KANT’S MORAL

PHILOSOPHY
GODOFREDO P. G. NEBRIJA, PhD
Professor of Philosophy
Saint Louis University
 IMMANUEL KANT
 Immanuel Kant was born on April 22, 1724. In 1740 he entered the
University of Königsberg[1] and studied the philosophy of Gottfried
Leibniz and his follower Christian Wolff. He studied there until 1746 when
his father died, then left Königsberg to take up a job as tutor. He became the
tutor of Count Kayserling and his family. In 1755 Kant became a lecturer
and stayed in this position until 1770. He was made the second librarian of
the Royal Library in 1766. Kant was eventually given the Chair of Logic
and Metaphysics at the University of Königsberg. In his entire life Kant
never travelled more than seventy miles from the city of Königsberg. Kant
died on February 12, 1804 with the final words "Es ist gut" ("It is good").
 Aims and Methods of Moral Philosophy
 The most basic aim of moral philosophy, and so also of the Groundwork,
is, in Kant’s view, to “seek out” the foundational principle of a
“metaphysics of morals,” which Kant understands as a system of a priori
moral principles that apply the Categorical Imperative to human persons in
all times and cultures.
 He proceeds by analyzing and elucidating common sense ideas about
morality, including the ideas of a “good will” and “duty”.
 The point of this first project is to come up with a precise statement of the
principle or principles on which all of our ordinary moral judgments are
based.
 BASIC SUMMARY

 Kant believed that certain types of action (including murder, theft, and
lying) are absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring
about more happiness.
 Kant’s theory is an example of

deontological moral theory—according to this theories, the

rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their
consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.
 The Categorical Imperative

 KANT believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and

he referred to as
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (CI).
the CI determines what our moral duties are.

MORALITY AND IMPERATIVES:

***Question: What does it mean for one’s duty to be determined by
the Categorical Imperative?
WHAT IS AN IMPERATIVE?

 AN IMPERATIVE IS A COMMAND
Like…..
“PAY YOUR TAXES!”
“STOP KICKING ME!”
“DON’T KILL ANIMALS!”
“DON’T TOUCH MY BOY/GIRLFRIEND!”
Etc.
 CATEGORICAL vs HYPOTHETICAL
 HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
- these imperatives command conditionally on you having a
relevant desire.
- it requires us to exercise our will in a certain way given we have
antecedently willed an end.
e.g.
“If you want to go to Law school, study philosophy in college.”
“If you want to become a minister, then persevere in the formation.”
“If you are thirsty then go and drink water.’
 Applies only to some under certain circumstances.
e.g.
“DON’T SMOKE!”
- it may look categorical. But it is really hypothetical imperative of the
form, if you want to avoid: lung cancer, mouth cancer, emphysema, heart
disease, and prematurely wrinkled skin.

 Hypothetical Imperatives are empirical, i.e., discovered through

experience
 CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

 These command unconditionally.

 It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or
simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference to
any ends that we might or might not have.
 Categorical Imperatives are known a priori—they are discovered
by means of pure practical reason, not by experience.
 Applies to all in the category without exception.
 For example:
 “The thirsty man”
- To quench your thirst, you need to drink water. Due to the
fact that you know that you can always be thirsty, you have to
bring bottled water all the time. But upon seeing a very thirsty
man, knowing that you are not yet thirsty, you gave the bottled
water you have to that man.
 Kant's idea of the categorical imperative would say that you’ve
made the right choice, for the right reasons, and you’ve made
those ethical decisions in a logical way.
 The Categorical Imperative
 Kant’s term for the “Moral Law”
- he implies that it is an obligation binding of all moral agents without
exception.
*** This amounts to something like:
“DO THE RIGHT THING!”

Question: How does one come to know WHAT the right thing is
in a given situation?
 The Formulations of the CI
 What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives?
- Morality must be based on the CI because morality is such that you are
commanded by it, is such that you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not
apply to you.
 Kant offers formulation of the CI to help us figure out what moral duty is.
 THE FIRST FORMULATION:
 “ALWAYS ACT IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU COULD
WILL THAT THE MAXIM OF YOUR ACT BECOME A
UNIVERSAL LAW.”
 A. What is a MAXIM?

 A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act.

For Example:
- I might make it my maxim to give at least as
much to charity each year as I spend in playing DOTA,
or,
- I might make it my maxim only to do what will
benefit to my family
 B. Basic Idea

 The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do

anything yourself that you would not be willing to allow everyone
else to do as well.
 You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself.
For Example:
- if you expect other people to keep their
promises, then you can keep your own
promises.
 C. More Detail

 More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must

be such that you are willing to make it the case that everyone
always act on that maxim when in a similar situation.
For Example:
- If you wanted to lie to get something you wanted, you would have to be
willing to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted – but if
this were to happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you
would not get what you wanted.
 So, if you willed that your maxim (of lying) should
become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal –
thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the Categorical
Imperative.
 It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make
an exception for yourself.
 The Second Formulation

 “SO ACT AS TO TREAT HUMANITY, BOTH IN YOUR OWN PERSON, AND

IN THE PERSON OF EVERY OTHER, ALWAYS AT THE SAME TIME AS AN
END, NEVER SIMPLY AS A MEANS.” (THE FORMULA OF THE END IN ITSELF)
 To use someone as a mere means is to involve them in a scheme of action to
which they could not in principle consent.

