KANTIAN ETHICS A DEFINITION OF KANTIAN ETHICS: A person who acts out of a sense of the good will, following reason, which is a priori (innate); doing duty for duty s sake and so acting according to the categorical imperative. HISTORCIAL BACKGROUND PLATONIC TRADITION (4 TH CENTURY BCE): Kant worked within a Platonic tradition and, like Plato, believed in two realms of human existence: (1) The intelligible world which Kant called the Noumenal realm. (The inaccessible world of things in themselves; constant and unchanging) and (2) The sensible world which Kant called the phenomenal realm. (The world as it appears to us, changing and transient) LUTHERAN BACKGROUND (16 TH CEBTURY CE): The Lutheran background of Kant s parents emphasized intrinsic values such as sincerity, honesty and integrity as opposed to church doctrine (official teachings). The foundation for Kant s universal idea of duty was also a feature of the pietism of the Lutheran church and so may have influenced this feature of Kant s categorical imperative. JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU (18 TH CENTURY CE): There is an `urban myth of the time when Kant was so engrossed by reading Rousseau s Social Contract that he was delayed for his famous daily `philosopher s walk and the townsfolk, who kept their watches by Kant s daily walk, were all late for their appointments that day! Central to Jean-Jacques Rousseau s Social Contract is the freedom and dignity of all human beings. This influenced Kant s ideas, as only by having free will and following their rational selves are people truly autonomous. People are capable of establishing their own code of morality; as opposed to having morality imposed upon them by a moral law giver, be it God or the church. ISAAC NEWTON (18 TH CENTURY): Newton explained the physical world as being governed by universal laws of nature. Kant accepted Newton s laws of nature as governing the sensible, empirical world (which Kant called the phenomenal realm) Yet Kant also asserted the intelligible realm (which he called 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 1
the noumenal realm) accessible by reason alone. Such a realm is the moral realm, accessible through reason alone which, like Newton s laws of nature, is universal. DAVID HUME (18 TH CENTURY): Kant was greatly impressed by the Scottish philosopher, yet wished to part company from much of his work. For Hume sympathy and benevolence were essential for human moral development as opposed to the dictates of reason, reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions (David Hume). However, for Kant, reason was paramount, Unless reason takes the reins of government into its own hands, the feelings and inclinations play the master over the man. (Kant) Much of Kant s moral philosophy is a rejection of Hume s ideas which place emotions at the centre of human moral decision making. THE ENLIGHTENMENT (18 TH CENTURY): Kant was writing at the dawn of the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason. As Kant himself stated, (describing the Enlightenment), Enlightenment is man s emergence from self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! (Dare to Know) Have courage to use your own understanding! That is the motto of enlightenment. (What is Enlightenment 1784). KANT S VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE In order to fully appreciate Kant s ethical approach it is essential to have awareness of his view of human nature. According to Kant human beings experience a tension between two parts of their nature: desires and inclinations versus reason. Desires and inclinations are similar to that of animals who follow their desires and inclinations only; they have no reason, so behave in accordance to the empirical realm of cause and effect, led by their appetite and instincts. On the other hand Kant believed that God and angels are perfectly rational beings, without appetites and desires to lead them astray from following reason and objective moral laws. In the middle of these two is human nature, experiencing the tension of desires and inclinations (their animal self) versus the voice of reason (their God-like self). Human beings may only be moral when they freely decide to follow their rational selves. THE PHENOMENAL REALM AND THE NOUMENAL REALM Kant worked within a Platonic tradition, and, like Plato, believed in two realms of human existence. The intelligible world is the inaccessible world of things in themselves, constant and unchanging such a world Kant called the noumenal realm. Whereas the sensible world is the world as it appears to us, 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 2
