Kantian Ethics
“There is only
one categorical imperative. It is: act only according to that maxim by which
you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Kant’s
key principle is called The Categorical Imperative and it states
that you should only perform an action if you could agree that everyone be
permitted to act in that way:
Act only according to that maxim by which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of The
Metaphysics of Morals
The
Categorical Imperative is essentially a rationalised (and complicated) version
of the Golden Rule common to moral systems such as Christianity: treat others
the way you want to be treated. The Categorical Imperative insists that before
you perform an action you should ask yourself the question ‘would I be happy
for everyone to act in this way?’ If the answer is ‘yes’ then I may go ahead
and perform the action; if the answer is ‘no’ then clearly I think the action
is wrong, and shouldn’t be done by anyone, and so I should not do it either.
This is what we call the test of universalisation:
if an action can be done by everyone then it is acceptable, whereas if I would
not want it universalised then I should not do it myself. This is a negative
test because it only shows us what is immoral and ought not to be done.
Kantian
Ethics has impartiality and equality at its heart and it appeals to Reason for its foundations rather than
religion or other sources such as governments and personal emotions. Kant
believes that as rational agents we are all equal because we all have our own
minds, thoughts, and goals in life. There is no valid reason to suppose that
you are better than other people, and there is no valid reason to suppose that
the rules which apply to everyone else should not also apply to you. We are all
capable of rationalising our actions, so if I think it is acceptable for me to
act a certain way then surely it would also be possible for everyone else to
justify acting that way too. For example, if I think it is acceptable for me to
steal then it is also acceptable for everyone else to do it. If I would not
wish that to be the case then I should not act that way myself. Breaking rules
which I think should apply to everyone (which therefore includes myself) would
be inconsistent and irrational, even self-contradictory.
Kantian Ethics attempts to appeal to objective criteria for telling us what
is right or wrong independent of any culture, tradition, or personal
preference. Indeed, Kant saw himself as putting moral principles on a par with
mathematical truths. Like Utilitarianism it is a Universalist moral theory, meaning that it rejects Cultural
Relativism and instead offers a way of making moral decisions which should be
followed by everyone in the world.
There are actually several different ways of interpreting Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Here we will briefly look at three interpretations, although there are others, some of which are very technical and complicated.
The first interpretation, and perhaps most common, is
that certain actions cannot be universalised because they would have bad
consequences for society. For example, if we were to say that everyone is
allowed to kill and steal then this would lead to a horrible state of affairs
where there would be nothing but constant fear and death, and it may well mean
the end of the human race. This interpretation essentially sees the Categorical
Imperative as calling for us to ask “what if everyone did that?” However, this is
not actually the interpretation that Kant intends at all, because it is clearly
a teleological view based on avoiding bad consequences; this view is more like
the thinking behind Rule Utilitarianism.
A second interpretation runs something like this: “I
do not want to be harmed, so I cannot universalise a rule saying that things
such as killing and stealing are allowed, because then they could happen to me
too, and indeed happen to those I care about. Therefore, I will not kill or
steal, these things are wrong.” This is a fair interpretation of Kant because
it relates to what people could rationally will to be the case, and it yields
good practical results because it would surely lead to a wholesale ban on
actions such as murder, theft, rape, slavery, and so on. It is, however,
slightly tainted by self-interest, whereas Kant would endorse impartiality.
A third interpretation, similar to the last, runs like
this: “I believe that I have value and that I should not be harmed; other
people are no different from me and therefore they also have value and should
not be harmed. I do not want to be stolen from or killed, and nor does anyone
else, so this cannot be universalised.” This interpretation is closest to what
Kant intends because it is impartial and because Kant thought of us as having
duties to other people, and not just to ourselves; we should always act with goodwill
towards others because others have value. This again would mean that actions
such as theft, murder, and abuse are all prohibited because no one could will
that they be universally allowed.
The Second
Formulation of The Categorical Imperative
Kant offers a second version of the Categorical
Imperative, which he takes to basically add up to the same idea:
So act that you treat
humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other human being,
never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
Immanuel
Kant, Groundwork of The Metaphysics of
Morals
This means that you should never abuse other people in
order to achieve your own goals; you should not use people as a means to an
end, but see them as ‘ends in themselves.’ Each person, including yourself, has
value, and this indicates that they are not to be abused. Each person has their
own thoughts, feelings, and goals in life, just like yourself, so you should
not abuse them and deprive them of their goals for the sake of achieving your
own ends.
