 Kant was basically a really weird guy.

 He was born in a tiny village in

Germany called Königsberg, and never
travelled more than 10 miles outside
of it during his entire life.
 Hehad a very strict routine – the story
goes that local people in Königsberg
used to set their watches by the time
Kant went by on this daily walk!
 BUT he is perhaps the most influential
philosopher of the past 300 years.
 Kantargued that most things we think of as
good are not always good. Intelligence,
wealth etc. could always be used for evil.
 For Kant, the only thing that is always good
in itself is a good will. (This is a kind of drive
to do the right thing, whatever it is.)
 Weshould want to act in a certain way
because it is right, not because of the
consequences.
 Ourjob as moral agents is to work out what
our duties are, and then to follow them.
 An action has moral worth if it is done for
the sake of duty. (DUTY)
 An action is morally correct if its maxim can
be willed as a universal law.
(UNIVERSALIZABILITY)
 We should always treat humanity, whether in
ourselves or other people, as an end in itself
and never merely as means to end.
(RESPECT)
Before Kant ethics focused on the concept of
"the good"
 Two questions were asked:
• What is "the good"?
• How do we attain it?
• There was no disagreement on the above two
points.
•The only puzzle was why didn't some people
aim at the good. [Plato said "ignorance".
Aristotle said “weakness of will.”]
 In the Christian view
• to act morally a person must see the act is
right (i.e., it is commanded by GOD) and must
do the act because they see it is right.

• For Kant Reason, not God, is the source of

the moral law. We can rephrase the above as:
• to act morally a person must see the act is
right (i.e., it is commanded by REASON) and
must do the act because they see it is right.
 Kant
believed that only a GOOD WILL is
morally valuable.

• A good will knows what its duty is

(that is, the good will knows what reason
commands it to do.)
• And the good will DOES the dutiful act
because the good will is dutiful.
 Thewill determines how our talents and
temperaments are used. It affects [or
conditions] everything else we do.

 Kantargues that some qualities are helpful

to the good will, such as moderation, self-
control and "sober reflexion", but they are
not good in themselves.
 Kant's premise: "nothing in nature is in vain",
therefore reason must have some function.
• The functions of the preservation of life
or the gaining of happiness are better
performed by instinct.
• Thus he concludes that Reason has nothing
to do with our actions, yet is a practical
power -- it influences our will.
• Kant concludes that the true function of
reason is to produce a will that is good.
What does it mean to act from duty?

• It is not enough that an act of a certain

kind be done:
• For example: You might, while lying,
accidentally tell the truth.

• It is not enough that the act is INTENDED:

• For example: If you are moved by a
sudden feeling of pity, your act is still without
moral value.
A doctor who performs his/her medical
functions merely out of the desire to do so or
out of fear of being accused of negligence is
acting in accord with duty.

 Doctorsact from sense of duty if they

recognize that there is a special obligation to
their patients because of their relationships
with them.
• In order for an act to be done from principle
there must be a thought-out rule.

• And you must perform the act because you

see it is an INSTANCE of the rule.
• From slide 2: “to act morally a person
must see the act is right (i.e., it is
commanded by REASON) and must do the act
because they see it is right. “
• Kant believed that the only motive that
makes an act morally valuable is that of DUTY
• Kant believed that “inclinations” other
than duty, such as love for humanity, are
variable in nature, as is self-interest.

• He also makes a distinction between

• Acting in conformity with duty (but not
for the right motive) and
• Acting from the MOTIVE of duty.
• 1st PROPOSITION: This proposition concerns the
nature of duty.
• We are to act FROM the motive of duty,
rather than from conformity with duty.

• 2nd PROPOSITION is the Formal Principle of Duty

itself.
The moral worth of an action done from duty is
not in the "purpose to be attained,” [i.e.
consequences] but in the maxim (or law) on which
the action is decided.
• The 3rd PROPOSITION: "Duty is the necessity to
act out of reverence for the law.

• If we act for the sake of the OBJECT of our

actions we can only act in terms of inclination.
• Kant is moving towards the notion of the
moral law as COMMANDED We must act from the
IDEA OF THE LAW ITSELF
• This is only possible for a rational being
• And this doesn't wait for a "result."
 Sincemoral laws must be universal, they
cannot depend on a particular person’s
circumstances or their desires.
 Kantcalled these laws “categorical
imperatives” – they identify principles that
we should all always follow.
 Thisis in contrast with “hypothetical
imperatives” – principles that we should
follow only if we have certain desires.
The Categorical Imperative is the means by
which we determine what the moral law is.

