Immanuel Kant
Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals
Who was Immanuel Kant?




Born and died in Konigsberg
(1724-1804)
A leading figure of the
Enlightenment
Emphasised the importance of a
priori concepts in understanding
the world
Most Famous Texts:


Critique of Pure Reason (1781)
Groundwork Concerning the
Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
Kant’s life

Kant entertained guests and discussed academic
topics at the dinner table
Konigsberg before the War
Kant’s tomb and statue
What is Deontology?



Some acts are right or wrong in themselves
because of the type of act they are
Deontological ethics is also known as Duty
ethics
 Some actions are always forbidden and
others are always obligatory – they are your
duty
Moral worth of an action therefore has nothing
to do with the consequences
 Consequences are outwith our control so
can’t be the source of moral worth of an act
 Contrasts with both Consequentialist ethics
and Virtue ethics (as we find in the work of
Mill and Aristotle)
The Sovereignty of Reason



Kant thinks that a priori concepts are as
important in moral philosophy as they are in
epistemology
Reason alone can deduce the principles of
morality
The idea fits in with our moral intuitions:
 We feel that in acting morally we should act
in a disinterested and impartial way
 We also feel that moral duties should be
universalisable (i.e. should apply to
everyone in similar circumstances)
 This is why murder is wrong for everyone
The Sovereignty of Reason



A morality based on reason is binding on everyone.
It has ‘authority’ or ‘sovereignty’.
To break moral rules is to go against reason
The Good Will

What is the only thing that is good without
qualification?






Answer: A good will
Everything else can be used for bad ends
Even if your action produced bad consequences
your “good will would shine through like a jewel”
So long as your action has good intentions you can
be guaranteed that is good.
Motives are more important than consequences
What motive should we act from?
Duty v Inclination




The only morally valid
motive is duty
 Doing something
simply because it’s the
right thing to do
 Acting out of respect of
the Moral Law
Duty must be contrasted
with inclination
People who are naturally
kind are not morally
praiseworthy
We can only be praised
for things we have freely
chosen to do
The Honest Shopkeeper

He may have many motives for
giving you the right change.


It is only when he does so out of
duty that his goodness is
conspicuous
We must distinguish between
acting ‘from duty’ and ‘in accord
with duty’.

Even if we act in accord with duty,
our actions may not be morally
praiseworthy
Maxims



Kant doesn’t identify specific actions we
should do, he identifies maxims of
behaviour
Maxims are underlying principles of action
that we prescribe for ourselves.
A maxim is a principle beginning with the
words “I will…”



“I will always take other people’s property
when I can get away with it”
“I will always pay my taxes on time”
“I will always hold open the door for others”
The Categorical Imperative

The categorical imperative is Kant’s test
for identifying appropriate maxims for our
actions



There are two types of imperative:
hypothetical and categorical
Hypothetical imperatives are not morally
binding but categorical imperatives are
The categorical imperative has at least
three different formulations in Kant’s work
The Categorical Imperative 1:
The Universal Law Formulation

“Act only on that maxim through which you can
at the same time will that it should become a
universal law”





Similar to the golden rule: “treat others as we would have them
treat us”
However, it is in fact a test of the logical possibility of
universalising our maxims
Kant is asking use to imagine changing our maxims from
“I will…” to “Everyone should always…”
If we act on un-universalisable maxims we are behaving
irrationally or in a self-contradictory way
There are two ways in which our behaviour can be
contradictory though:
 Contradiction in Conception
 Contradiction in the Will
Contradiction in Conception

When the maxim of an action…

“…cannot even be conceived as a universal law of
nature without contradiction, let alone be willed as what
ought to become one”.

