Immanuel Kant German philosopher Immanuel Kant 1724 1804

  • Slides: 48
Download presentation
Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant

 • German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was one of the most

• German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was one of the most important philosophers ever. • Made important contributions to science, aesthetics, law, philosophy, psychology—just about everuthing. • Argued that certain features of our minds structure our experiences. • For example, space and time, and cause and effect. • Morality must be based on reason. • Acting morally is acting rationally. • Acting immorally is acting irrationally.

Kant and Respect for Rational Persons “Are there any who would not admire man?

Kant and Respect for Rational Persons “Are there any who would not admire man? ” Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, Oratuion on the Dignity of Man (1486) • Kant thought that human beings are special in creations. • On his view, human beings have an “intrinsic worth” or “dignity” that makes them valuable “above all price. ” • 2 facts, according to Kant, support his judgment: 1. People have desires and goals. So things can be valuable for people. On the other hand, everything else besides people don’t have desire. 2. People are intrinsically valuable (they have “dignity”) because they are rational beings: free beings making their own decisions, setting their own goals, and guiding their conduct by reason. Thus Kant argues that humans are not merely valuable things among others. Rather, humans are the ones who do the valuing.

“In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In

“In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so. ” “Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law. ” “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason. ” “By a lie, a man. . . annihilates his dignity as a man. ” “Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness. ” “Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me. ”

 • Kant is considered as a deontologist. (From the Greek deon = duty

• Kant is considered as a deontologist. (From the Greek deon = duty or obligation). • Kant regarded intention as an essential element in ethics. • The starting point of Kant’s deontology is the good will. • Kant writes, “Nothing in the world…can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will. ” (Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 9). • He means that the basis for evaluating conduct is a good will, rather than the consequences. • A person of good will is one who has noble intentions.

Kant and Absolute Moral Rules • Some people think that morality is not a

Kant and Absolute Moral Rules • Some people think that morality is not a one-size-fits-all kind of deal. • Doing the right thing? It depends on the circumstances. • Is making a false promise right or wrong? • It depends. • If making a false promise leads to something good, then by all means why not? ! • In other words, some people believe that in morality we can make exceptions.

 • Immanuel Kant did not think so! • He argued that if an

• Immanuel Kant did not think so! • He argued that if an action is wrong, it is wrong regardless of how you feel about it or the possible benefits that may follow from it. And if an action is right, it is right regardless of the possible disastrous outcomes that may follow from it. NO EXCEPTIONS! • On the basis of what did Kant argue this? • His moral theory purports to give reliable moral guidance and determine right from wrong: • Right = Acting according to reason • Wrong = Acting against reason; you are irrational! • That’s quite an achievement!

Why not other principles? • Kant was aware of other principles or sources of

Why not other principles? • Kant was aware of other principles or sources of morality. Why did he think his moral theory is the best? • Let’s consider the following principles first: • The Golden Rule. • The end justifies the means. • Right and wrong are what God says they are.

 • Consider the Golden Rule—we should treat others as we would like to

• Consider the Golden Rule—we should treat others as we would like to be treated. If you wouldn’t want to be lied to, cheated on, etc. then don’t do that to others. • Kant is highly critical of the golden rule because it depends on how you would feel about what was done to you. For Kant, what’s lacking is a truly universal perspective • Imagine: You remind a masochist of the golden rule: “Hey, treat me as you would like to be treated!” • The masochist: “Okay! I love when people hit me. You want me to treat you the way I want to be treated. So I will hit you. ”

 • A solid moral principle for Kant cannot rely upon how you or

• A solid moral principle for Kant cannot rely upon how you or I feel about something. • The golden rule would permit immoral acts. The reason is that the golden rule depends on a person’s desires. • Moral conduct should not depend on a person’s desires. What if you have the wrong desires? • So the golden rule is not a reliable principle to determine the morality of our actions.

 • What about The end justifies the means. This is utilitarianism: An act

• What about The end justifies the means. This is utilitarianism: An act is right if the end justifies the means. • Cheating on your test could be right if it leads to the best consequences. • Killing an innocent person to benefit others would be right. • But how can that be right? How can that be just? What kind of a moral principle is that, anyway? A principle that gives importance to the end results rather than the motive. • If what’s important in morality is the end results, then one would be justified to do immoral things, such as lying, cheating, killing, torturing, in the name of “the end justifies the means. ” • So this is not a reliable principle.

