“Immanuel Kant”

Theory of Knowledge
Immanuel Kant was a Prussian philosopher, in the 18 th century, there were two camps
of philosophers, on one side we had the Empiricist, if we want to get knowledge we have to
experience the world, do an experiment and take measurements. On the other side we have
the Rationalist, who that the only way to get real knowledge was to figure it out, you can
know without doing any experiment like 2+2=4. 1 Those things are certain, their reasoning
was that their senses can deceive you, if you do an experiment, you could be hallucinating,
you can get it wrong. The rationalists insisted that man’s knowledge is a priori and of an
analytic judgment, meaning reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical
deduction as against the empiricists who claimed that man’s knowledge was a posteriori and
of a synthetic judgment, meaning knowledge from experience.2

In the middle of this debate between empiricist and rationalist, came Immanuel Kant.
Who took a middle road, Kant thought that there was some concept you have in your head
that you could have not got by experiencing the world, but you could have not just sat down
and figure them out either.3 Take the concept of space, distance between object, we rely on
that concept a lot when we walk around. Imagine a baby experiencing the world for the first
time, they could not tell that the object is over there and they are over here, that there must be
space. In order to say that object is over there, the concept of space must be in your head.
This concept could not be received by experiencing the world, but at the same time, we
could have not just sat down and think of it.4

Therefore, what Kant realizes that some concept like space, time and number must be
built to us from the beginning, our brain must be hardwire to experience the world in that
way. This he called, synthetic a priori concepts, must be a condition of having a mind. Kant
brought transcendental argument, going beyond what we have in front of us. Kant’s inquiry
of knowledge starts with the things “seen” or “experienced.” Such inquiry entails the
materials and a process by which there can (probably) be known. 5 Kant mentions two
1
A. C. Grayling, Philosophy 2: Further through the subject (New York: Oxford University Press Inc.,
1998), 580.
2
Ibid., 581.
3
Paul Guyer, The Cambridge Companion to Kant and modern philosophy (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 122
4
Brooke N. Moore and Kenneth Bruder, Philosophy: The Power of Ideas (New York: The McGraw
Hill Companies, Inc., 2005), 142.
5
J. Hartnack, Kant’s Theory of Knowledge (London: Macmillan, 1968), 13.

1
faculties of the mind that are involved in the knowing process, namely, sensibility and
understanding. “He distinguishes between the receptive faculty of sensibility, through which
we have intuitions, and the active faculty of understanding, which is the source of concepts.”
Through the former, the objects are “given” while through the latter, objects are “thought.”
The receiving faculty, that of sensibility, deals with space and time as pure intuitions. 6 On the
other, the thinking faculty, one of understanding, treats concepts or categories (as pure
concepts). Thus, these faculties of the human reason presuppose the two elements of
knowledge: contents or intuitions and thoughts or concepts for sensibility and understanding,
respectively. Simply, the faculty of receptivity receives something spatial and temporal by
means of sensibility; the faculty of thought (also called, faculty of spontaneity of concept), in
a manner of understanding, thinks of a concept.7

In this inescapable duality of sensibility and understanding in Kant’s theory of

knowledge, we can conceive of an overarching question pertinent to our analysis above:
“How can I know?” To answer this, we may say that through sensibility and understanding,
that is, by intuiting and thinking, we are able to know. It is therefore never an option to
exclude one activity from the other in terms of knowledge. 8 Such a question is also indicative
of the necessary materials from which knowledge happens. To think is never sufficient for
the knowing process. And so, to intuit or receive is to be supplied. This does not imply that
one is secondary than the other. 9 Both are essential for knowledge, a knowledge which comes
from the experience of the senses and of thought. Thinking backed up by experience would
simply mean that the latter is also needed to proceed towards knowledge. With what is given
and thought of, knowledge consists of both intuitions and concepts or in their pure forms:
space and time, and categories, respectively. In a word, when we think, we use concepts;
when we intuit, we receive something from space and time. And both have to work hand in
hand.10

Kant’s Ethics

6
Ibid., 14.
7
Immanuel Kant, trans. Max Müller, Critique of Pure Reason (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 54.
8
Justus Hartnack, Kant’s Theory of Knowledge: An Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason
(Indiapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001), 99.
9
Andrew Brook, Kant and the Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 122.
10
James R. O’Shea, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction and Interpretation (Durham:
Acumen Pub., 2012), 144.

