Title of Assignment: Using examples, explain Kant's moral theory.

What objection could a

Utilitarian raise to the Kantian approach? How would you respond to such an objection?

Course Title: Introduction to Philosophical Thoughts

Course Code: E 207

Date of Submission: 10 August, 2021

Submitted to:
Nasrin Sultana
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy,
Jahangirnagar University

Submitted by:
A. E. M. Zakaria Bin Zahid
Roll: 816
Batch: 47
Department of English,
Jahangirnagar University
Savar, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh
 Answer To The Question No. 1

Question: Using examples, explain Kant's moral theory. What objection could a Utilitarian raise
to the Kantian approach? How would you respond to such an objection?

Answer:

One of the leading advocates of deontology, Immanuel Kant devised the Categorical Imperative
(command), believed by Kant as a supreme principle of morality, one of the greatest
contributions to the field of philosophy published in his work ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysic of
Morals’. Kant believed and thus argued that practical reason can be sufficient for deriving moral
principles and thus he devised the Categorical Imperative.  

The Categorical Imperative can be understood to be an “action considered moral only if one acts
out of a sense of duty alone, without resorting to reasons of inclination or self- interest. The two
elements one must understand to their respective the categorical imperative is intrinsic goodness
and the concept of goodwill. Kant intended to make moral truth a “necessary, absolute, universal
truth” instead of it being an empirical observation. Kant also brings up the value of morality to
be intrinsic, that is, it is valuable in itself.

Goodwill according to Kant is something which is “The only thing that is good, good in itself
and without qualification”. The basic interpretation of this statement is that a person is qualified
to be good if he possesses a will that is guided by the moral law to make decisions. Goodwill is
considered to be the ideal form where an individual takes into consideration the moral
considerations as the conclusive force in the kind of behaviour that an individual adapts to. This
is the kind of disposition that is valued without any limitations and thus is highly valued.

The categorical imperative is one concept in itself; however it has multiple representations or
connotations. According to H.J. Palton, the categorical imperative had four representations.

1. The formula of Universal Law:

The first representation is the Formula of Universal Law. It advocates that one must act only if
the maxim can be universalized. That is, for an individual’s maxim to be morally permissible, it
should be willed as a universal law or something achievable for everybody. This theory does not
account for the nature of the maxim, that is whether it is good or bad, but whether it is
universally acceptable. This brings Kant to a preliminary formulation of the CI: “I ought never to
act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (G
4:402)

For Example : The maxim "one can take dishonest way to get a job” can't be a universal law
because no one will have this maxim.

2. The formula of the Law of Nature:

The second representation is the Formula of the Law of Nature. It advocates that one must act
only if the maxim will become the universal law of nature through your action. The procedure
with which Kant commands us to practice this formula is through making this law vivid in our
imagination and depict ourselves in a world where everybody acts in accordance with it.

For example : "Committing Suicide is forbidden". If we allow people to die it goes against the
law of nature. The natural law is "we wish to live not die".

3. Formula of Autonomy:

The fourth representation is the Formula of Autonomy. Reason thus relates every maxim of the
will, considered as making universal law, to every other will and also to every action towards
oneself; it does so, not because of any further motive or future advantage, but form the idea of
the dignity of a rational being who obeys no law other than that which he at the same time enacts
himself”.

It advocates that one must act for one will be considered as the universal law through its maxim.
This formula is based on the doctrine of ration will.
For example : "Help people". Every rational human should help one another. If we don't help
others and when we need help how can we expect help from others? Kant insists that we make
moral law which is rational (fair) to every human.

4. The formula of the End in Itself:

The third representation is the Formula of the End in Itself. It advocates that an act must be
performed as an end to use humanity towards yourself and others and not as a means. We are
bound to treat ourselves and others as ends and not just the means. One cannot be used as a
means to an end since one has an intrinsic value that ought to be respected and valued.

‌Criticisms against the Kantian philosophy :

1. One of the critics against Kant’s Categorical Imperative is that it symbolizes

absolutism. The moral rules generated by this imperative are exceptionless and Universal. This
can be illustrated with an example of telling the truth.

For example: A man gives shelter to an innocent man called "X" who is running away from a
local gang. When the gang came to the man asking about Mr. X what the man could do? Kantian
ideology would advise the man to tell the truth which is not moral. Duty based moralist doesn’t
consider any consequences only to stand with duty.

2. Kant argues that in every moral of everyone should be motivated by a sense of duty.
But Ross argues that this may not necessarily happen.

For example: I can act from a certain motive only if I have the motive; if not, the most I can do is
to cultivate it by suitably directing my attention or by action in certain appropriate ways so that
on some future occasion it will be present in me, and I shall be able to act from it. My present
duty, therefore, can not be to act here and now from it.

3. Kant ignores subjectivity and sticks to objective law. He insists only the duty to be
dutiful that gives moral worth to an action but if one does not have this motivation then it is not
possible to act morally. He seems to suggest that through reason, one sees that to perform a duty
is what one should do, because it is the right thing to do but such an abstract notion is not
necessarily a given.