*** In typical transactions (e.g. the exchange of money for goods) people
use each other as means but not as mere means. Each person assumes the
other is acting out of his or her own motives and is not just a thing to be
manipulated.
 But in cases of promise breaking, deception, and coercion (to name a few)
people act wrongly in using each other as mere means.
For example:
- If George makes a promise to Joanne with the intention of
breaking it, and Joanne accepts, then Joanne has been deceived
as to George’s true maxim.
- Joanne cannot in principle consent to his scheme of action
since she doesn’t know what it is.
- Likewise, one cannot consent to coercion because
consent requires having a choice.
 To treat someone as an end requires that one not use him or her as a
means.
 Beyond that, we have a duty to promote other’s plans and maxims
by sharing some of their ends, thus respecting other’s ends in the
fullest way.
 But people’s wants are many, so we cannot help everyone.
 We have two main duties that derive from
Formulation II:

I.) The perfect duty to act on no maxims

that use people as mere means.
II.) The perfect duty to act on some maxims that
foster people’s ends.
 KANT ON MORAL WORTH

 BASIC IDEA: Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the
motivation of their actions and not on the goodness of the consequences of
those actions.
** By “motivation” – what caused you to do the action (i.e.
your reason for doing it).
 Kant argues that one can have moral worth (i.e., be a good person) only if
one is motivated by morality.
 In other words, if a person’s emotions or desires cause them to do
something, then that action cannot give them moral worth.
- e.g. if one is forced to donate money to a charity merely to get one’s picture in the paper or in the television.
 Why motivation is what matters?

 Moral worth only comes when you do something because you

know that it is your duty and you would do it regardless of
whether you liked it.
e.g.
- imagine winning in a lottery and you are wondering what to do with the money. You
look around for what would be the most fun to do with it: buy a yacht, travel, etc.. Or what
is more fun to you is giving money to a charity and enjoy that special feeling you get from
making people happy.
 According to Kant, you are not a morally worthy person because you did
this after all you just did what you think is fun and there is nothing
admirable about such a selfish pursuit.
 THE GOOD WILL AND DUTY

 A “Goodwill” is the only thing that is “good without

qualification.” Other “goods,” such as intelligence and health,
can be qualified.
 The Good Will is good by virtue of the fact that it is “the will
to follow the Moral Law.”
 Goodwill is the will which acts from freedom and respect for
the Moral Law.
 THE NOTION OF DUTY

 There is a DISTINCTION between “I want” (self-interest) and

the “I ought” (ethics).
 Moral actions are not ‘spontaneous’ actions.
 That is, if I see someone in need of help, I maybe inclined to
‘look the other way’ and attend to my own busy day, but I would
recognize that I should assist in some way.
For example: an elderly woman falls and is bleeding badly…I may be on my way to
work, but I recognize that I should at least seek assistance.
 CONCLUSION

 According to Kant, a good person is someone who

always does their duty because it is their duty. It is
fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must be the case that
they would do it even if they did not enjoy it. The
overall theme is that to be a good person you must be
good for goodness sake
 APPLICATIONS

 Medical Ethics:
 A medical professional must be happy for their own practices to be used by and on anyone,
even if they were the patients themselves.
 For example: a researcher who wished to perform tests on patients without their knowledge
must be happy for all researchers to do so.
 Kant’s requirement of autonomy would mean that a patient must be able to make fully
informed decision about treatment, making it immoral to perform tests on unknowing
patients.
 Patients are never used merely for the benefit of the society, but are always treated as
rational people with their own goals.
 Animal Ethics
 Because Kant viewed rationality as the basis of being a moral patient—one due
moral consideration—he believed that animals have no moral rights.
 Animals are not rational, thus one cannot behave immorally towards them.
 Although he did not believe we have any duties towards animals, Kant did believe
being cruel to them was wrong because our behavior might influence our attitudes
towards human beings: if we become accustomed to harming animals, then we are
more likely to see harming humans as acceptable.
 LYING
 Kant believed that the Categorical Imperative provides us with the maxim that we
ought not to lie in any circumstances, even if we are trying to bring about good
consequences, such as lying to a murderer to prevent them from finding their
intended victim.
 Kant argued that, because we cannot fully know what the consequences of any
action will be, the result might be unexpectedly harmful.
 Therefore, we ought to act to avoid the known wrong—lying—rather than to avoid
a potential wrong.
 If there are harmful consequences, we are blameless because we acted according
to our duty.
 Driver argues that this might not be a problem if we choose to formulate our maxims
differently: the maxim 'I will lie to save an innocent life' can be universalised.
 However, this new maxim may still treat the murderer as a means to an end, which we
have a duty to avoid doing.
 Thus we may still be required to tell the truth to the murderer in Kant's example.