It states:
"I ought never to act except in such a way
that I can also will that my maxim should
become a universal law.”
It means:
that we have to be willing for others to use
the same moral law that we are using.
• Kant is making the argument that looking at
the consequences of an action won't help us
decide between
• prudence [consequences]and
• duty as the justification for a “false
promise”.
• If we try to justify a lying promise on the
basis of being prudent, we aren’t always able
to see the consequences.

• It is also possible that if people lose

confidence in us, what will happen will be
more disadvantageous than what will happen
now.
• Kant argues that truth for the sake of duty
contains the moral law:
• (In the case of prudence you must look to
see what the effects will be and doing this
does not contain the moral law.)
 Kant thought that we can tell what our duties
are by seeing whether our action can be
universalized.
 We have to ask ourselves, “What if everybody
did that?”
 E.g. murder cannot be universalized – if
everybody murdered people who they did not
like then there would be no people left!
 Lying cannot be universalized – if everybody lied
then nobody would believe what anybody says,
and lying would be pointless!
The example of Lying: If it is to be a universal
law -- we lose the advantage from our lying.
Consider the matter of Consistency - lying
loses 2 ways here
1. If we imagine the consequences of
everyone lying we cannot consistently will
that everyone adopt this maxim.
2. OR: I cannot consistently will that I lie and
you don’t!
The requirement of Impartiality & Fairness
means that we cannot make an exception of
ourselves.
 Kantthought that human reason was
extremely valuable.
 Torespect other people’s reason, and their
ability to discover and follow the moral
law, we must never use them for our own
purposes.
 Kantexpressed this by saying that we
should never treat humanity “merely as a
means” (to getting what we want), but
“always as an end in itself”.
 Kantian ethics is often easier to apply to
particular cases then consequentialism.
 We do not have to know all of the
consequences of an action to know whether
it is wrong.
 We just have to know what kind of action it
is. Presumably we do know that, as we are
thinking about doing it!
 This is much easier to think about when we
are trying to work out what to do.
 Kant
thought it was important for people to
work out for themselves what is right and
wrong, using their reason.
 Thisis better than blind reliance on authority
– law, parents, sacred texts etc.
 Kantsaid that we are only truly free when we
choose our principles of action for ourselves.
 He really wants us to think about it!!
 Kant’s
principle of treating everyone as
an end in themselves encourages
respect for all persons.
 Kant would not allow biases or prejudice
to affect our moral thinking.
 Sincewe have to do our duty out of good
will alone for our action to be good, we
cannot allow our feelings toward people
to affect our moral thinking.
 Thetest of universalizability ensures that
we cannot treat people unfairly in our
moral principles.
A principle like “all men can vote but
women cannot” would not be accepted by
half of the moral agents in the world!!
 For
Kant, the human is the focal point of
morality. It is our common humanity that
makes us moral agents & makes us valuable.
 Kant claims that the moral laws identify
actions that are always wrong, no matter
what the circumstances.
 This is very implausible.
 Even his most famous examples are not very
convincing: in some circumstances, breaking
a promise might save hundreds of lives!
 Even killing someone might save more lives!
 It looks like consequences do matter.
 Kantian ethics can be difficult to apply to
particular cases because it is not clear which
“principle” lies behind each particular action.
 E.g., is my action lying?
 Is it lying to make someone feel better?
 Is it lying to make someone feel better because
I need them to do something for me?

If we describe the action specifically enough, then

we could “universalize” pretty much anything.
 When we are actually making moral
decisions, love and compassion matter.
 The requirement to be motivated only by a
sense of duty makes morality too cold and
impersonal.
 Ifmy child is drowning and I save her
because I love her, how can my action be
morally wrong?
 We should help people because we care
about them, not because of a sense of duty!!
 Kantian ethics gives us no guidance as to what
to do when duties conflict – this seems not to
have occurred to him!
 E.g. Promise-keeping is a duty, but what if I
have promised to two different people to be in
two places at the same time?
 What if I have promised to lie to someone?
 What if three people are drowning and I only
have time to save one of them?
 Moral dilemmas are real – there are times
when we violate a duty no matter what we do.
Pro:
• It is admirable to act from duty
• Morality should be even handed
• The Importance of respect for other persons

Con:
• Maintains the split between duty and
inclination
• Ignores the role of the emotions in morality
• Ignores the place for consequences in
morality
• The moral law is commanded by reason.
• What makes an action morally right is that
you have a moral maxim that you can
universalize.
• It is also wrong to treat people as “mere
means”
• Kant focuses on universality and
impartiality(decisions ought to be based on
objective criteria)
• And these are conditions that are
necessary for people to be treated “freely &
equally” -- i.e. with RESPECT