changing and transient, this Kant called the phenomenal realm. Kant s view of human nature (sharing the `animal self of desires / appetites and an `angelic self of reason) means that humans have access to both the noumenal (through reason alone) and phenomenal (through senses) realms. Kant argued that just as Newton s laws of science explained how the phenomenal world is governed by universal laws of nature, so the moral law, based on reason, a priori, is also universal and absolute, though it operates within the noumenal realm. AUTONOMY VERSUS HETERONOMY Kant asserted that human beings are rational and therefore may use their freedom to act according to the good will and are therefore autonomous moral agents. The rational person is not influenced by their desires or inclinations and does not have moral laws imposed upon them by an external body: be it the church, state or God such heteronomy (other laws) is rejected by Kant. The ground for obligation must be looked for, not in the nature of man nor in the circumstances of the world in which he is placed, but soley a priori in the concepts of pure reason. (Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals) For Kant moral freedom comes when we transcend the phenomenal realm and by following reason enter the noumenal realm, When we think of ourselves as free, we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world and recognise the autonomy of the will together with its consequences morality; whereas when we think of ourselves as under obligation, we look upon ourselves as belonging to the sensible realm. (Kant Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals) Clearly, central to Kant moral philosophy is the premise that human beings are creatures who can act rationally, Everything in nature works in accordance with laws. Only a rational being has the power to act in accordance with his idea of laws that is in accordance with principles and only so has he a will. (Kant Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals) THE GOOD WILL SHINES FORTH LIKE A PRECIOUS JEWEL (KANT) Kant maintained that the good will is the sole intrinsic good as it is good in itself and requires no further qualification. It is different from other goods, such as pleasure or courage, as other goods can be misused by wicked people and so they cease to be good. By contrast the good will always adopts a motive of willing the good for its own sake, according to reason. The good will is grounded in the freedom of the individual. It is not imposed upon someone by the state, church or any other organization. The individual follows their moral, noumenal, self and so is free from the causal necessity of the phenomenal realm. The good will is known a priori through reason and not a posteriori through sense experience. Sense experience, the empirical realm, is dependent on peoples desires and inclinations and as such it is no basis for the moral law. The moral law acts in accordance with reason 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 3
and is therefore universal and absolute. Being known a priori, through reason, the good will is a democratic ethic open to every rational human being and is therefore not elitist unlike some aristocratic regimes who imposed moral laws on the under-class. The good will acts out of a sense of duty to the moral law which is understood by reason, a priori. The good will does not act out of a sense of pursuing happiness, as Kant recognised that happiness is:(a) not an unqualified good i.e. a person wishes to be happy for a purpose and (b) happiness without good will is undeserved luck and at the mercy of other factors. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE VERSUS THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE The categorical imperative is an unconditional command, willed as an end in itself: Do `x for the sake of `x. It is an intrinsic good, discerned a priori, through the use of reason, its commands are universal and absolute. The categorical imperative adopts a deontological approach to ethics; duty for duty s sake, By contrast the hypothetical imperative is a conditional command, willed as a means to an end: Do `x if you wish to achieve `y. Hypothetical imperatives are concerned with instrumental goods, influenced by desires and inclination; its commands are relative to the situation. Hypothetical imperatives are consequential; where the end justifies the means. Kant has three main categorical imperatives: (1) ACT ONLY ON THAT MAXIM THROUGH WHICH YOU CAN AT THE SAME TIME WILL THAT IT SHOULD BECOME A UNIVERSAL LAW. This ensures that moral judgements are impartial and objective and so avoid the dangers of appealing to self-interest. Reason maintains that the moral law be applied universally; to admit to exceptions to the rule would be inconsistent and therefore illogical. (2) TREAT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS AS AN END IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, NEVER AS A MEANS TO AN END. People should be treated with respect and dignity as all human beings are rational beings and therefore are worthy of the respect of the moral law. Kant deliberately asserts a moral law that upholds equality and does not treat people differently according to class, wealth or race. Such a forward looking ethic of equality was counter cultural, challenging the hierarchical structure of eighteenth century Western European society. (3) ACT AS THOUGH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A LAW MAKING KINGDOM OF ENDS. Kant regarded the moral community as a kingdom of people who should apply moral maxims in such a way that showed respect for others (based on their rationality) and, in line with reason, moral maxims should be universal in application thus maintaining the justice of impartiality. 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 4
