KANTIAN ETHICS

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kant’s moral theory is a form of deontology. This term, ‘deontology’, comes from
the Greek word deon, meaning duty. The theory of deontology states that we are
morally obliged to act in accordance with a certain set of principles/rules
regardless of the outcome.
It is referred to as Kantian deontology because like utilitarianism, deontological
theories (theories of duty) have existed for centuries, but the most influential
form of deontology is the moral theory put forward by Immanuel Kant in 1788.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in the Prussian city of Königsberg (Germany).
He studied and worked at the local university until three years before his death
and never travelled further than fifty miles outside of the city. He was a
philosopher and scientist, working in many areas including mathematics,
astrophysics, geography and anthropology. He wrote several dense, difficult-to-
read but highly influential texts regarding metaphysics, meta - and practical
morality, science, history and politics. He was the first recorded scholar to
suggest that some of the faint nebulae visible with a telescope are actually
separate universes. His new ideas about the nature of reality and free will were
widely condemned at the time in which he published his works but have
remained prominently influential to this day.

In terms of ethics, the most significant of his works are Groundwork in the
Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and
Metaphysics of Morals (1798). These texts constitute the foundation of Kant’s
own moral philosophy, mostly focusing on morality and action.

A Theory of Duty

Some terminology
Moral agent: An agent is a person who performs an action; a moral agent is a
person with the capacity to act morally.
Maxim: rule or principle
Will: The faculty of deciding, choosing, or acting
Deontological theories differ from utilitarian theories in several ways. The most
notable of these is that while utilitarianism aims at a certain goal, e.g. happiness,
and justifies any act that achieves that goal precisely because it achieves it.
Deontological theories hold that some acts are always wrong - even if they
achieve morally admirable ends. An act, in deontology, is always judged
independently of its outcome. This is because deontologists do not equate the
right with the good (like utilitarians do).

Kant is responsible for the most prominent and well known form of deontological
ethics. Kant’s moral theory is based on his view of the human being as having
the unique capacity for rationality. No other animal possesses such a propensity
for reasoned thought and action, and it is exactly this ability which obliges us to
act according to the moral law/duty. Kant’s moral theory emphasises acting in

Prof. Seema Menon 1

accordance with and for the sake of duty. Kant believed that inclinations,
emotions and consequences should play no role in moral action. This means that
the motivation for action must be based on obligation. Morality should provide us
with a framework of rational principles (rules) that guide and restrict action -
independent of personal intentions and desires.

It is worth mentioning that another divergence between the theories of utility

and deontology is the way in which they are constructed: utilitarianism is
concerned with actively maximising the good while deontology is more
negatively focused on avoiding the morally impermissible (or on the constraints
on action).

The moral worth of an action is determined by the will. The human will is the only
thing in the world that can be considered good without qualification, according to
Kant. Good will is exercised by acting according to moral duty/law. The moral law
consists of a set of moral maxims which are categorical in nature.

Imperatives

There are two types of imperatives. The first is hypothetical (conditional) which
takes the form ‘if you want X, you should do Y’, and this type can apply to any
action. The second sort of imperative is the categorical which takes the form
‘you should do X’/‘do X’ - it applies to moral action and demands unconditional
performance of an action for its own sake. This is because morality is
independent of wants and consequences. The categorical imperative is
sometimes referred to as the universal law as Kant believed that by using reason
one could determine whether a maxim was categorical or not and because all
human beings are rational then the same categorical imperatives will hold for
everyone.

We use reason and a test of universalability to determine whether a moral

principle is a categorical imperative (or universal law). Kant expressed the
universal law using the following formula:

Act only according to the maxim whereby you can at

the same time will that it should become a universal
law

Using reasoned judgement we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover
if it is morally permissible. Take the example of picking flowers from the local
park - the flowers are very pretty and when I see them I immediately want to
pick some to take some home with me. Using the formula of the universal law
(categorical imperative), imagining the scenario if everyone were to adopt the
maxim pick flowers whenever you wish. Do any irrationalities/ contradictions
arise from the adoption of such a maxim as universal law? Certainly, if everyone
were to do this there would be no flowers left in the park and this would
contradict our original motivation for desiring the flowers. It would be more
rational to go to a flower shop and buy similar flowers or grow my own.

There are a few acts that are always forbidden - lying so negatively affects trust
between people and the meaning of truth that it is always forbidden. This
remains the case when lying would have advantageous or even morally
admirable consequences. Imagine a psychotic patient wants to kill your

Prof. Seema Menon 2

colleague (a psychiatrist) who had her committed. If you lie about the
whereabouts of your colleague then an innocent life will be saved. But moral
duty forbids you from lying!

Alternative formulation of categorical imperative

Kant expressed the categorical imperative in a few different ways. The most
important of these is the formula of humanity - this states:

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether

in your own person or in the person of another,
always at the same time as an end and never simply
as a means

This is a personal perspective on the same moral theory. To fail to do this would
be to treat others in a way that would contradict the moral law - If I steal a book
from Stephen; I am treating him as a means only (to obtain a book). If I ask to
have his book, I am respecting his right to say no, and am thereby treating him
as an end-in-himself, not as a means to an end. If I only ask for the book in order
to appear nice (and to make Stephen more likely to do things for me in the
future), then I am also treating him as a means only. It is true that everyone uses
people as a means to an ends - bus/taxi-drivers get us where we want to go,
factory workers are the means to producing objects and ultimately profit for their
employer - but using people only to get what we want and consistently
disrespecting their human worth is against the moral law. An example of this
would be a factory owner who imposes inhumane working conditions and pays
less than minimum wage (as long as he can get away with it).

Criticisms
One of the biggest difficulties with Kantian ethics is that it discounts outcome as
a valid factor in evaluating the moral worth of an action. While it is not
necessarily wise to rely solely on outcome (as in utilitarianism), it is problematic
to discount the outcome altogether - as we saw in the dilemma of lying (to the
psychotic killer).

The life and dignity of every human individual is inviolable (sacred) - based on
the formula of humanity. This means that it would be impermissible to enslave
20 people regardless of whether or not it meant that 80 people with disabilities
would be aided by the slaves and lead much better lives. This seems like an
advantage Kantian ethics has over utilitarianism. But what if killing one person
would save the lives of 3 million people who will otherwise die? This would also
be impermissible according to Kantian principles.

At times Kantian moral duty seems to conflict with our natural

inclinations/common sense. If we obey the moral law rather than our intuitions
we are acting morally.

Prof. Seema Menon 3

Deontological ethics is mostly concerned with what not to do - the categorical
imperative can only guide our conduct in so far as advising us against morally
wrong acts. It does not tell us what to live/aim for or what to value.

***************************************************************************

Prof. Seema Menon 4