2
 Kantian ethics falls under deontological ethics. The word ‘deon’ means duty in
Greek.11
This branch of ethics place duty higher than anything else. Kant said we should always
follow a set of moral principle no matter what the situation is or what the outcome will be.
Deontological theories judged actions to be right or wrong based on whether the conformed
with our duties. For Kant the most important in life is having a good will. It is not just any
good intentions for example, it is not the utilitarian intention to have the best outcome from
one’s actions.12 It is the will to do one’s duty without contradiction of reason regardless of
outcome. Even unlike utilitarianism, Kant did not believe that some good was link to
happiness, because what may make some people happy might be an evil act. Also, Kant did
not agree that good was dependent on the outcome because a particular outcome might be
brought out by an evil act. The only good is good will.13

Therefore, what does Kant consider to be a good will is the question? For Kant a good
will wills action that conformed to one’s duty solely because it is one’s duty to do so. This
means there are two elements in having a good will. First, the actions that are chosen by a
person must be the right kind of actions, there are actions that conformed to the duties which
are set by the moral laws. Second, a person must choose the right action solely because it is
the right thing to do. This is to say that he or she has the right motive.14

The Categorical Imperatives

This is to say that he or she must have the right motives, the person with the good will
does not do right actions because he or she fear punishment, he or he does the right thing just
because it is the right thing to do. Kant came up with two different tests for how we can tell
whether a given action is an important duty or fits with the moral law. 15 His test called the
categorical imperative states one should never act except in such a way that one can also will
that one’s maxim become a universal law. Kant says we need to ask ourselves whether we
could will to live in a world where every other person acted according to the principle we are
about to act on. If your actions would cause contradictions in your will when universalize
11
Roger J. Sullivan, An Introduction to Kant’s Ethics (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1994), 29.
12
Ibid., 30.
13
Jens Timmermann, Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), 12.
14
M. Gregor and J. Timmerman, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2012), 33.
15
Ibid., 34.

3
than this are actions you should not do.16 For instance; when a student is considering cheating
on an important test because he did not study, he should ask himself according to Kant.
Would one want to live in a world where everyone everywhere always cheated when they
were to take an exam they did not prepare for. It seems like, this would be an undesirable
world. For example, grades would not be able to be trusted and academic honors would be
meaningless. Since universalizing the maximum principle that one should cheat when one is
unprepared leads to difficulties. We can know that acting this principle violates the moral
duty and moral laws. Kant believes that an addition to this first test, there is another way to
test whether a given action is accord with or a violation to moral duties.

Respect for Humanity

Kant formulates this test as follows, act in such a way that you treat humanity whether
in your own person or in the person of the another always at the same time of an end and
never simply as a means.17 In Kant’s view human being has infinite and intrinsic values
because we are rational beings, each person is capable of formulating their own purposes and
goals. When we act towards other persons, we need to remember that each person has hopes,
dreams, goals, plans and desires just like we do. We cannot reduce other people to mere
objects for fulfilling our own plans.18 The worth and value of human being, human person
that is comes from solely of what they are not because of any utility or job they do for
someone else. Any act that involves using another person or even one self as a means without
also respecting the person as an end counts as an act which violates the moral law and one’s
duty.19 Let us consider the slave owner forcing many people to build a giant building, the
building is the end and the people are being used as the means. There are being falls against
their will to build, this would violate the moral, this should not be permissible.20

Kingdom of Ends

16
J.K. Uleman, An Introduction to Kant’s Moral Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2010), 76.
17
Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy
(Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 209.
18
Ibid., 210.
19
Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, with On a Supposed Right to Lie Because
of Philanthropic Concerns., trans. James W. Ellington (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), 64.
20
Ibid., 66.

4
 The third formulation is known the kingdom of ends, can imagine the hypothetical
kingdom of perfect rational moral beings, can urge all people to see themselves as a member
or law makers of the kingdom of ends and act as though your actions would be approved by
this kingdom of rational beings.21 Regardless of our resolution of this dilemma, Kant’s views
on happiness and virtue, and his emphasis on duty, underscore two important practical points
about the moral life.22 First, happiness is not something that we find by seeking to be happy,
but comes to us as a by-product, as it were, of devoting ourselves to serve the good of others.
A person whose life is devoted to herself or himself will never find happiness. Second, most
(though not all) moral choices involve some element of denial of our own happiness in the
face of duty to the dignity of others or the common good. Therefore, in most moral situations
the way of right lies with the more painful and difficult choice. Doing what is right is almost
never the easy choice.23

By doing what is right, however, we achieve something even greater than happiness:
we become good. Although we should do what is right simply because it is right, and not in
order to become good, by doing what is right we do in fact attain virtue or moral goodness in
ourselves.24 And moral goodness, that is, “good moral character or a good will is a unique,
incomparable, unconditional, intrinsic good, far exceeding in value any other good.” By
becoming good ourselves, we not only serve our own best hope of happiness, we also bring
everyone in the world a little closer to their fulfillment as fully human, morally good
persons.25