KANT S MORAL PROBLEM! However, there was one significant problem for Kant s moral philosophy. Kant maintained that: The universe is rational. Virtuous people will be happy Wicked people will suffer But in the world: Wicked people quite often prosper. Virtuous people suffer Therefore the universe is not rational!? Therefore to resolve this inconsistency and to maintain a belief in a rational universe where the summum bonum (highest good) is achieved Kant postulates 1.The Existence of God, 2.The immortality of the soul 3.Human beings have free will. For God acts as a moral guarantor a just authority which makes sure that those who have been virtuous are rewarded, therefore guaranteeing the rationality of the universe. (Socrates Says: Understanding the word postulate is vital to appreciating Kant s moral reasoning. Kant is not saying that he has proven the existence of God. Rather, the term `postulate means to assume without proof, especially as the basis of an argument. So, for Kant, in order for the universe to be rational it is necessary to postulate that humans have an immortal soul which, after bodily death, is judged by God. God s existence therefore is a necessary postulate; as God acts as a moral guarantor ensuring that justice occurs. Those who have lived a moral life on earth in accord with the good will receive eternal happiness. BENEFITS OF KANT S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE HUMAN BEINGS ARE MORALLY AUTONOMOUS, AUTHORS OF THEIR OWN MORALITY In the phenomenal realm Kant respected the determined universal laws of nature, as outlined by Isaac Newton. However, in the noumenal realm Kant asserted humanity s freedom to decide for themselves the good will, a priori, through the use of reason. According to Kant s view of human nature (rational and empirical selves) it is up to the individual whether to assert their freedom by acting rationally, or let themselves be governed by empirical desires and inclinations. Therefore morals are not imposed upon the rational individual by external sources of authority, e.g. church, state, God. It really is up to the individually to decide their own morality. 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 5
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE PROMOTES EQUALITY AND IS IMPARTIAL Two of Kant s categorical imperatives state that people should treat other human beings as an end in their own right, never as a means to an end and that, secondly, one should act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Such a philosophy was radical, challenging the accepted social convention of the nineteenth century which practised social discrimination. Rather, Kant s vision was to replace such a hierarchical outlook with a morality which was grounded in reason and was impartial and egalitarian. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE PROVIDES A DEONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE WHICH ENABLES PEOPLE TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE SPECIFIC MORAL CONTENT The deontological structure of the categorical imperative offers a uniform basis for people s actions but has the significant benefit of being content free, so people may autonomously decide the content of their own specific moral maxims. Laws are not imposed by external authorities, such as the Church or Government, rather the individual decides rationally, a priori, what action to follow, bring led by the good will and whether their maxims fulfil the remits of the categorical imperatives: universal application, treating people as an end in their own right. KANT S EMPHASIS ON REASON AND DUTY OFFERS AN ALTERNATIVE VISION FOR A MATERIALISTIC SOCIETY In today s Western Capitalist Meritocracy there is a danger that goodness is understood through monetary terms. (How often do students at school associate a `good job with a well paid job?) The individual in today s secular society is faced with the lure of brand labels and images which promote an egotistical, materialistic life-style. (The philosophy of Ayn Rand, who believed The achievement of his own happiness is man s highest moral purpose seems to have permeated the late twentieth century European culture.) To act as an antidote to an egotistical society the idea of duty encourages people to think again about their obligations to others. Duty tries to correct a fragmented society where individuals think only of themselves, by placing reason above desires and inclinations. KANT VALUES INTRINSIC HUMAN GOODS E.G. FREEDOM AND DIGNITY Kant was deeply influenced by Rousseau s philosophy which emphasised the inherent dignity and freedom of humanity. Such goods are not dependent upon consequential gain or benefits, but logically discerned through reason according to the good will. Nina Rosenstand, The Moral of the Story, explores (through the work of Ronald Dworkin, a modern day Kantian) how the value and importance of intrinsic goods enable a society to function effectively e.g. freedom of speech. 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 6