It is normal to use other people as a means to an end
in life, for example, when I buy food I am using the shopkeeper as a means to
the end of feeding myself. However, I must recognise that the shopkeeper has
his own life and goals, such as earning the money to feed his own family. I
must therefore dutifully respect his needs and goals, and so not steal the food.
To treat other people as a means to an end is essentially treating them like
they are just an object, a mere resource for you to use without any
consideration for their own goals and feelings. Just as I am to respect the
shopkeeper and pay him for what I take, so too he must respect me and give me
the correct goods and change. By insisting that we never use other people as a
means to an end Kant is ensuring that numerous harmful practices are
prohibited, such as stealing from other people, rape, making false promises,
and slavery. It also rules out Utilitarian ideas about using people, possibly
even abusing people, for the sake of “the greater good.”
Another
interpretation of The Categorical Imperative
There is another interpretation of the Categorical
Imperative which is highly technical and is based on the idea that some ways of
acting are actually contradictory. Kant specifically endorsed this
interpretation of the Categorical Imperative, and gave the following examples:
1.
Suppose I wish to steal something and so I act on the maxim ‘it is
acceptable to steal other people’s property.’ Kant argues that this involves a
contradiction. The notion of stealing presupposes the notion of property, but
the very idea of property is that a particular item belongs to particular
person and cannot be taken from them. If we were to universalise stealing there
would be no such thing as property, and thence no such thing as stealing, so
arguably stealing is contradictory.
2.
Suppose I wish to borrow £50 and promise to pay it back, but I intend
not to keep my promise. Here my maxim is ‘I will make false promises.’ If we
were to universalise this and allow everyone to make false promises then we
would arrive at an absurd contradiction. In order for promises to be made there
must be trust, but if we know that false promises can be made as and when
anyone feels like it then there can be no trust, so there can be no promises. Effectively
it would be impossible to universalise the maxim ‘I will make false promises’
because under such conditions promises couldn’t be made at all, let alone false
ones.
GWF Hegel argued that this interpretation
of the Categorical Imperative was weak and hollow, because it presumes that
promise making and property are good things to be protected, whereas it would be
perfectly possible to imagine a society without these, e.g. a society where
there is no private property and everything is shared. Once it is established
that promising is good we can argue that promises need to be kept and anything
that contradicts promising is bad, but we can’t just assume promising is good
and needs to exist.
Kant’s rejection of
consequentialism
Deontological
theories reject the importance of consequences in making moral decisions. Kant
rejected the role of consequences for several reasons. Firstly he thought that
it was not possible to accurately predict the consequences of your actions, for
example, you could try to help someone by lying for them and this might
actually make the situation worse, so it was better just to stick with the
principle of truthfulness. Secondly,
Kant argued that if you saw a man drowning and dived in to the sea to save him,
but failed, we would still praise you for attempting to save the man, so the
actual consequences of an action aren’t what makes it praiseworthy, what
matters is acting with good will.
Lastly, Kant thought of rational beings as each being intrinsically valuable,
you cannot put a price on the value of their life, and therefore it cannot be
right to use or destroy people to achieve goals. Teleological thinkers often
justify sacrificing individuals for the sake of their goals, wither these be
personal goals or Utilitarian goals for the good of the public at large, but in
Kant’s view persons simply cannot be used in this way, they demand respect at
all times and are not to be abused.
Good will and duty
Kant
placed a great emphasis on the motives for performing an action, and in his Groundwork of The Metaphysics of Morals
he wrote: “The only thing that is good without qualification
or restriction is a good will.” Kant
thought of good will as being a willingness to do your duty, come what may.
Kant argued that you should perform a moral action because it was the right
thing to do, and out of a sense duty, not for any non-moral reason such as to please
God, avoid punishment, or receive money. For Kant emotions, compassion, and
inclination are morally irrelevant and actions based on them are not moral
actions.
Imagine
a shopkeeper who is fair and honest in his dealings and always gives his
customers the right change, but only does this because he thinks it is the best
way to operate his business for his own profit, after all, if he gets a
reputation for dodgy dealing then his profits will suffer. Kant would argue
that whilst he is doing the right thing he is doing it for the wrong reasons,
and therefore that his action is not morally praiseworthy. If his only motive
is profit, and he sees a chance to make a profit by defrauding a customer, then
surely he would do it? Meanwhile, surely morality demands that you do the right
thing and respect other people regardless of what you get out of it? Hence
actions are only moral if motivated by duty.