Therefore, if we want to know whether Kant would take a certain action as morally
good action, there are two important distinctions we need to keep in mind. First, we must
consider the action itself and determine whether or not it fits with the duty all of us have to
follow the moral law.26 We can use the two tests, regarding the universability of maxim and
treating humanity as an end to know whether a given act lines up with the moral law and
duty.27 Second, we must consider the agent’s motive to know if their act is moral worth. For

21
Arsenij Gulyga, Immanuel Kant: His Life and Thought (Boston: Birkhauser, 1987), 101.
22
Ibid., 102.
23
Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, with On a Supposed Right to Lie Because
of Philanthropic Concerns, 69.
24
Roger J. Sullivan, An Introduction to Kant’s Ethics, 89.
25
Allen Wood, Kant (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005), 141.
26
Ibid., 142.
27
C.D. Broad, Kant: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). 211.

5
Kant the only actions that have true moral worth are those which are done because they are
right. Actions done from some ulterior motives such as pleasure or fear of punishment do not
have true moral worth according to Kant.28

Arguments and Evaluation

Kant’s theory is so focused on duty that he completely disregards the outcomes of
situation. We have seen the problems with ethical theories when we solely focus on the
outcomes of situation. We saw this with utilitarianism, it can lead to the most moral deprave
action becoming permissible. We should not be completely focus on the outcome on the other
hand, we should be completely dismissing outcome and be so focus on duty, if we do this can
also lead to morally questionable situations. For instance; using Kant’s same example, when
we think about lying or cheating, we are making lying permissible universally, therefore it
contradicted our rational will.

However, let us say you are at work and a former employee who was kicked out
comes to the office with a gun and he is looking for the boss who kicked him out, because he
wants to kill him. Then this person confronts you and ask whether the boss is in the office,
you know that he is in the office. In this situation you are bound by duty, to never lie, so you
must tell the man with the gun the truth, knowing that your boss will be murdered, according
to Kant the moral choice is to tell the truth, even if the moral choice will lead to murder.
Also, what happens when two duties conflict? For example, I have a moral duty to keep
promises and I also have a moral duty to help people who are suffering. Let us suppose I
promise my friend to take him to out for food and on my way to take him to the restaurant, I
notice someone lying down at the floor asking help for medical assistance, do I fulfill my
promise as duty and take my friend to the restaurant and leave the person on the floor to die?
Or do I fulfill my duty of helping the suffering person and break my promise to take my
friend out for food? Therefore, Kantian ethics have problems in these dilemmas.

If someone says that better choose what is the better good will, so in the case of
saving life or going for food, saving a life is a better act so we can break the promise in that
situation. and in the case of the gun man, lying in order to save the life of the boss is better
exercise of good will, but that goes against the concept of the Categorical Imperative by
Kant. Therefore our duties are no longer categorical, it can be broken whenever we think
28
S. Gardner, Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason (London: Routledge, 1999), 34.

6
which one is morally the justifiable thing to do, in the end this will slowly leads us to
utilitarianism approach. Whereby we are now concern with the consequence and not the duty
anymore. Each action than relies on the good will we believe and duty will become
meaningless. Finally, the idea of duty in acting in all situation is unrealistic, no two situations
are exactly the same, therefore no two actions are exactly the same. For example, doing
action “x” in situation “A” might be right, but doing action “x” in situation “B” might be
wrong. Just because it is wrong in one situation does not mean it is wrong in all situation.
Every action is unique therefore moral absolutes cannot be absolute.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. C. Grayling, Philosophy 2: Further through the subject. New York: Oxford University
Press Inc., 1998.
Broad, C.D. Kant: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Brook, Andrew. Kant and the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Brooke N. Moore and Kenneth Bruder, Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. New York: The
McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., 2005.
Gardner, S. Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. London: Routledge, 1999.
Gregor M. and J. Timmerman, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Gulyga, Arsenij. Immanuel Kant: His Life and Thought. Boston: Birkhauser, 1987.
Hartnack, J. Kant’s Theory of Knowledge. London: Macmillan, 1968.
Hartnack, Justus. Kant’s Theory of Knowledge: An Introduction to the Critique of Pure
Reason. Indiapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.
Kant, Immanuel, The Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy.
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, with On a Supposed Right to Lie
Because of Philanthropic Concerns., trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis:
Hackett, 1993.
Kant, Immanuel. trans. Max Müller, Critique of Pure Reason. London: Penguin Books, 2007.
O’Shea, James R. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction and Interpretation.
Durham: Acumen Pub., 2012.
Paul Guyer, The Cambridge Companion to Kant and modern philosophy. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.

7
Sullivan, Roger J. An Introduction to Kant’s Ethics. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1994.
Timmermann, Jens. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Uleman, J.K. An Introduction to Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010.
Wood, Allen. Kant. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.