 • Perhaps Right and wrong are what God says they are. • Religions

• Perhaps Right and wrong are what God says they are. • Religions disagree on moral and immoral—often the same religion! • There are thousands of them. Which one is right? • Worse: what if people acted in accordance with their religion’s moral rules only because they fear God’s punishment? • They would be acting out of fear: doing the right thing for the wrong reason! • What kind of morality is that? A morality based on people obeying rules out of fear? • What atheists? • Religious morality is not reliable.

Okay, Immanuel Kant. So what is reliable according to you? What have you got

Okay, Immanuel Kant. So what is reliable according to you? What have you got to offer?

First, some key ideas Duty • Kant starts from the notion of duty. •

First, some key ideas Duty • Kant starts from the notion of duty. • What is duty? • Imagine your friend is pregnant and you are dying to tell the world. (you have a strong desire) But she asked you to promise to keep the secret. • You keep your promise and do not reveal the secret because of your promise. • Why? Because you recognize that you are required to irrespective of your desire. • If it’s not desire that moves us to do the right thing, what is? • Kant’s answer is, “the good will. ”

 • Good Will • For Kant the good will is something that is

• Good Will • For Kant the good will is something that is good irrespective of effects: “a good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes— because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good through its willing alone—that is, good in itself. (I. Kant, Moral Law, p. 40) Good will is also good without qualification: “it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. ” (Ibid. , p. 39) What does Kant mean? Imagine anything you consider good: Happiness, courage, pleasure, etc. these things are not absolutely good. Think about it, one could use courage to commit a crime; another could be happy when kicking a cat. On the other hand, if you have a good will, there is no way to conceive how you could misuse it and do something horrible, callous, cruel.

Acting for the Sake of Duty and Acting in Accordance with Duty • Kant

Acting for the Sake of Duty and Acting in Accordance with Duty • Kant says that to act from good will is acting for the sake of duty. • That means we act despite our desires. • Thus, for Kant acting for the sake of duty is the only way that an action has moral worth. • Imagine you see a homeless, single father of 4 children. It breaks your heart and you give him food and money. • Is your action wrong? Not at all! Kant would applaud you. • However, you acted in accordance with duty: you did the right action but for the wrong reason. So your action has no moral worth. • Conversely, you help the homeless not out of your good heart, but of obligation. This is acting for the sake of duty, and so your action has genuine moral worth.

The Universalizability Principle • Kant understood these difficulties and proposed a solution: the Universalizability

The Universalizability Principle • Kant understood these difficulties and proposed a solution: the Universalizability Principle. And it goes like this: An act is morally permissible if, and only if, its maxim can be universalizable. • What is a maxim: The principle that you follow when you choose to act the way you do. For example, if you decided to cheat on your ethics exam, your maxim might be, “I will cheat on my ethics exam so that I will be able to graduate this year. ”

Maxim • Notice that a maxim has two components: 1. A statement of what

Maxim • Notice that a maxim has two components: 1. A statement of what you are about to do: “I will cheat on my ethics exam. ” 2. The reason why you want to do it: “To graduate this year. ” • According to Kant we all act on maxims, rules we live by. • We all follow certain principles. If we don’t, then our actions are random. Moral decisions are not random. • Kant believed that the only consistent way to assess the morality of our actions is to determine whether our actions follow universal maxims based on reason.

Morality and imperatives • According to Kant, the rightness or wrongness of actions does

Morality and imperatives • According to Kant, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. • The Categorical Imperative determines what our moral duties are. • What does it mean for one’s duty to be determined by the categorical imperative? • What is an imperative? An imperative is a command. E. g. : “Pay your taxes!” or “Stop torturing that cat!” or “Don't kill animals!”

 • Hypothetical Imperatives: these command conditionally on your having a relevant desire. E.

• Hypothetical Imperatives: these command conditionally on your having a relevant desire. E. g. “If you want to go to medical school, study biology in college. ” If you don’t want to go to medical school, this command doesn’t apply to you. • Categorical Imperatives: Moral obligations are not hypotheticals (If…then). These command unconditionally. E. g. “Don’t cheat on your taxes” or “You ought not to lie” even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests. • What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives? Morality must be based on the Categorical Imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you.