Some maxims attempt to will something
that cannot be willed


E.g. “Always make false promises”
Problems of interpretation:



A Logical impossibility? You can’t even
conceive of the maxim.
A Practical impossibility? You could
conceive it but you could not in fact make
the maxim work because people would
abandon promise keeping.
A Teleological contradiction? You could
make it work but it would fail to achieve its
intended goal or end.
Contradiction in the Will

When we try to universalise a
maxim that isn’t logically
inconceivable but is rationally
incompatible with other
maxims you may will



E.g. “Never help others that are in
need”
We can conceive that this maxim
could be universalised without
contradiction
However, when you are infirm the
most rational way to satisfy your
desires would be to accept help
from others
The Categorical Imperative 2:
The End in Itself Formulation

“Act that you use humanity, whether in your
own person or in the person of any other ,
always at the same time as an end, never merely
as a means.”


Our fundamental dignity as human beings is
worthy of respect in its own right.
We should never use people solely as
objects to meet our own ends


E.g. Lying, stealing, some forms of
punishment do this
A common misinterpretation is that we can
never use people as a means.


E.g. Bank Teller
This is OK, so long as we don’t merely use
them as a means
The Categorical Imperative 3:
The Kingdom of Ends Formulation

“Every rational being must so act as if he were
through his maxims always a lawmaking
member in the universal kingdom of ends.”




Captures the communitarian
aspect of moral behaviour
We are not only law makers but
are subjects of these laws
If a maxim could not be willed in
such a community of ends then it
can’t be a moral one.
Similar to John Rawls’ concept of
the “Veil of Ignorance”
Reconciling the 3 Formulations

All three formulations are
supposed to amount to the same
thing and prohibit the same
actions.



Our maxims should be logically
capable of being universalised…
…universal laws require universal
compliance and consent and this
requirement for consent is to treat
people as ends and not means…
…these would be the maxims we
would sign up for in a fair society
The Problem with Motives




Do consequences have no role to play
in our moral deliberations?
Mustn’t morality have something to do
with improving the world?
Would we be obliged to follow maxims
which never led to good consequences?
Does Kant himself smuggle in
consequences by the back door?

In discussing contradiction in the will
he suggests that “others may pay you
back in your own coin”
Critical Comment:
The Problem with Maxims

Exactly what sort of contradiction
do we involve ourselves in when
we will a non-universalisable
maxim?




Some maxims that are
universalisable aren’t moral at all



Logical?
Practical?
Teleological?
E.g. “Always eat healthily”
This isn’t moral, it’s merely prudent
Does the categorical imperative
therefore only identify
permissible maxims rather than
compulsory ones?
Critical Comment:
Discerning our Duties

Doesn’t your duty depend on how
you choose to formulate you
maxim?



Isn’t a conflict of duties possible
in certain situations?


“Always commit adultery”
“Always promote sensual pleasure”
E.g. promise keeping
Can’t we be morally obliged to
deviate from certain duties?





E.g. The Case of the Enquiring Murderer
Kant thinks we should never deviate from
telling the truth
We can’t predict the consequences of either
action
Better avoid the evil you know
Is there a way of formulating the maxim so
that it is universalisable
Critical Comment:
Ignores other Good Motives


Does Kant’s account lack
humanity?
Aren’t there other motives which
are as morally worthy as duty?





Love
Art
Joy
Aren’t people who lack these
motives also morally lacking?
Can’t we be morally commended
for our inclinations if we have
spent a long time acquiring
them? (Aristotle)
Gunther Von Hagens

Is art a motive that
exempts Von Hagen’s
actions from moral
disapproval?
Criticisms of Kant:
Misguided Perceptions of Duty

Is acting from duty always the
right thing?





Is the Committed Nazi
praiseworthy?
“If I found out I were Jewish I
would want to be
exterminated”
Is such a person being
contradictory?
Kant might say our moral
duties transcend any other
culturally or politically relative
‘duties’
But is reason alone enough
to protect us from immoral
duties? Is Kant being naïve?
Punishment
Punishment

The 5 aims of punishment:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Protection
Retribution
Deterrence
Reform
Vindication
Kant on Punishment

Criminals are guilty of breaching the 1st
formulation of the categorical imperative



Their maxims are not universalisable which
is why murder, theft, deception etc are
wrong.
Kant believes that punishment must always
be proportionate.


