kant’s ethical approach is totally incompatible with
a religious approach you must be clear on which religious approach you are talking about
(i.e. Christianity generally/Situation Ethics/Buddhist ethics) otherwise you will look like
you are making sweeping generalisations.
3. The question To what extent MUST be addressed. You must state clearly not at
all/fully/or to some extent when wording your conclusion.
Possible wording:
It could be argued that Kant’s ethical approach is compatible/incompatible with a ________ approach,
based on the evidence that they both believe….However, this compatibility/incompatibility could be
questioned by looking more deeply at…..which may lead us to the conclusion that…
In conclusion I would argue that/it could be argued that…based on the evidence that….and….
However, this remains a problematic conclusion because of….