How does it work? • Kant proposes the following procedure: • Formulate your maxim

How does it work? • Kant proposes the following procedure: • Formulate your maxim clearly: State what you intend to do and why. • Then ask whether you can either (1) conceive that it become a universal law, or (2) you can will that it become a universal law. If your maxim fails either (1) or (2), then it is morally impermissible. If it passes the test, it is morally permissible.

 • A maxim is morally permissible if you are able to will that

• A maxim is morally permissible if you are able to will that it becomes a universal law of morality. or • A maxim is morally permissible if it is (logically) conceivable that it becomes a universal law of morality. • For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted—but if this were the case no one would ever believe me, so the lie would not work and I would not get what I wanted. • So, if I willed that such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then I would defeat my goal—thus, lying is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.

Don’t believe me? Try! • Suppose you are in desperate need of money. No

Don’t believe me? Try! • Suppose you are in desperate need of money. No one will lend it to you because you have bad credit. Joe is your last resort. You promise him you will pay him back, though you don’t actually intend to. You make what Kant calls a lying promise. • What is your maxim? • Are you justified in making a false promise? Can you make an exception?

Problems? • Your maxim: “I will make a false promise whenever I can benefit

Problems? • Your maxim: “I will make a false promise whenever I can benefit from it. ” • Can you conceive or will that this become a universal law? • You cannot. If everyone followed your maxim everyone would believe that everyone else could make a false promise if it would benefit them. Such a situation is not logically conceivable according to Kant. The very idea of a promise is trust. But in such a situation no one would trust anyone else. But if your maxim is universal there would be no trust. This maxim fails (1) because it is what Kant calls a contradiction in conception. Failing (1) means that we have a perfect duty not to make false promises.

Again Suppose you refuse to help others because you are selfish. Your maxim: “I

Again Suppose you refuse to help others because you are selfish. Your maxim: “I will not do anything to help others in need in order to advance my own interests. ” • Again, it does not pass the test of universalizability. • Notice that it passes (1): it is logically conceivable that you do not help a person in need in order to advance your interest. • However, it fails (2): You cannot know that you may be that person in need for help. And if your maxim is a universal law, then no one will help you. Consequently you cannot will it. • This means that your maxim is what Kant calls a contradiction in will. • Consequently, Kant says that we have an imperfect duty to help others in need.

What would Kant say? • Suicide • Masturbation • Organ donation

What would Kant say? • Suicide • Masturbation • Organ donation

 • So according to the universalizability principle, we can test any maxim. If

• So according to the universalizability principle, we can test any maxim. If the maxim is self-defeating then it is morally impermissible. • Self-defeating means that acting on our maxim would not enable us to accomplish our goals. • What follows? Acting morally is equivalent to acting rationally. And acting immorally is acting irrationally. Our moral duties are actions according to reason.

 • But is Kant right about this? What about those people who are

• But is Kant right about this? What about those people who are perfectly rational but just refuse to comply with the right maxims? Imagine a person who understands that what he’s about to do is immoral but does not care. Is he irrational? • According to Kant, if you refuse to “comply” with the Categorical Imperative, you are making an exception for yourself. Why should you? • In other words, you may be a rational person. But for Kant, if you are rational, then you have to accept his principle. If you don’t, you are not being rational in that example.

 • Categorical imperatives are not based on what I want. So one could

• Categorical imperatives are not based on what I want. So one could never change her mind about the commands of categorical imperatives. Doing so would be always irrational. Consequently, we must obey these commands even if we don’t like it. • Remember what Kant says about the golden rule? It is not reliable because it depends on our personal desires. • Today you desire to help, tomorrow your desire might change. Kant: when you feel like helping you do something nice, but it’s not right because you acted from your personal feelings. • But what kind of morality is that? A morality that relies upon our personal feelings is unreliable and inconsistent. Therefore, right moral duties must categorical imperatives.

The Formula of Humanity • Holds that the rational being is “the basis of

The Formula of Humanity • Holds that the rational being is “the basis of all maxims of action” and must be treated never as a mere means but always as an end. What this means is that all rational beings should never be exploited for personal gain. • What makes a being rational? Freedom and his free capacity to understand the importance of the moral law. A rational being can do the universalizability test and enforce duty. • A Martian who is capable of freely reflecting and acting on maxims is rational. • Animals cannot do that. • Also small children, the senile, people with severe mental disabilities (the so-called “marginal cases”) are not rational!

