Immanuel Kant Prussian German philosopher Immanuel Kant 1724

Immanuel Kant

• Prussian 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 everything. • 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? ” Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, Oration 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. Humans are not merely valuable things among others. Rather, humans are the ones who do the valuing.

Some Famous Quotes “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. ” “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 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.

Instrumental Goods Intrinsic Goods Happiness Pleasure Knowledge Health Truth $ Fame Good Will Goods without qualification

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 action is wrong, it is wrong regardless of how you feel about it or the possible benefits that may follow from it. • 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 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 be treated. • 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 a masochist. You remind him of the golden rule: “Hey, treat me as you would like to be treated!” • The masochist: “Please, give me physical pain, please!”

• 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. • 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? • If what’s important in morality is the end results, then one would be justified in doing immoral things. • So this is not a reliable principle.

• 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 out of fear of God’s punishment? • What kind of morality is that? A morality based on people obeying rules out of fear? • What about atheists? • Religious morality is not reliable.

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. • 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 promised to do so. • You recognize that you are required to do so 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. ”

Acting for the Sake of Duty and Acting in Accordance with Duty • To act from good will is acting for the sake of duty. • We act despite our desires. • 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! • You acted in accordance with duty: you did the right thing, 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 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 2 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 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. 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 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 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. • 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 one will lend it to you. 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? • 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 can’t. 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 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

• 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 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 never change her mind about the commands of categorical imperatives. Doing so would be always irrational. • 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. • An ethic that relies on our personal feelings?

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 makes a being rational? Freedom and his free capacity to understand the importance of the moral law. • 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 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. • Think of ourselves as “a member in the universal realm of ends”. • Our maxims must harmonize with all individuals who are included in the Kingdom of Ends—rational beings. • 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 animals.

Direct vs. Indirect duty • Direct duty: I lie to you, I wrong you directly. • Indirect duty: I kick a dog, I do not wrong the dog directly. • If she is your dog I did something wrong to you, the owner. • Kant: “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?

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

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. • 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 world. ” • Can Hitler’s maxim become a universal maxim? Sure! If everyone destroyed all non-Aryans, the world would be populated only by Aryans. 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? • However, does it violate the formula of humanity: “the rational being is the basis of all maxims of action” • Again, what about people with Alzheimer’s or dementia? Could one will to exterminate them all?

Universal Principles? • It is difficult to find any principle that is universal. • Example, it might be right to keep our word, but some promises should not be kept. Spouses promise each other to be together “Till death do us part. ” But if one spouse is abusive? • 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 assume that the end justifies the means. However, we cannot possibly know what the consequences of our actions will be. • 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. We often can know what the consequences will be. • 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 • Suppose you are in the hospital recovering from an illness. I come to visit you and you are delighted to have some company. • I’m not visiting you because I love you, 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 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, which he called categorical imperatives. • These rules, according to Kant can never be broken—there can be no exceptions. • Breaking rules = acting irrationally. • In many examples, following rules is foolish. • It seems difficult to defend the idea of absolute moral rules. And so Kant’s theory seems fatally flawed.

Questions?