Kantian Ethics: The Moral Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a German thinker regarded by many as the most significant philosopher in the modern era. His major contributions to Ethics can be found in his two works: The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Moralsand the Critique of Practical Reason.

1. The role of reason

Kant categorically rejects that ethical judgments are based on feelings. For him, feelings even serve as obstructions to our discernment of right and wrong. His ethical theory instead bases moral judgments on reasonalone. Reason, for him, is what deems an action ethical or otherwise.

This means that when we wish to determine the moral status of an action, we consult reason. An act either accords with reason or it does not. If an action accords with reason, we must do it, if not, we must avoid it. 

Kant believes that one of the functions and capacities of our reason is to produce a will which is good not as a means to some further end, but good in itself. For him, it is the good will which is the highest good and the condition of all other goods.

2. The good will

Kant teaches that only good will is intrinsically good. That is, it is the only thing which is good without qualification.

Kant does not agree with many ethicists that happiness is the summum bonum or the highest good. Happiness, for him, can be corrupting and may be worthless or even positively evil when not combined with a good will. In the same way, intellectual eminence, talents, character, self-control, and fortune cannot be intrinsically good for they can be used to bad ends.

A good will is one that habitually wills rightly. And it is not what good will achieves that constitutes its goodness. Even if good will, because of some hindrances, accomplishes nothing, it remains to be something with full value in itself. Good will is good in itself.

But who is a good person or a person of good will? For Kant, it is the person who acts from a sense of duty.  Kant thinks that acting from a sense of duty means exhibiting good will even in the face of difficulty.

3. Acting from a sense of duty

For an act to be moral, it is a requisite that it be an act of a free agent. That is, it must be a voluntary action, not a forced or compelled one. In addition however, it must be an act done not from ‘inclination’butfrom a ‘sense of duty’ dictated by reason.

Inclination refers to the feeling that pushes us to select a particular option or make a particular decision. It is our liking or tendency to do, favor, or want something. A duty or obligation, on the other hand, is that which we ought to do despite our inclination or ‘taste’ to do otherwise.

Normally, people perform the acts which please them or which they desire to do in particular circumstances. For Kant, these actions determined by wishes, passions, appetites, desires, and the like have no moral worth. He believes that we act morally only when we restrain our feelings and inclinations and do that which we are obliged to do. Morality, as Kant sees it, is essentially connected with duties and obligations.

There is however a need to make a distinction between acts done “from the motive of duty” and those that are “in accordance with duty”. The former are moral acts unlike the latter. Respecting one’s parents for expediency or solely in obedience to custom, paying one’s debt for fear of being sued, helping others because it’s pleasing to do so, taking care of one’s children because one is so fond of doing so, displaying honesty to receive an award, and keeping a promise by accident are all examples of acts that are in accord with duty, but not from duty.

Moreover, acting morally entails acting from the motive of duty regardless of the consequences that doing so or not doing so will bring. To perform an act for fear of undesirable consequences of not doing it—that is, to act from a sense of prudence—is only to do a ‘prudential act’, but not necessarily a moral one.

Therefore, it is only when we recognize that we ought to do an act because it is our duty, understand the nature of this obligation, and act upon it that we are said to perform an authentically moral act.

4. Acting on maxims

What we have discussed so far is Kant’s emphasis on the ethical relevance of acting from a sense of duty. But we may ask Kant, “Can a person know what his duty is in a given situation?” “Is there a test to find out what one’s duty is in a particular set of circumstances?” Kant believes that there is. First, it is one’s duty, as rational being, to act on principle or maxim, as contrasted to simply acting on impulse.

To distinguish ‘actions on maxim’ from ‘actions on impulse’, let’s provide some illustrations. Suppose a man wants to financially help a certain lady who is in need, merely because he likes her personally, and he might not want to give the same assistance to another woman in an exactly similar situation because he does not happen to like her. This is acting on impulse and not done for a reason or on any principle or maxim.

Now contrast this with another man who gives relief to total strangers who are victims of a calamity. Because he accepts it as his duty to provide support to those in need, he treats in precisely the same manner any other person whose situation has the same characteristics. This is acting on maxim. The agent has a reason for his action, and out of this reason, a maxim like this was formulated: “This situation has such-and-such features, and any situation possessing these features must be dealt with in such-and-such manner”.