Autonomy • Also, Kant’s proposes the idea of moral autonomy: • All rational beings

Autonomy • Also, Kant’s proposes the idea of moral autonomy: • All rational beings have authority over their actions. Rather than political leaders, priests, or society. • Kant argues that it is the will that determine its guiding principles for itself. • Rational beings, thus, are self-governed. • Kant calls this autonomy.

The Kingdom of Ends • All maxims must harmonize with the Kingdom of Ends.

The Kingdom of Ends • All maxims must harmonize with the Kingdom of Ends. • This means that we should act in such a way that we may think of ourselves as “a member in the universal realm of ends”. • So our maxims (the ways we live by, the rules we act on) must harmonize with all individuals who are included in the Kingdom of Ends. • These are rational beings. • And consequently, we have a direct moral duty to the citizens of the kingdom of ends. • This also means, for example, we do not have direct moral obligations to treat animals nicely.

Direct vs. Indirect duty • Direct duty means that if I lie to you,

Direct vs. Indirect duty • Direct duty means that if I lie to you, for example (and you are a rational being according to Kant’s specification) I wrong you directly. • Indirect duty means that if you are not rational and I do something wrong to you, I do not wrong you directly. • For example, I do not have a direct moral obligation to treat a dog nicely. If I kick a dog and hurt him severely, I do not do anything wrong to the dog. I don’t owe him anything. • If, however, it is your dog that I kicked, then I did something wrong to you, the owner, but not the dog. • So I have a direct duty to you but indirect duty to the dog. • Kant says: “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. ” • What about people with Alzheimer’s, dementia, severe mental disabilities, small children? Do we have direct or indirect moral duties to them? We’re left in the dark.

In summary • Kant advocates an approach to ethics in which we perform actions

In summary • Kant advocates an approach to ethics in which we perform actions that conform universal rules. • An act is not right because it leads to good consequences or because I feel inclined to act in a certain way. • The will is good when and only when it acts out of pure respect for moral law (which is what is rational for everyone to do) • We must treat all rational beings as ends rather than means. • Our conduct must fall under principles that can be advocated for all humanity, categorically and without exceptions.

Problems

Problems

 • Well, Kant argues that if my maxim can be universalizable, we are

• Well, Kant argues that if my maxim can be universalizable, we are guaranteed that acting upon it is always right, and thus morally permissible. • But it seems as though we can act on universalizable maxims and still do wrong: • When a thief robs a bank to gain money, Kant can show that the thief is acting irrationally because in a world in which everyone robbed banks, banks would run out of money. And consequently, the goal of the thief could not be achieved. • But what if the thief’s goal is to put the bank out of business? Well, strangely enough, if everyone acted on the thief’s maxim, the thief’s goal could be achieved. So Kant’s principle would permit bank robbery, but that’s wrong!

 • Consider Hitler’s maxim: “I will destroy all non-Aryans to achieve an Aryan

• Consider Hitler’s maxim: “I will destroy all non-Aryans to achieve an Aryan world. ” • Can Hitler’s maxim become a universal maxim? Let see: Imagine a word in which everyone lived by that maxim. Could Hitler accomplish his goal? Yes! If everyone destroyed all non-Aryans, the world would be populated only by Aryans; and thus Hitler’s goal could be accomplished. Remember that the universalizability principle says: An act is morally permissible if, and only if, its maxim can be universalizable. It follows that Hitler’s act is right, which is spectacularly absurd!

But wait! What about the Kingdom of Ends? • The Hitler’s maxim could be

But wait! What about the Kingdom of Ends? • The Hitler’s maxim could be universalized, all right. However, it violates the formula of humanity: “the rational being is the basis of all maxims of action” • This means that we must treat other rational beings never as means to our ends, but as ends-in-themselves. • Hitler’s maxim violates this principle because it requires that everyone treat non-Aryans as means to the accomplish a non. Aryan world. • But what about people with Alzheimer’s or dementia? Could one exterminate them all? • After all, marginal cases are not rational beings. • Perhaps we—and not the principle or Kant—are mistaken. Maybe we’re formulating the wrong maxim?

Universal Principles? • It is difficult to find any principle that is universal. •

Universal Principles? • It is difficult to find any principle that is universal. • For example, it might be right to keep our word, but some promises should never have been made and should not be kept. Spouses promise each other to be together “Till death do us part. ” But if one spouse is abusive, one should not be obligated to stay in the marriage. • Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. The fifth Commandment says “Thou shalt not kill. ” But not long after receiving the Commandments Moses was engaged in a bloody war with the Ethiopians. • Also, many people believe that the death penalty (killing a person as a punishment for his crime) is just. (Kant believed in the death penalty, by the way!) • Also many believe that mercy killing is just.

