Kant’s DeontologyKant’s Deontology

What is morality about?What is morality about?

Good / Bad (value)

Right / Wrong (conduct)

Obligatory / Forbidden (conduct)

DutyDuty Honor

Praise Blame

VirtueReward

Punishment

Fairness

CrueltyMercyForgivenessVengeance Kindness

Vice

MeritDesert

Justice

Importance!

So on…

1700 1900

Kant (1724-1804)

Germany

England Bentham (1748-1832) Mill (1806-1873)

Jefferson (1743-1826)

AmericaFor comparison Lincoln (1809-1865)

Mozart (1756-1791)

1600 1800

Kant (1724-1804)

Germany

England

Locke (1632-1704)

Berkeley (1685-1753)

Pilgrims Land at Plymouth Rock (1620)

AmericaJefferson (1743-1826)

Hume (1711-1776)

France

Descartes (1596-1650)

ScotlandIreland

Immanuel KantImmanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Major work The Critique of Pure Reason

Ethical works: The Groundwork of the

Metaphysics of Morals The Critique of Practical Reason The Metaphysics of Morals Anthropology from a Practical

Point of View Religion within the Boundaries of

Mere Reason

Kant’s PhilosophyKant’s Philosophy

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason caused a “Copernican Revolution” in philosophy, for those who followed Kant, in taking Aristotle’s Categories

and arguing that those categories divide up our minds rather than the external world.

•Substance•Quality•Quantity•Relation•Place

•Time•Position•Possession•Action•Being acted on

Kant’s PhilosophyKant’s Philosophy

Kant’s “Critical” philosophy results in a Metaphysical and Epistemological view called Transcendental Idealism

Transcendental because the view seeks to transcend the limits of sense experience (limits identified by skeptics like David Hume) by demonstrating modes of being and entities that must exist as ‘necessary conditions for the possibility of experience’

Idealism because the objects of our knowledge remain, as Hume believed, limited to ideas, rather than ideas and physical objects, forces, persons (and other ordinary things we ordinarily believe we experience or know through experience)

Quotable Quote?Quotable Quote?

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”

-Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

Why Be Moral?Why Be Moral?

Kant tries to show that morality is based in rationality

recall that egoism, for instance, has no trouble explaining why you ought to do something: all morality is in your interest!

while maintaining that not all morality is in your interest, which he thinks it plainly is not (duties conflict with interest often)

Why Be Moral?Why Be Moral?

How does Kant show morality is based in rationality? He is going to provide a test of our actions such

that when they are morally wrong the actions result in

1. a contradictory, impossible, or incoherent state of affairs, or,

2. in us being inconsistent—contradicting ourselves.

This isn’t as good as making our obligations identical to our desires (egoism), but since inconsistency is embarrassing to most people, it provides motivation of a sort.

Explaining Kant’s Explaining Kant’s DeontologyDeontology

Kant approaches ethics much as Aristotle, by identifying things we already think are good (Kant adds right or obligatory), and trying to give an account that explains why they are so, and that will settle dispute about borderline cases (Is it ever right to break a promise? Do we have duties to ourselves? Etc.)

We will consider these in the order Kant did:

The Good Will The Notion of Duty Imperatives The Categorical Imperative (the Moral Law)

o Formulation 1 – Ends in Themselveso Formulation 2 – Universal Law (we won’t cover)o Formulation 3 – Autonomy (we won’t cover)o Formulation 4 – Kingdom of Ends (we won’t cover)

The Good WillThe Good Will

Kant says that only one thing is good without qualification …

Virtues, Courage, for instance? No. Courage is not good if you are courageous in robbing the bank.

Intelligence? No. Intelligence makes criminals more dangerous, not less.

Health?No. Health was certainly bad in Hitler.

Happiness?No. Happiness, pleasure, are bad when experienced by wicked people.

Good Will?Yes. A good will, in the sense of a person acting from respect for the

moral law, is good unconditionally.

The Good WillThe Good Will

No matter what situation you are in, acting out of a sense of duty is good regardless of the consequences, or, it is good unconditionally.

In human beings, respect for the moral law means being restrained by its requirements.

Actions have moral worth only when we act for the sake of duty and against contrary inclination.

It follows that divine beings (God, gods, angels, etc), do not act morally since they have no desires that run contrary to their duties.

The Notion of DutyThe Notion of Duty

Suppose you send your mother flowers on Mother’s Day because you love her and want to please her; you also realize, as it happens, you have a duty to honor your mother. Does your action have moral worth?

No

For an action to have moral worth is must be done out of respect for the moral law, or done from a sense

of duty

Does this mean sending your mother flowers on Mother’s Day because you love her is immoral? Non-moral?

Immoral, no Non-moral, yes

It is admirable, and good, but not morally good in a strict sense. It accords with duty, But is not done from duty

ImperativesImperatives

Imperatives are commands: Go to the store Shut the door

Aside from these bossy imperatives, Kant distinguishes 2 others: hypothetical imperatives categorical imperatives

ImperativesImperatives

Hypothetical Imperatives: How we give practical advice Have a conditional, “If, … then…,” structure If you want a pop, then go upstairs and look in the fridge Such imperatives are grounded in our goals, purposes, or

interests

Categorical Imperative: How we give moral advice (or how morality commands

us) Have an unconditional, “Do X,” structure For Kant there is only ONE categorical imperative (though

it has 4 formulations) This imperative is grounded in our nature as rational

beings, not in our goals, purposes, or interests

The Categorical The Categorical ImperativeImperative

The Moral Law:

Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law”

How do we understand this injunction?