Maxim, as we have seen, is a general rule or principle which serves as a guide to action. “Be honest always”; “Don’t always shoot the ball when you get it”; “Don’t wear the wedding gown before the wedding”; and “When in doubt, render a salute” are examples of maxim. Evidently, not all maxims are moral ones. In Ethics, Kant is concerned with maxims that are moral, that is, those dictated by reason and thus have imperative force.

Now, Kant further divides the maxims of conduct into two classes, the (1) hypothetical and (2) categorical imperatives. Let’s tackle first here the hypothetical imperatives since later we will have a separate section for the categorical ones.

‘Imperative’ should be understood as a command of reason. The term ‘hypothetical,’ on the other hand, entails being true only under some conditions, and therefore not universally true or valid. Accordingly, a hypothetical imperative is how reason orders one to achieve one’s specific ends. It directs one to behave in certain manners on the condition that one seeks specified goals, such as: if you wish to pass, then study hard. So it’s like a decree stating that if you wish to accomplish such-and-such an end, you must act in such-and-such a way.

There are a lot of hypothetical imperatives for there are several various ends which people may set themselves. Some hypothetical imperatives are concerned with mere prudential actions. Simply a rule for obtaining some desired ends, a hypothetical imperative is accepted not on its own merits. In our example, the maxim to study hard is accepted as a rule for passing, and not on its own merits. Hypothetical imperative is thus both contingent and derivative. It is contingent or conditional, because circumstances are imaginable where studying hard would still not result in passing, and in such situations the maxim may no longer be accepted. It is derivative because acceptance of it depends on one’s wish to pass. If one does not want to pass, the principle may be ignored.

5. The Categorical Imperative

If the hypothetical imperative states, “If you want to attain a certain end, act in such-and-such a way”, the categorical imperative, on the other hand, pronounces, “No matter what end you desire to attain, act in such-and-such a way.” Clearly, it commands a person to act in particular ways regardless of what goals one looks for or what one’s ends may be.

As suggested by the term ‘categorical’, this imperative is exceptionless, that is, binding on all rational agents, in all circumstances, at all times. Categorical imperative demands action without qualification, without any ifs, and without regard to the consequence such an act may produce.  Unlike hypothetical imperative,categorical imperative is accepted on its own merits.

For Kant, the categorical imperative ordains a rule that, if followed, will guarantee that the person behaving in accordance with it is acting morally. The categorical imperative thus serves as the barometer of reason determining whether or not an action qualifies as ethical. Therefore, it is Kant’s moral philosophy that an act is morally good if it is done for the sake of a morally good maxim; and a maxim is morally good if it conforms to the categorical imperative.

Kant provides various formulations of the categorical imperative. The most famous is the (1) ‘universalizability’ formulationwhich states, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” In other words, a person ought always to behave as if his course of conduct were to become a universal code of behavior. Hence, in considering to act in a particular manner, a person must ask himself, “How would this action appear if it were to become a universal rule?” “Can reason will it to become a general rule for all rational agents to follow?”

As illustration, Kant takes the case of a lying promise. A person, having run out of money, may be tempted to borrow from someone though knowing for sure that he will be incapable to pay it back. He is thus acting on the maxim, “When in need of money, borrow from someone by making a lying promise.” Evidently, this does not pass the categorical imperative. Reason cannot will that everyone should act on this maxim, otherwise, all human relations based upon trust and honoring one’s promises would drastically collapse.

Another famous formulation of the categorical imperative is the (2) ‘end-in-itself’ which states, “So act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means.” This rendition teaches, among other things, to respect persons as ends in themselves and not only as means or instruments to further self-interest. This involves acknowledging the person as a rational being with goals and treating him with dignity.

The so-called lying promise does not pass this formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative. Without a plan to repay the borrowed money, the promisor does not treat the promisee with honor. It is thus immoral for Kant for it practically treats a person as a mere instrument to attain one’s (the promisor’s) aim to gain a wanted amount.

Copyright 2013-present by Jensen DG. Mañebog

Also Check Out: From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories, also by author Jensen DG. Mañebog