Conflict of duty • I witness a husband’s infidelity. Do I have the duty

Conflict of duty • I witness a husband’s infidelity. Do I have the duty to tell the truth and inform the wife or to mind my own business? What if the husband is a friend of mine? • A lawyer has a duty to protect his client. But what if the lawyer finds out that his client is in fact a criminal? • A doctor is bound by the Hippocratic Oath to both preserve life and alleviate suffering. In 1973, Dax Cowart sustained injuries from a propane gas explosion that resulted in the loss of his hands and eyes. He suffered significant hearing loss, and was so severely burned over most of his body.

Self sacrifice • Some principles do not pass the test of universalizability, but they

Self sacrifice • Some principles do not pass the test of universalizability, but they seem to be moral. • For example, self sacrifice is commendable at times, but cannot be practiced by all people at all times. If we all self were self sacrificing, there would be no one left to accept the sacrifice.

Suppose you must lie to save someone’s life: A killer is looking for me.

Suppose you must lie to save someone’s life: A killer is looking for me. I hide in your house. The killer knocks on your door and asks, “is he here? ” Should you lie or tell the truth? What would Kant say?

In 1797, Kant was confronted by this objection and responded in an essay with

In 1797, Kant was confronted by this objection and responded in an essay with the title “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives”. His argument can be stated as follows: • We are tempted to make certain exceptions. But when we do it we are reasoning like the utilitarian—we assume that the end justifies the means. However, we cannot possibly know what the consequences of our actions will be. • Suppose that the killer hears a noise coming from your house. He shoves his way in and sees me. He kills me—and also kills you for lying to him. • So making exceptions to rules might be unexpectedly worse than following them. That’s why we should never try to determine the morality of our actions on the basis of their consequences.

 • The problem with this argument. Sometimes we can know what the consequences

• The problem with this argument. Sometimes we can know what the consequences will be. We do that all the time: We lock doors and shut windows to prevent burglars from entering our apartments; we don’t tell a friends that he is a terrible singer to avoid hurting his feelings. • Even if we don’t know the consequences, avoiding the truth with the intent to save people’s lives is worth the risk. One who lies to save innocent people’s lives does so from a good will. • It is what any individual with moral integrity would do. After all, Kant was concerned about consistency and fairness. • Being fair often requires that we break rules. • That seems to be the point of Kant: Do the right thing for the right reason. If I lie because it is convenient to me, surely I am doing the wrong thing. But if I lie to save people’s lives, it would seem that I do what is right and for the right reason.

Okay, are you done? No, There’s More • For Kant, once we have identified

Okay, are you done? No, There’s More • For Kant, once we have identified the correct maxim, we have an obligation to act on it—whether you like it or not. • Suppose you are in the hospital recovering from an illness. I come to visit you and you are delighted to have some company. • You thank me for coming and I say to you I’m just doing my duty. • I’m not visiting you because I love you or I feel compassionate, but rather because I have a moral duty to do it—a categorical one. • You would be very disappointed. • I am doing the right thing, but something’s missing.

 • Furthermore, who’s going to motivate me? • At one point my duty

• Furthermore, who’s going to motivate me? • At one point my duty will be something that I don’t want or don’t enjoy doing. • Well, Kant says you would be irrational. • Okay, but who cares? • Kant’s ethics leaves us with a bunch of impersonal, objective, legalistic rules.

Conclusion • Kant believed that we must follow absolute moral rules dictated by reason,

Conclusion • Kant believed that we must follow absolute moral rules dictated by reason, which he called categorical imperatives. • These rules, according to Kant can never be broken—there can be no exceptions. • Breaking rules = acting irrationally. • But which rules are we to follow? Well, those that pass the test of universalizability. • Unfortunately, the most telling problem is to decide how to formulate, how to phrase, our maxims. • It is not entirely clear, for example, why my maxim should be “It is okay to lie” instead of “I will do whatever is in my power to save the life of other rational beings. ” • Kant certainly did not give us a clear way to determine this. • Consequently, it is difficult to defend the idea of absolute moral rules. And so Kant’s theory seems fatally flawed.

Questions?

Questions?