Hypothetical Imperatives &
Categorical Imperatives
In
Kant’s view good deeds come from a sense of obligation: the duty to obey a
moral rule whether you want to or not. In other words, he thought that moral
rules were categorical imperatives rather than hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical
imperatives are optional, and take the format ‘if you want x then do y’ for
example, ‘if you want to do well in your exams, then study hard’ or ‘if you
want to get to Wales from London then take the M4.’ These are pieces of practical advice and if
you don’t want to do well in your exams or go to Wales you can ignore them. Kant
argued that moral principles are not hypothetical imperatives because they are
not optional. We should not say ‘if you want to live in a peaceful society,
then do not kill’ but rather we should simply say ‘do not kill.’ This
imperative is categorical because it is not option, there is no ‘if’ and it
does not depend on your desires or inclinations.
Perfect and Imperfect Duties
According
to Kant the Categorical Imperative leads to two kinds of duty, perfect duties
and imperfect duties. Perfect duties are obligatory and must be obeyed by all
people; they are generally negative because they consist in not harming other
people, or indeed, in not harming oneself (Kant was against suicide). It would
not be possible to universalise things like killing or stealing or lying, or
slavery, so we have perfect duties not to do these things.
However,
although we do have strict obligations not to harm other people, it seems that
there is no strict obligation to actually help others. It would be perfectly
possible to universalise the rule “look after your own needs and never help
other people.” But Kant argues that few of us would actually want to
universalise such a principle. If you would want other people to help you then
it is inconsistent and hypocritical not to help others when they need it.
Indeed, the principle ‘I will take help but never give any’ cannot be
universalised, that would actually be impossible, because if nobody gave any
help there would never be any to take. Kant believes people have a right to
seek their own ends, so long as they do not hurt others; the positive duty to
help other people, therefore, is optional and so is ‘imperfect.’ However,
Kant’s morality strongly encourages us to help others since most of us would
want to be helped.
Criticisms of Kantian Ethics
There
are numerous criticisms of Kant’s moral theory, not least amongst which are the
accusations that it is too strict and impractical. What follows are the major
criticisms. As you read these, consider what a Kant could say to defend his moral
theory.
1) Kant’s Absolutism
The
major problem with Kant’s philosophy appears to be that it is inflexible and
impractical because it appears to take an absolutist stance on various actions:
you should never lie, never kill, never steal, always keep your promises, and
so on. But surely in some situations actions which are not normally allowed
might be justified, such as lying to save a life, yet Kant denies this
insisting that you should never lie:
If you have by a lie hindered a man who is even now planning
a murder, you are legally responsible for all the consequences. But if you have
strictly adhered to the truth, public justice can find no fault with you, be
the unforeseen consequence what it may.
Immanuel Kant, On a Supposed Right to Tell
Lies from Benevolent Motives
However,
there is a second way of reading the Categorical Imperative which would allow
for a degree of relativism to the situation, such as lying to save a life. If
we look carefully at the Categorical Imperative we can see that it is not the
specific action that we are called
upon to universalise, but the principle
or maxim which brings us to this
action:
Act only according to that
maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law.
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of The
Metaphysics of Morals
The
principles on which we act vary depending on the situation, for example, there
are various different reasons for killing: you might kill in self-defence, or
for revenge, or for personal financial gain, or again you might execute a
murderer, or shoot an enemy soldier in war. Each of these examples of killing
is performed based on a different principle, for example, the soldier may be
acting on a principle of protecting innocent lives or serving his country, and
the executioner may be acting on a principle of justice. Kant did not say that
all killing was wrong and that it should never happen, indeed, quite the
opposite because he supported the death penalty:
If an offender has committed murder, he
must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice.
For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so
that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is
judicially put to death.
Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of
Morals
Kant viewed the death penalty as justice, since no prison term could equate to the loss of life; he was against killing as a deterrent and wished for the killing to be humane, but none the less, in this situation killing is allowed: a relativist view. When it comes to killing we are not meant to ask the simplistic question ‘would I wish for killing to be universally allowed’ but instead we are to ask more specific questions such as ‘would I wish for killing in self-defence to be universally allowed.’ It may well be true that just about everyone would rule out killing for selfish gain, but most people would happily allow a right to kill in self-defence to be universalised, and the same applies to lying to save a life. Indeed, Kant makes it clear in the following comment that the situation and context does indeed make a difference to what can be done and what cannot:
For an action to be morally valid, the agent – or
person performing the act – must not carry out the action unless he or she
believes that, in the same situation, all people should act in the same way.