“Act such that the maxim of your action could become a
universal law”
“If you strike another you strike yourself; if you kill another
you kill yourself” Critique of Practical Reason
The punishment must therefore fit the crime
Kant on Punishment





Kant believes in Retributive
Punishment
People should be punished
because they actually committed
the crime
Because of the need for
proportionality, the death penalty
might well be justified for certain
crimes such as murder
There must be no exceptions in the
prosecution of justice
If an island society chose to
abandon their home, their last duty
should be to execute every last
murderer, not release them, since
Justice must always be done
Kant versus Utilitarianism



Kant’s retributive position contrasts sharply
with the reformative stance of the utilitarians
“When someone who delights in annoying and
vexing peace loving folk receives at last a right
good beating, it is certainly an ill, but everyone
approves of it and considers it a good in itself,
even if nothing further results from it.”
Kant, The Philosophy of Law
“Woe to him who creeps through the serpent
windings of Utilitarianism to discover some
advantage that may discharge him from the
justice of punishment”
Kant, The Critique of Practical Reason
Kant on Punishment


Kant rejects reform, deterrence and protection
as justifications for punishment
Kant’s position is based on the 2nd version of
the categorical imperative:




“Always treat people as ends and never merely
as means”
To punish people to set an example, protect
others or rehabilitate them is to use them as a
means to your own ends.
By punishing people we are in fact treating
them with respect and recognising their status
as autonomous rational agents responsible for
their actions
Utilitarians are just using people for social
experiments
Strengths of of Kant’s Account
of Punishment

Fits in with common ideas of
justice:






The Punishment should fit the
crime
An eye for an eye
Punishment is largely about desert
Punishment should not be visited
on the innocent
Gives people responsibility for their
actions
Treats people with dignity and
respect
Weaknesses of Kant’s Account
of Punishment

Seems very harsh



Never forward looking


No exceptions or mitigating
circumstances allowed
Even the very old and very young
should be punished
Utilitarians make something positive
come out of something negative.
Do all crimes have an appropriate
punishment? (Was hanging too
good for Mussolini?)
War
War: Hiroshima Victims
What is War?




War is “armed conflict between 2 or more
groups”
Since 1945, 40,000 people die every
month from war somewhere in the world.
30 people are killed every day in Iraq, even
now the war is over
There are many types of war:
 World war
 Civil war
 Nuclear war
 Guerrilla war
 Defensive war
 Pre-emptive war
Moral Issues in Wartime






"I ain't got
no quarrel
with the
Viet cong."
Mohammed Ali


Is there such a thing as a just war?
Should you participate if your country goes
to war?
Should conscription be used to force
people to fight?
What conditions must be met to justify
being a conscientious objector?
What should be done with prisoners of
war?
How should civilians be treated during a
war?
Are there methods or weapons that it is
never justified to use during a war?
Are defensive wars any different from
offensive wars?
Kant on War


Does war fit in with the categorical
imperative?
1st formulation:




“Act such that the maxim of your action could
become a universal law”
Can we universalise the maxim that we
should kill innocent people to win a war?
 Civilians
 Conscripts
Kant says no. War is a form of punishing the
innocent (for the crimes of their leaders) which
Kant has already ruled out in his consideration
of punishment.
I could not rationally will that I should be
punished when innocent of a crime.
Kant on War

2nd formulation of the CI:




“Always treat people as ends
and never merely as means”
During a war people are
conscripted into the army and
used as a means to win the war
Sometimes civilians are used
as human shields to prevent
bombing of important sites
However Kant elsewhere
suggests that defensive wars
might be justified
Strengths of Kant’s Account
of War


Fits in with common ideas of justice:
 We should never kill innocents
 Not because killing innocents
produces bad consequences
 But because it is wrong anyway
Kantians are committed to the concept
of rules for fighting wars
 Killing should only ever be for military
objectives
 Torture and murder of innocents not
permitted
 Methods should never be
disproportionate to the intended
objective
Weaknesses of Kant’s
Account of War


Is Kant inconsistent in advocating defensive
wars?
Is anyone innocent during a war?