PROBLEMS OF KANT S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE TOO RIGID, DEONTOLOGICAL AND ABSOLUTE By adopting a rigid deontological approach which focuses exclusively on the moral law Kant s categorical imperative of universal application produces absolute, exceptionless, moral maxims which may produce terrible consequences. In many respects it seems unreasonable to ask people to abdicate their moral responsibility for consequences that are likely to occur simply because they are following `duty for duty s sake ; morals which are universal and absolute. For example when asked by a fanatical gunman where your teacher is hiding should you adopt the Kantian universal maxim of never tell a lie? Such a course of action seems to go against commonsense and it appears highly questionable to argue that you are in no way responsible for your teacher s untimely demise! FAILS TO ACCOMMODATE HUMAN EMOTIONS Kant focuses too much on reason and should accept that desires and inclinations are important qualities of what it is to be a human being. Whilst one might not wish to go all the way with David Hume who argued that, reason is and ought to be a slave of the passions it does seem that people are highly influenced by their emotions when taking moral decisions. Such emotions are valuable and, Hume would argue, form the very basis for sympathy and consideration for our fellow human beings. In many respects emotions are what make us human and to ignore them takes us down the road to an android, robotic future where moral interactions are impersonal and cold. REASON IS COLD AND IMPERSONAL Duty, without guidance from human benevolence and sympathy, can lead to rigid moral fanaticism e.g. Trial of Adolf Eichmann, Chief Administrator of the Holocaust, Jerusalem 1961. The official record of Adolf Eichmann s pre-trial police examination reads, Eichmann suddenly declared with great emphasis that he had lived his whole life according to Kant s moral precepts, and especially according to a Kantian definition of duty I meant by my remark about Kant that the principle of my will must always be such that it can become the principle of general laws. Eichmann also cited, in support of his Kantian attitude to his duty, the fact that out of the millions of cases that passed through his hands, he allowed sympathy to sway him from his path of duty on only two occasions. The implication clearly is that on other occasions he felt sympathy for the Jews he was sending to the gas chambers, but because he believed one should do one s duty unaffected by sympathy, he steadfastly stuck to his duty, instead of being tempted to bend the rules and help the Jews. (quoted in How Are We To Live, Peter Singer) It is noteworthy that Martha Nussbaum has praised Aristotle s Virtue ethics as although it recognizes the importance of reason (or phronesis) it is very much aware of the need to complement reason with appropriate emotions and a golden mean (balanced) appetite if human beings are to flourish. In the 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 7
words of Aristotle, We may even go so far as to state that the man who does not enjoy performing noble actions is not a good man at all. Nobody would call a man just who does not enjoy acting justly, nor generous who does not enjoy generous actions (Nichomachean Ethics) KANT S CONTRADICTION: IS VIRTUE NOT ITS OWN REWARD? A serious criticism of any philosophy is that of inconsistency; and it is this weaknesses that is charged against Kant. Kant s good will emphasises that one ought to do the good will simply because reason shows that it is good. One s motive is that of the categorical imperative, upholding intrinsic values, and not that of hypothetical or consequential gain. However, an analysis of Kant s philosophy suggests that at the last moment Kant seems to appeal to a consequential, hypothetical imperative, as justification for behaving in a virtuous way. This consequential justification, that virtue will be rewarded by happiness after bodily death, suggests that the good will is not followed purely for its own sake but rather for the posthumous prize of eternal happiness, so undermining the whole of Kant s supposedly deontological ethic. Furthermore, it seems ironic that Kant should reject belief in God as the authority for ethics (on the grounds that human beings would cease to be autonomous) and yet, in order to make sense of his belief in justice, Kant ends up postulating the existence of God as a divine moral guarantor. One may also ask `Why does one need a God to act as a moral guarantor? Why not simply a powerful angelic being? THE GOOD WILL IS NOT ENOUGH, CONSEQUENCES DO MATTER! Like Kant, Karl Marx considered that as people are rational they are capable of making free choices and should be treated with respect, ends in their own right, not as means to a capitalist end. People should collectively act as though they were a member of a law making kingdom of ends. However, a crucial difference between Kant and Marx was Marx s