In four steps…

Step 1Step 1

“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law”

Identify an act you want to test to see if it is morally permissible.

Kant’s example is: Promising to pay back money while in such a

financial pinch that you know you can’t pay it back.

Step 2Step 2

“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law”

Universalize your act (restate it as a law):

Everyone in a financial pinch should promise to pay back money knowing they cannot pay it back.

Step 3Step 3

“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law”

Determine whether your universalized maxim could be a universal law:

If everyone in financial pinches took money falsely promising to pay it back, what would happen? Soon promises would be meaningless, making the action impossible.

Step 3 (continued)Step 3 (continued)

“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law”

Determine whether your universalized maxim could be a universal law:

If your action results in an inconceivable situation (people loan money on promises they know are no good), then you have a perfect duty to refrain from the action.

Step 4Step 4

“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law”

Supposing your action passes test 3 (it could be a universal law), ask whether you can will that it be a universal law:

What would happen if everyone, say, refused to help others in trouble? We could, conceivably, act that way, so there is no perfect duty not to act that way.

“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law”

Supposing your action passes test 3 (it could be a universal law) ask whether you can will that it be a universal law:

Kant says, however, that while we could act that way, we could not will everyone to act that way, because that would mean willing that no one help us when we were in trouble. We have, then, an imperfect duty not to refuse to help those in trouble.

Step 4 (continued)Step 4 (continued)

Use CI to test some Use CI to test some actions…actions…

Step 3: What would happen if everyone …

Step 4: How would you like it if everyone …

Accommodating Moral Accommodating Moral DataData

Kant constructed his imperative to explain moral duties as he learned them in his youth:

Duties Toward Oneself Perfect: Self-Preservation

(no suicide) Imperfect: Self-Cultivation

(no squandering talents) Duties Toward Others

Perfect: Strict Obligation (no promise-breaking—step 3)

Imperfect: Beneficence (no selfishness—step 4)

☐ ☐

Is Immanuel Kant-Bear’s reasoning really Kantian?

Yay!

Boo!

Formulation 1 – Humanity Formulation 1 – Humanity FormulaFormula

“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only”

Kant provides this formulation of the categorical imperative to help readers connect the law with their feelings:

Formulation 1 – Humanity Formulation 1 – Humanity FormulaFormula

How do we treat the cashier as an end and not merely or only as a means?

It is this formulation that resulted in a common phrase used in moral reasoning often today:

Respect for Persons

Kant says it this way: “he who is thinking of making a lying promise to others will see at once that he would be using another man merely as a means, …. For he whom I propose by such a promise to use for my own purposes cannot possibly assent to my mode of acting towards him, …”

Formula 2 – Autonomy Formula 2 – Autonomy FormulaFormula

Autonomy formula (paraphrase): act only on that universal maxim that you as a rational being create.

The idea of the autonomy formula of the CE is that the only legitimate reason to follow a dictate of morality is that you yourself, as a rational being, are its author.

Examples: Because of my nature as a rational being, I must will that someone help me

when I am in trouble. I cannot then fail to will aid to any other rational being.

Because of my nature as a rational being, I cannot will myself to be a slave to other rational beings. I cannot then will to enslave other rational beings.

Because of my nature as a rational being, I cannot approve that others break their promises to me. I cannot then approve of breaking my promises to others.

Because of my nature as a rational being, I cannot approve of others lying to me. I cannot then approve of my lying to others.

Note that in each example, the universality of the law is forced by the equality of rationality in each human being, conjoined with your individual reasoning. Therefore, you (and reason itself) are the authors of the very moral laws that bind you.

Kant on Capital Kant on Capital PunishmentPunishment

Guilt is the only justification for punishment.

Punishment must be proportionate to the crime.

Capital Punishment is therefore appropriate for murder.

To fail to punish a murderer with death is to fail to affirm the murderer’s responsibility, which is to fail to treat the murderer as a human being, as an end.

All utilitarian justifications for capital punishment are wrong: deterrence, public safety, pleasing the victim’s family, etc. Only proportionate guilt justifies taking someone’s life.

Criticisms of Kant’s Criticisms of Kant’s EthicsEthics

1. Why think rational consistency has something to do with being moral? Lots of irrational actions (multiplying 3 by 8 and getting 21, trying to fly by flapping your arms, etc.) and non-rational actions (humming a tune, watching a sunset, etc.) are not immoral.

2. Why does the impossibility of making promises in a world in which everyone breaks promises mean it is always wrong to break a promise? It is one thing to understand the point of Kant’s claim, another to understand it to make sense. Does it make any sense?!

3. When a kid reasons that, if everyone spit on the sidewalk, he wouldn’t like it, and so couldn’t will his sidewalk spitting be a universal law of nature, why doesn’t the fact that other people don’t care to spit on the sidewalk relieve him of inconsistency? He is not, in such a case, placing his own worth or importance above that of others. Correct?

ReferencesReferencesThis presentation drew heavily on the work of Robert Johnson at the

University of Missouri-Columbia…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

Curtis Brown at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas…

http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/kant_ethics.html

and a nice summary from Robert Cavalier at Carnegie Mellon:

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part1/sect4/Kant.html

Images of Kant found at

http://www.kant.uni-mainz.de/e_icono.html

Other images from Flickr

http://www.flickr.com