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for The
Metaphysics of Morals
It
seems that Kant was inconsistent in his application of the Categorical
Imperative because sometimes he focused on the action to be universalised and
at other times he focused on the maxim or principle, allowing the context to
play a role. Though Kant did argue that lying should never be permitted, he
later retracted this statement in favour of a relativist approach.
2) Principles can clash
In
many ways this problem is part of the former problem, it is perhaps just a
different way of putting the same point. Suppose again that you are hiding your
brother because someone wants to kill him. The man comes to your door and asks
whether your brother is home or not. Do you tell the truth or lie? Surely this is not just a simple matter of
whether you should be honest or not, but we actually have a clash between two
principles. On the one hand there is the principle that you ought to save life,
then on the other hand there is the principle that you ought to tell the truth.
It seems that whatever you do you are in the wrong: whatever you do you will be
breaking an important principle.
According
to WD Ross (1877 – 1971) in order to
solve the problems with deontological approaches to morality we need identify the
different duties that we have, and decide which duty is more important in this
specific situation. The duty which sticks out as most important is the prima facie duty, and it is the one we
should stick to. Ross identified six different kinds of duty:
- Duties of fidelity – keeping promises and
making up for past mistakes.
- Duties of gratitude – repaying debts, e.g.
being kind to your parents who raised you.
- Duties of justice – where we act to bring
about equal distribution of happiness.
- Duties of beneficence – acting to better
other people, e.g. charity or education.
- Duties of self-improvement – acting to
better your own life, e.g. business interests.
- Duties of non-malificence – refraining
from doing harm to others.
The
problem with WD Ross’ approach is that it is not always easy to see which
principle should be looked upon as the most important. If keeping a promise
will mean that someone will get hurt then should I keep the promise or not? If
I have an opportunity to improve my own situation, or to improve that of
another person, then which is to take priority? It seems sensible to say that
some duties are more important than others, but it is not clear how we should
go about ranking them, and this may make the ranking subjective. Indeed, it may
be that in order to rank the duties we will start having to think about the
consequences, and if we do this then we are departing from a deontological
perspective.
3) Universalisation can be
subjective
Kant’s
first formulation of the Categorical Imperative demands that the principle or
maxim that you act on must be universalisable, capable of being followed by
all. All this really means is that you should only do x if you think that other
people should also be allowed to do x. However, seemingly different people will
universalise different moral rules.
The
average person would say that ‘I may use violence to protect myself’ is a
perfectly universalisable maxim, self-defence seems justified, even if it requires
the ultimate force of killing. However, a pacifist would be unwilling to
universalise any kind of violence at all. As a person raised in a Western
society you may well say that you would not universalise the maxim ‘those who
have dishonoured their parents may be killed’, but a person raised in a society
with honour killings may well be happy to universalise this and say that anyone
who brings shame on their family deserves to die. As far as they are concerned
it is simply a form of the death penalty being used on those who have committed
a seriously wrong act, dishonouring the family that gave them life in the first
place. What counts as universalisable seems to be quite subjective between
different individuals and different cultures.
4) Anything can be
universalised
Universalisation
does not seem to be enough to ensure that moral rules are stringent, especially
if the context is allowed to play a role. Julian
Baggini gives the following example: Constance has fallen in love with her
best friend’s rich husband, and she finds herself with the opportunity to leave
her own husband and run away with him. Normally she wouldn’t get involved with
adultery at all, after all, she wouldn’t like it if someone cheated on her, so
she could not universalise adultery. But life is more complicated than that.
When we lock criminals up we are not saying ‘I too wish to be put in prison’
but only ‘I too should be put in prison if I am in the same circumstances as
these criminals.’ Context is everything. So she reasons to herself ‘would I
allow everyone to commit adultery if it makes them really rich and really
happy?’ She decides that the answer is ‘yes’ – a small amount of adultery in
the world under these circumstances wouldn’t be such a bad thing, so she goes
ahead and does it.
As Richard Norman puts it, Kant’s idea of
universalisation of principles seems to just indicate that we have to be more
subtle in the formulation of our maxims in order to get to do what we want.
