Kantian Ethics

Keywords:

Deontological: Ethics based on duty
Categorical: In all cases
Hypothetical: In some cases
Imperative: A moral statement
Postulate: Suggest or assume the existence of
Summum Bonum: Highest good

The Good Will

In Kant’s ethics, the “good will” is the only thing that is good without qualification, meaning it is good in itself, not because of what it achieves or leads to.
It is not about consequences, personal gain, happiness or any other outcome. It is about acting out of duty and doing the right thing for the sake of the moral law.
The good will is guided by reason. Kant's ethics are rational based.
Therefore morality is reason combined with duty.

The Categorical vs Hypothetical Imperative

There are two types of rules that command how we act: Hypothetical and Categorical.
Hypothetical Imperatives are "if" statements. These are rules that focus on outcomes. They are individual and are less important.
Categorical Imperatives, on the other hand, are not "if" statements. They are universal and they apply to everyone.
Moral laws are categorical.

The Contradiction in Conception

There are two ways to work out whether a rule is Categorical or not. This is the first.
A contradiction in conception occurs when universalising a maxim makes the action itself impossible.
If everyone were allowed to steal, the idea of private property would not exist as no one could claim ownership over anything.
But if property doesn’t exist, stealing can’t exist either.
The maxim destroys the very conditions that make the action possible.
When a maxim leads to this kind of contradiction, Kant says we have a perfect duty not to act on it. It is always wrong.

The Contradiction in Will

This is the second test to work out whether a rule is Categorical.
A contradiction in will asks whether we can rationally will a maxim (rule) to be universal.
For example: the rule “Do not help others in need.” doesn’t produce a contradiction in conception, the idea itself is possible, but we still cannot rationally will it.
The reason for this is everyone at some point will need someone else's help. If we need a certain outcome, or end, we must will the necessary means (getting help).
So we cannot will a world where no one helps anyone, while also having goals that require assistance.
This doesn’t create a logical impossibility but conflicts with what any rational agent must will, it generates an imperfect duty. Sometimes we must help others, though not in every possible situation.

The First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

If you did universalise lying no one would tell the truth anymore, ever. This then means that truth stops existing. If truth stops existing then lying becomes impossible. Thus, a contradiction in conception arises.

There are three formulations to the Categorical Imperative.
The first is that a maxim (rule) must be able to be universalised. This means that a statement must be able to be done by every single person at all times and no logical problems arise.
‘Act only according to that maxim by which you could at the same time will it become a universal law’. – Kant.
Anything you cannot universalise cannot be moral because it will lead to a contradiction.
For example, you cannot universalise lying in any circumstance.

The Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

The Second Formulation is to always treat people as ends, not means.
This means don’t use people, or abuse yourself.
Our reason makes us a rational agent and everyone is equal, no better or worse than anyone else.
As rational agents, we all seek ends / goals. No one's end is more important that anyone else's.
Therefore, to treat a person as if they were just a means to an end is irrational as it contradicts the fact that they have their own end.
Kant says that if we were only means: “nothing at all of absolute worth would be encountered anywhere”

The Third Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

The Third Formulation is a reminder to always act on the moral law.
"Act as if you were through your maxim a law-making member of a kingdom of ends"
If everyone followed Kant’s ethics we would live in a ‘kingdom of ends’, a world of rational beings where everyone was treated as an end.
Because we are not perfect and people do make mistakes, we do not live in a kingdom of ends. But we should act as if we do.
We should not put aside the moral law just because others might not be following it.

The Three Postulates

Kant ethical theory is rational. Maxims can be deduced via reason.
However, in order for ethics to make sense, we need to assume three postulates:
God: allows us into an afterlife where good people are rewarded with happiness. This is the highest good, or the summum bonum.
Immortality (of the soul in an afterlife): good people are not always rewarded in life, but they will be rewarded with happiness in the afterlife.
Free will: without free will, we could not be responsible for our actions and thus ethics would be pointless. Having free will gives our actions value.

Problem: Not all Universal Maxims are moral (and vice versa)

Kant says that universalisation is a required part of deciding whether a maxim is moral or not. But, this can sometimes give counter-intuitive results.
A maxim is considered morally wrong if, when universalised, it creates a contradiction in conception. But we can often avoid this contradiction simply by universalising something way more narrow.
For example, “steal from people whose name begins with M only” can be universalised without collapsing the concept of property. As it can be universalised, it is considered moral. But that's obviously not the case.
The problem also appears the other way around and some maxims cannot be universalised even though they are not necessarily immoral.
For example, the maxim “always choose the window seat on a plane” can’t be a universal law as there are limited window seats. But choosing a window seat is obviously morally fine.
This suggests that universalisability alone doesn’t capture all of our moral intuitions.

Problem: Ignores Consequences

Consequences seem like such a fundamental part of our choice making that it seems very counter-intuitive to neglect them.
This is a situation where Utilitarianism may seem more attractive as Kantian Ethics can seem very harsh or restrictive.
For example, according to Kant, stealing is NEVER permissible in any circumstance. This is the case even if you were to steal bread to save your family's life.
Arguably, Kant's rules are too rigid for a normative ethical system. His rules can lead to absurd results that, realistically, no one would choose.

Problem: Ignores Valuable Motivations

Kant claims that only actions done from duty have moral worth. Actions done from feelings like love, sympathy, or genuine concern, have none.
If you help someone because you care, Kant says the action has no moral value. Yet if you don’t care at all and help only out of a strict sense of duty, then it does have moral value. This seems absurd.
Kant appears to treat kind, caring motives as morally empty, while valuing reluctant, emotionless duty instead.
Response: There isn't anything wrong with being motivated by feelings such as love or sympathy but we cannot let these emotions be our sole guide. We should always act in accordance with duty and if we feel happy about it, then that is just a bonus.

Problem: Clashing Duties

Perfect duties are things that Kant says we should always follow.
But there are some situations where we are faced with two perfect duties that conflict with each other and we will end up violating one of them.
We have a perfect duty to never lie and we also have a perfect duty to never break a promise. Violating either of these maxims would lead to a contradiction.
What would happen if you made a promise to someone but then find yourself in a situation where the only way to keep that promise is by telling a lie? Whichever choice you make you will seemingly violate one of your duties.

Problem: Phillipa Foot and Hypothetical Imperatives

Philippa Foot argues that moral statements are not categorical and there are no unconditional,
universal reasons to follow moral laws.
Instead, morality works more like a system of hypothetical imperatives.
Hypothetical imperatives make sense because they are tied to clear motivations
(“If you want X, then do Y”). But the categorical imperative offers no such motivation.
Even maxims that seem to be universally agreed (you should not kill anyone) are tied to an outcome. Whether that outcome is avoiding sadness, guilt, going to jail etc.
Kant says that not following the categorical imperative is irrational, but there is nothing irrational about ignoring it if you never accepted it in the first place.
The categorical imperative does not provide a rational reason to obey it. Moral rules should therefore be understood as conditional.