view that, The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. Marx s historical materialism demonstrates his belief that it was essential to change people s social situation. Having a good will is not enough. The consequences of moral action and social goals which result in a fairer society are extremely important. KANT IS SPECIESIST AND HAS A LACK OF RESPECT FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS Kant s view of human nature reflects his view that human beings are superior to animals due to their rational ability. But as far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man. However Jeremy Bentham would have strongly disagreed with Kant as Bentham considered, The question is not can they reason, can they talk, but can they suffer? Central to utilitarianism is the criterion of personhood; in particular sentience: the ability to feel pleasure 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 8
or pain. More recently Peter Singer, a preference utilitarian, has developed Bentham s thinking; Singer argues that Kant s ethical philosophy is ill-informed as many animals do have rationality, and more importantly fulfil other aspects of personhood, such as sentience (ability for sense experience), self consciousness and can establish relationships (e.g. chimps and dolphins). IS DUTY REALLY A UNIVERAL CONCEPT? Kant s generalized understanding of `doing one s duty is not as universal to human nature as he might have one believe. Rather it seems to have its basis in the particular historical and social context of the pietism of Kant s Lutheran background which many people consider to be no longer relevant in a secular age. DUTY IS INFLUENCED BY ONE S CULTURE, NOT REASON? By completely separating the concept of `duty from any intended results Kant s view of duty becomes vague and contentless. The understanding of duty is usually understood within a specific context or tradition. Kant s idea that one has an innate, a priori understanding of duty which is discerned through reason is challenged by different cultural and anthropological practices where contrasting moral maxims are universalized e.g. some societies are polygamous where others are monogamous. In such societies `duty is understood through one s culture and tradition; reason alone is unable to offer universal guidelines. UNIVERSAL MORAL MAXIMS MAY BE UNDERMINED James Rachels argues that by offering specific categorical imperatives it is possible to overcome the rigidity of Kant s universal application of moral maxims. Alasdair MacIntyre has argued a similar point, with sufficient ingenuity almost every precept can be universalized. For all that I need to do is characterize the proposed action in such a way that the maxim will permit me to do what I want while prohibiting others from doing what would nullify the maxim if universalized. e.g. I may break promises only when. The gap is filled by a description devised so that it will apply to my present circumstances but to very few others. In practice the test of the categorical imperative imposes restrictions only on those insufficiently equipped with ingenuity. (A Short History of Ethics p. 198) THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IS OF LITTLE HELP WHEN DUTIES CONFLICT. Take the issue of abortion, with the conflict of interest between Pro-Life groups who campaign for the rights of the unborn child versus the Pro-Choice pressure group who appeal for the right to self determination of the pregnant woman over her body and pregnancy. Applying the categorical imperative Mother Teresa would have argued that one has a duty to protect innocent human life and that therefore abortions should not be allowed as the foetus is an innocent human life. On the other hand Mary-Anne 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 9
Warren would argue that a woman has a duty to fulfil her own potential and that an unexpected pregnancy should therefore be terminated. In such circumstances `doing one s duty is of little help; as both moral maxims could be universalized and the issue begs the question: is a foetus a potential life or a life with potential? In such a situation the categorical imperative is of little help. ULTIMATELY W.D. Ross argues that in order to avoid the rigidity of Kant s categorical imperative one ought to follow prima facie duties duties which, on first appearance, ought to be followed. However, if in a particular situation there arises a more compelling duty then the original duty may be over-ridden. For example, take the case of Kant s would be murderer if asked by this person where his next intended victim is then one ought not to follow the prima facie duty: one should not lie but lie as the importance of saving innocent human life (i.e. his intended victim) is more important. However, in normal situations the prima facie duty in this case, not lying, is something that one ought to follow. W.D. Ross therefore has the advantage of offering a framework of duties but has the important quality of being flexible, taking likely consequences into account. 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd All Rights Reserved 10