There are never any exceptions to following
the rules of war



Munitions workers? Pregnant women?
E.g. Should child soldiers be treated differently?
This might actually lead to greater atrocities
Conflict of Duties



What should we do when we have to choose
between 2 immoral acts?
Should we kill the enemy soldier who is about to
find a group of children?
Should we torture the prisoner of war who knows
the location of the next attack?
Euthanasia
What is Euthanasia?






Comes from the Greek
 Eu = well
 Thanatos = death
 Means “Dying well” or “a good death”
Technology allows us to sustain life longer but not
always better
Science allows us to predict how long people have to
live and what their quality of life will be
"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor
suggest any such counsel" (The Hippocratic Oath)
Legalised in the Netherlands in 2000 and in Belgium in
2002
Legalised in Australia in 1996 but revoked in 1997
Types of Euthanasia

Voluntary Euthanasia


Non-voluntary Euthanasia


When someone is not asked their opinion
even though they could give one and is
killed against their wishes
Passive Euthanasia


When the views of the dying person can’t
be known
Involuntary Euthanasia


When a dying person asks for euthanasia
Causing death by withholding treatment
Active Euthanasia

Causing death by intervention
Protesters gathered outside
Groningen Academic Hospital
in the Netherlands over plans
to extend euthanasia to
newborns
Kant on Euthanasia



Kant never discusses euthanasia.
However he does discuss suicide
It is the task of Kantians to try to construct a Kant-like
response to the issue of euthanasia from what he
says about suicide.
Kant on Suicide

The 1st formulation of the CI:



“Act such that the maxim of your action
could become a universal law”
Kant might have said that we can’t
universalise the maxim that:
 “…from self-love I adopt it as a principle to
shorten my life when its longer duration is
likely to bring more evil than satisfaction”.
This maxim, says Kant, is self-contradictory:

“Now we see at once that a system of nature
of which it should be a law to destroy life by
means of the very feeling whose special
nature it is to impel to the improvement of life
would contradict itself, and therefore could
not exist as a system of nature”
Kant on Suicide

2nd formulation of the CI:




“Act that you use humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of any
other , always at the same time as an end,
never merely as a means.”
The 2nd formulation applies to
ourselves as well as others.
It is our duty not to kill ourselves
because to do so would be to treat
ourselves as means to an end.
Human beings have to be respected
and valued which includes respecting
ourselves
Could Kant support
Euthanasia?



Universalisability:
 Committing suicide might fit in with the
universal moral law of acting from the
maxim of self-love.
 Shortening an unbearable life might be
the best way of loving yourself.
Treating People as Ends:
 If someone asks to die are we not
respecting them as rational agents?
 We are going along with their wishes, not
ours.
So perhaps Kant might support voluntary
euthanasia but not involuntary or nonvoluntary euthanasia.
Strengths of the Kantian
approach to Euthanasia

Fits in with common intuitions:




We are uneasy about euthanasia
even when it does have good
consequences
Seems to respect the sanctity of
human life
Urges us to seek positive solutions to
difficult situations
Gives clear guidelines for a
complex issue:


The Categorical imperative outlines
our duty in such cases
Avoids trying to second guess the
consequences: cures being
discovered at the last minute; people
coming out of 20 year comas etc.
Weaknesses of the Kantian
approach to Euthanasia

Kant’s views on suicide might not apply to
euthanasia




Ill people aren’t just unhappy or depressed, they
objectively and medically have no hope
Fails to recognise that there may not be positive
solutions in some situations
Is there anything dignified about dying in agony?
The categorical imperative could be
interpreted as supporting euthanasia:



We could sanction a voluntary death as an example of
universalising the maxim of self-love
We treat people as ends when we respect their
wishes
Everyone else could subscribe to this practice as a
universal law in the kingdom of ends