KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
- Kant thought morality and religion should be kept apart
- In order to determine what is right you have to use reason
- Morality is constant
IF-THEN STATEMENTS (HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES)
- Commands you should follow if you want something
Ex. “If your desire is to get money, then you ought to get a job.”
- Are about prudence rather than morality
Ex. “If you don’t want money, you can always choose not to work.”
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
- Moral obligation derived from pure reason
- It didn’t matter whether you want to be moral or not – the moral law is binding on all of
us
- You don’t need religion to determine what that law is, because right or wrong is totally
knowable just by using your intellect
UNIVERSALIZABILITY PRINCIPLE
- “Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that should
become a universal law without contradiction.”
Maxim – rule/principle of action
Universal law – something that must always be done in similar situations
- What is the general rule that stands behind the particular action I’m considering?
Ex. Let’s say you forgot your wallet in your dorm this morning. You don’t have time to
go get it between classes, and you’re really hungry. You notice that the student working
the snack kiosk in the union is engrossed in a conversation, and you could easily snag a
banana and be on your way. Sorry. Chom-chom. I mean: chom-chom. You could easily
swipe that chom-chom and be on your way.
Is it ok, morally, for you to do this?
Well, the particular action you’re considering – taking a chom-chom from a merchant
without paying for it – is stealing. And if you approve the maxim of stealing – which
you’re doing, whether you admit it or not – then what you’re actually doing is
universalizing that action. You’re saying that everyone should always steal. If you should
be able to do it, then – everyone should be able to do it.
The thing is, this leads to a contradiction – and remember: Kant’s wording
specifically says that moral actions cannot bring about contradictions. The
contradiction here is: no one would say that everyone should steal all the time. Because,
if everyone should always steal, then you should steal the chom-chom. And then I
should steal it back from you, and then you should steal it back from me, and it would
never end and no one would ever get to eat any chom choms.
Therefore, stealing isn’t universalizable. So what Kant’s really saying is that it’s not fair
to make exceptions for yourself. You don’t really think stealing is ok, and by imagining
what it would be like to universalize it, that becomes clear.
HUMAN AS END-IN-ITSELF
- “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another,
always as an end, and never as a mere means.”
To use something as a “mere means” is to use it only for your own benefit, with
no thought to the interests or benefit of the thing you’re using.
- Now, we use things as mere means all the time. I use this mug to hold my coffee, and if
it would stop benefiting me – like if it got a crack in it and started leaking, I wouldn’t
use it anymore.
It’s perfectly fine to use things as mere means – but not humans. This is because we
are what Kant called ends-in-ourselves. We are not mere objects that exist to be used
by others. We’re our own ends. We’re rational and autonomous. We have the ability to
set our own goals, and work toward them. Coffee mugs exist for coffee drinkers.
Humans exist for themselves.
So, to treat someone as an end-in-herself means to recognize the humanity of the
person you’re encountering, to realize that she has goals, values, and interests of her
own, and you must, morally, keep that in mind in your encounters with her.
DEONTOLOGY
- Deontology comes from the Greek word DEON, meaning DUTY.
- This means that actions are either GOOD or BAD, RIGHT or WRONG based on whether
they are consistent with moral duties.
- In Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, we are bound by a universal law. A set of duties that
are entirely rational, and don’t allow for any exceptions. Immanuel Kant believed that
ethics was about having a GOOD WILL. That is, a will to DO WHAT’S RIGHT SIMPLY
BECAUSE IT’S RIGHT. Not because it will feel good, not because it’ll produce the best
outcomes, but because THAT’S WHAT MUST BE DONE.
Ex. Let’s say you’ve made a promise to another professional that you’ll partner with
them on a business project. Later on, you find out that partnering with that person
might tarnish your reputation. They’re known to play fast and loose with the rules, and
serious professionals want nothing to do with them. Many people would advise you to
cut ties. Deontology reminds us that we’re obliged to keep our promises even when they
come at a personal cost. At the core of deontology is the idea that we shouldn’t make
special exceptions for ourselves – or others – in our decision-making.
Think about promises for example. If everybody broke their promises when it suited
them, the concept of promises would be meaningless. It’s not that breaking promises
produces a bad set of outcomes – for Kant it’s just not rational to allow every to break
their word. Which means we shouldn’t do it ourselves.
Deontology also reminds us about the dignity of every person. Kant argued that we
could never treat a person as if they were a tool. Sometimes it’s tempting to use people
– staff, clients, friends and family, without showing respect for their rights, needs or
intrinsic dignity. Deontology reminds us to take into account the importance of every
person as equal to our own.