Kant seems to have failed to realise or perhaps ignored the psychological dimensions to human
beings that is we cannot do anything without our subject intervention.

4. Kant's effort to exclude all notions of consequences and instinct there does seem to be
a sense of hollow emptiness. Professor Longuenesse (2005) offers an explanation, "its role is to
evaluate the rules we already have…..expressing prudential and instrumental relations of ends
and means. The reason the categorical imperative appears to be empty is that indeed on its own it
provides neither specific goals to achieve nor specific means to achieve them." So it is only a
means to decide existing rules, not an attempt to create new ones.

For example : By taking vaccines many could die, but for this, vaccination can not be stopped.

5. Another criticism against the categorical imperative is from the evolutionists.

Evolutionary philosophers such as Daniel Dennett refers that " the Kantian ideology is a fantasy
in which you somehow strengthen your pre-reasoning muscle to such a fine order that you can
make pure and emotionless judgement.

For example: An antisemetic man wants to kill all the jews. According to Kant if the maxim
arises from contradiction it is immoral otherwise it is moral.So,If "kill all the jews" is universal
law, that means if there are no jews remaining to protest how can the maxim create
contradiction? So, the idea of contradiction is futile in determining moral acts.

My opinion about Kant's Philosophy :

 1. Defence of absolutism:

One of the critics against Kant's categorical imperative is that it symbolises absolutism. The
moral rules generated by this imperative are exception less and universal.

For example: "Never tell a lie."

One of the ways it can be altered through modifying the moral laws to adapt to realistic
situations.

The moral law " Never lie" can be altered to be "Never lie except to save an innocent man's life".

Ross's suggestion about Prima-facie and actual duties:

Another alteration proposed by William D. Ross called the prima-facie duty approach. Ross
presents a list of seven intuitive duties. These duties are promise keeping, fidelity, gratitude for
favours, beneficence, justice, self improvement, non maleficence.

He says that a theory does not necessarily apply all the time and can be overridden by another
theory in particular situations. He justifies the difference between prima facie duties and actual
duties. Prima facie duties are superficial duties which must be done at first glance. The seven
duties listed in the previous part are morally binding until one of them emerges to be stronger
than the rest which is called the actual duty.

2. Regarding consequences:

Kant’s belief in the principle of ends is that the act which we perform doesn’t depend on any
consequences i.e. it is end in itself. So according to Kant we should not have any particular goal
to achieve. But in the dilemma of gangstar and innocent man, the man who gave shelter to the
innocent man who has two option-

1. To tell a lie to save an innocent man.

2. To tell the truth to kill the innocent man.

According to Ross, here the man should think about the better ends (consequences). That means
he should overcome the duty of prima facie ( primary duty) to enter into the actual duty. The
actual duty is to save the man at any cost. So he should tell a lie to save a life. Therefore, in some
cases, we should act in such a way so that our duty can give us better Consequences.

3. Against subjectivity and only applied to rational agent:

Moral philosophy can't bring that much good to our life as it is against subjectivity. Subjective
intervention is necessary for the betterment of our world but is against subjectivity. Kant believes
that everyone will act according to the idea of duty he sets. Moreover, his moral theory is
applicable only to the "reasoned person" not even the man who lost his reasoning and animals
who don't have reasoning. So moral theory doesn’t pay any attention to animal rights and
environmental issues.

For example : When a person promised his friend to come to the station at 7 pm which is his
perfect duty but on his way he finds a beggar who is hungry. So he stops his car and feeds the
beggar which is his imperfect duties.

Moral philosophy believes that perfect duty is performed accordingly and imperfect duty can be
deniable. But in this case, subjective intervention and reasoned thinking helps the man to prefer
the imperfect duty rather than perfect duty. Here, between promise and charity, which is
important should be decided by the man who is going to choose one of them.

4. Differentiation of what is right and what is wrong:

Categorical imperative fails to distinguish what is right and what is wrong when presented with
conflicting principles. The obvious example here is I should not lie and I should not hurt
someone's feelings, both of which pass the categorical imperative but how can we follow when
someone's wife asks him if she looks fat in a dress, when it does indeed make her look fat.
Appleby et al (2009) offers a more critical example of:

1.Abortion is one kind of murder which is immoral.

2.when A abortion can save The mother's life, will it be remain immoral?

The categorical imperative can't give any valid arguments about it.

References:

● O’Neill, Onora. “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics.” 411-415. Blackboard.

Web. 19 Oct. 2014.
● Bennett, Christopher. “Utilitarianism.” What is this thing called ethics?. London:
Routledge, 2010. 55-73
● Honderich, Ted. “The Oxford Companion to Philosophy”. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
● Eggleston, B., & Miller, D. (Eds.). (2014). The Cambridge Companion to
Utilitarianism (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.2014.
● Kant I (1785) First section; Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals
to the Philosophical” Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.