Norman argues that the second formulation (treat other people as “ends in
themselves”) is a much stronger principle because it directly gives us reasons
not to harm other people and gives a strong indication that rational beings
deserve rights.
5) Morality has become cold and emotionless
Many
people view Kant’s philosophy as cold and emotionless because he says we should
be motivated by good will and duty rather than out of inclinations. Suppose
that two teenaged brothers received news that their old auntie was in hospital
and was seriously ill. The first brother really likes his auntie and so goes to
see her out of this inclination with a smile on his face. The second brother
doesn’t like his auntie at all, but out of a sense of duty he goes to visit her
all the same because he knows it is the right thing to do. Kantian Ethics seems
to suggest that the second brother, who acted out of duty, is the morally good
one. The first brother only visits because he likes his auntie, and if he
didn’t like her he wouldn’t go. The second brother goes even though he doesn’t
want to, he is motivated by duty, and that’s what morality is all about: doing
the right thing whether you want to or not, regardless of whether you get
something out of it or enjoy it. This makes morality seem cold and emotionless,
as if it is all about rational calculation rather than any kind of care or
love. As Friedrich Schiller put it when mocking Kantian Ethics, since helping
friends out of inclination is not virtuous “you must seek to despise
them and do with repugnance what duty bids you.”
However,
this might be called a misinterpretation of Kant; Kant says there is nothing
wrong with caring about people, and acting on that care, it is just that a
truly good person should do something even if he does not want to.
6) Kantian duty is impersonal
This
criticism is connected with the former criticism about morality becoming cold
and emotionless. Before Kantian Ethics the idea of duty was bound up with
specific relationships: you had duties to your family, to your employer, to
your society or king, and to your God. Kant makes duty in to a generalised
concept based on reason rather than emotion and relationships with others. Like
other Enlightenment philosophies (such as Utilitarianism) there is an emphasis
on impartiality, and there is no conception of specific duties to specific
people. Under Kantian Ethics staying faithful to your partner, for example, is
simply a matter of keeping your promises, and not hurting their feelings
because you would not want yours hurt; effectively you are to treat your spouse
the same way as you treat anyone else and emotions, compassion, and personal
links aren’t meant to come in to moral decisions at all.
7) Kantian Ethics stands in
the way of progress
According
to teleological theories such as Utilitarianism we should perform the action
which brings about the best consequences. For Utilitarians morality is all
about improving the world, and sometimes it will be necessary to do some quite
awful things to people to achieve this, for example, in order to discover a
cure for a disease which is affecting millions of people, you might have to do
some very painful or even deadly experiments on a small number of people. Or
again, in order to find the whereabouts of a massive bomb you might well have
to torture the bomber to get him to reveal his secrets. Whilst a Utilitarian
will say that these things have to be done for the greater good, a Kantian will
insist that these are examples of using people as a means to an end and so they
can never be universalised or justified. But surely this stands in the way of
important social goals which many people would argue are worth the sacrifice
and abuse; can we really say ‘we can’t torture this man as that means treating
him as a means to an end’ when the consequence will be the deaths of thousands
of other people? A Utilitarian would say that this was putting the needs of the
few before the needs of the many, and that it was a case of following the rules
without a regard for the bigger picture.
Kant’s most important contributions to moral philosophy have been his two formulations of the Categorical Imperative, a law which Kant believed all rational people had to agree with. The first formulation tells us only to perform an action if it can be universalised, i.e. if it can be done by everyone. Some say that this is an unhelpful principle as practically anything can be universalised under one maxim or another. The second formulation states that we should treat other rational beings as ‘ends in themselves’ and so respect them and not merely use them like things to achieve our own goals. Whilst this would give people rights and protection from abuse, this may also be impractical and prevent the achievement of social goals.
Kant’s
morality is generally interpreted in absolutist terms, providing strict duties
to be followed in all circumstances, but this leads to numerous problems
because it might be argued that sometimes actions like lying or stealing are
necessary, and often that different principles or duties can clash. Another
interpretation is that an action is acceptable depending on whether you think
anyone could perform it in a particular situation; this opens up the door to a
more relative approach to morality, but then it becomes difficult to know where
to stop.
Suggested further reading:
Michael
Palmer, Moral Problems Robert Bowie, Ethical Studies
Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Basics
No comments:
Post a Comment