Kant’s Deontology
For Kant’s theory, all rational beings are always and necessarily
duty bound by the moral law: that is, the moral law is universal and necessary.
From this, Kant infers that:
-
Since one is morally obliged to do X only if it is in one's power to do
X (in other words, for K. 'I ought' implies 'I can'), all rational
beings can always satisfy that duty only if morality is internal
to the agent in the sense that a good will (the intention and the sincere
effort to obey the moral law) is all that's required.
-
The ground of the moral law cannot rest on any consideration of what's
empirically true of man (or any other rational being), but on a-priori
(i.e.,
non-empirical) considerations about reason itself.
NOTE: for Kant, these consideration suffice to rule out any from of utilitarianism
as inadequate.
1) A good will is one that acts in accordance with the principles of
morality and out of duty towards them. It is the only thing good
without qualification independently of its success. While other capacities,
e.g., intelligence, gifts of fortune, talent, can operate against morality
(think of a clever thief), a good will always acts morally.
NOTE:
- A good will is one that operates from the principles of morality.
- A decision is morally good only if taken for the sake of one's duty
towards the moral law, because the agent thinks that the intended action is right.
- Acting for the sake of duty is not merely acting in accordance with
duty. For example, not stealing out of fear of punishment is not
acting for the sake of duty (out of respect for the moral law
“Don't steal.”) The same holds in the case of helping someone
out of love and not out of respect for the moral law “Help other persons.”
The same, of course is true of acting out of the fear of God.
Rationale:
morality is binding on all rational beings all the times; hence, it must be
possible to be moral all the time, so that even the misanthrope can act morally
towards others. This doesn't entail that we cannot do our duty towards humanity
while loving our fellow humans (as long as our love is not the motive of our
action), but that we can do our duty towards other people even while hating
them.
2) The moral worth of a decision lies in the maxim according to
which it has been made, that is, the maxim on the basis of which
the will (practical reason) has operated.
A maxim is a principle of action, i.e., a general rule or policy one
follows when acting, e.g., “Give to charity,” “Tell the truth,” “Act
in your own self-interest only,” “Lie whenever it's advantageous.”
NOTE:
- Only persons (beings capable of acting in accordance with maxims,
i.e., general principles) have a will (practical reason) and can be moral
or immoral; non- persons, e.g., animals, are a-moral, i.e., they're
outside the realm of morality (a cat is not evil for "playing" with the mouse).
3) A maxim satisfying the Categorical Imperative is an objective
maxim (a maxim which any fully rational agent would follow), and
an action stemming from that maxim is moral.
Kant gives different formulations of the Categorical Imperative which
he claims are equivalent (whether they are is a matter of debate).
Two are especially important:
-
“Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will
that it be a universal law” (Universal law formula)
-
“Treat humanity in your own person or in the person of any other
never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.”
(End in itself formula)
NOTE: Although strictly speaking there is only one Categorical
Imperative, one can call any maxim which satisfies (1) and/or
(2), e.g., “Don’t lie,” a categorical imperative.
4) A categorical imperative must be distinguished from a hypothetical
imperative, namely one whose justification depends on the perceived
good of something extrinsic to it. For example, “If you want
good business don't cheat your customers” is a hypothetical imperative
because in this case the justification for the command “don't cheat
your customers” depends on the desirability of having good business.
By contrast, the justification for “Don't cheat” depends on the fact
that it satisfies both the universal and the end in itself formulas.
NOTE:
- Hence, a hypothetical imperative carries no implication that
one ought to do what it commands (I might justifiably give up the idea of
having good business). By contrast, a categorical imperative implies
that one ought to do what it states.
-
Since any consequentialist theory recommends an action or a maxim
(rule) on the basis of the good it produces, it is based not on categorical
imperatives, but on hypothetical ones, and therefore must be rejected.
.
5) The universal law version of CI says “Act only on the
maxim through which you can at the same time will that it be
a universal law.”
-
Rationale for the law:
it determines maxims which could be adopted by a group of rational
agents without assuming anything specific about their desires,
capacities or social relations, which are merely contingent, dependent
on fortune.
-
Application of CI
Presumably, CI provides us with a test to determine what to will,
that is, whether an action is moral, immoral or merely permissible.
However, how this is supposed to work is far from clear, and Kant’s
own examples don't help too much.
6) The "end in itself" formulation of CI says: “Treat humanity
in your own person or in the person of any other never simply as a means
but always at the same time as an end.”
Rationale:
Since humans act morally and have a rational will, they have intrinsic objective
value and hence they are ends in themselves. They are, one might say,
the only intrinsic moral values. Since the value of
everything else is parasitic on that of persons and a means is less valuable
than its end, treating persons as means amounts to denying that they are
ends in themselves, that is, persons.
The meaning of the maxim is made clearer by the following:
- Treating X merely as a means consists involving X in a course of action
to which X would not in principle consent, that is, a course of
action which is contrary to X’s maxims.
Examples: promise breaking, lying, coercing, etc.
- Treating X as an end consists in supporting (at a minimum not impeding)
X’s capacities to achieve his ends (e.g., playing, studying),
as long as they don't involve treating persons merely as means.
A rational will (that which makes one a person) manifests itself in the link
between one's values and one's actions. Treating people as means belittles the
link; treating them as ends recognizes it as valuable.
7) The main problem for Kant's theory is its rigorism in that Kant’s
ethics seems case-insensitive. For example, he claims that one should
never lie. But what should one do when someone's life is at stake? Should
the Danish fisherman smuggling Jews to Sweden tell the truth to the Nazi officer
on the patrol boat? Most of us would say “no”, but Kant says “yes”. (Notice
that being silent won't do here).