Notes on the Basics of Kant 4: Kantian Ethics Explained

According to Kant, in his, Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals, there is only one thing that is good in itself which is The Good Will. Everything else has to be qualified, The Good Will is the only good without qualification. While other things can be good, The Good Will is good in itself. Being intelligent can be a good thing but one could also use their intelligence for evil if The Good Will is not present. Courage can be good to save someone out of a burning building but a thief can have courage when robbing a bank. Being healthy can be good but without having a Good Will they can spoil the individual with pride. Having good virtues such as moderation is a step in the right direction but they need to be directed by having a Good Will. Jeremy Bentham would say that the Good Will is that which leads to the best consequences or utility for the greatest number of people. However, according to Kant it is not about the effect but one must examine the Will directly. It is good through its willing itself i.e. it is good in itself. Even if a Good Will cannot bring its desired consequence it can be good in itself. A good person has the freedom to choose to have a Good Will. One needs to have the motive to fulfill their duty for its own sake. This is why his ethics is known as deontological ethics. Our rationality and reason directs the Good Will. The implementation of the activity of the Good will is Practical Reason.

Why were we given reason by nature? It is not purely for happiness according to Kant for a few reasons. The first being that if it was solely for happiness which he defines as the desires and inclinations of the individual being satisfied then nature would make us purely instinctual creatures which is not the case. Secondly, those who use reason to reach happiness will often be unhappy since deeply thinking and planning about achieving happiness is quite heavy relative to the one that has no plans who randomly bumps into happiness. Reason is not purely for survival as well. The goal of reason is something higher than happiness, doing duty for the sake of duty which is the Good Will which is good in itself. Reason is the tool for enacting Practical Reason.

The pure concept of duty according to Kant contains the Good Will. Actions can be either against duty or in agreement with duty. It is possible to perform one’s duty but for the wrong motivation. The only correct reason to do duty is for its own sake. For example, a merchant ripping off his customers is against duty but to give them a fair price is in agreement with duty. However, he should give a fair price because it is the right thing to do rather than doing it as a means to another end such as self-interest. Even if someone is inclined against duty, one must do their duty and therefore, there is a type of purity in it. We should act out of duty, not just in accordance with it. Furthermore, an action done from duty is good according to the maxim it is done according to. Also, one must act out of reverence for the moral law. Why should one have reverence for the moral law, because it is the right thing to do so one should ought to do it as an imperative.

As a rational being, we can respond to imperatives including the wrong ones so therefore, in order to be moral, one must ought to have the correct imperative. For Kant, there are categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are done for the sake of another end. For example, if you want to get good grades in my philosophy class then you will read my blog. A categorical imperative, on the other hand, is a universal rule which is done for its own sake rather than a means to something else. The categorical imperative is at the heart of his moral philosophy. It informs the individual what the duties are and since the categorical imperative is universal, they are duties that all humans share. Kant first formulated the categorical imperative as the following statement,

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.

If an act is moral then it should meet the criteria of universality such that everyone from any time or context should do it. Lying is wrong for everyone in all places and times and in every circumstance. Furthermore, it needs to be willable such that if you were to will it there must not be any inconsistencies or contradictions. Seemingly in that it may be slightly consequentialist as one needs to look at the results of the willing to see if there are any inconsistencies of making an action a universal law but then again it is not about the effects of the universal law it is about the principle behind it. Since so many people make exceptions for themselves, the good person must push themselves in order to fulfill their duty in following the categorical imperative even if it goes against what they want. If it was a universal law that everyone would lie in order to get their way then the idea of keeping promises becomes void. Even suicide would be against Kantian ethics as suicide creates a contradiction between itself and the idea of selflove and sustaining. Rational beings would want their powers to be developed to their best abilities so Kant wants people to be healthy and educated as well. The question then becomes for students of Kantian ethics is whether the formulation of the maxim that is to be willed into a universal law is always general or can be specific. For example, is lying always wrong full stop as a universal law or can a maxim be made that one can lie when there is no other choice left to save a life. Both can be made a universal law that can be willed. Kant would likely argue that the maxim must be general. If we start making exceptions or qualifications, which we as humans have a tendency to do, then it’s no longer a universal law. Therefore, Kant is a moral absolutist.

According to Kant, people are the end in themselves and their value is their dignity due to being rational beings. This leads to his second formulation of the categorical imperative,

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person, or in the person of another, never simply as a means, but always at the same as an end”.

Due to our will as rational beings, we are able to subject ourselves to these laws universally to be moral agents. When we act we act towards an end which is determined by reason alone. The means is the method we get to the end goal. There is a distinction between subjective ends which deal with our desires and objective ends with the latter applying universally to all people. Some things are valuable as means to certain ends but all people, including yourself, as rational beings are valuable as they are ends in themselves and not means to another end. As for the freedom of our will, this is something that Kant says we must presuppose rather than is something that can be proven. Furthermore, it is only exclusive to humans as they are rational beings. Also, he says that it is a causality and freedom is a property of it. It is free such that it can be efficient without other causes determining it. Our will does not act arbitrarily though; it acts on laws imposed upon itself such as the categorical imperatives. While there can be other causes that affect us, they are not determinate.

There is also a third formulation of the categorical imperative given by Kant which is the principle of practical reason which determines our duty as rational beings. All three formulations are to be governed by reason alone rather than empirical observation. The motive for doing the moral action is based on the maxim of turning it into a universally legislative will rather than being based on any interest. Kantian morals are based on duty and to recognize one’s universal duty is the Principle of Autonomy. When everyone recognizes and acts upon this it will be the Kingdom of Ends where every person is willingly treated as an end in themselves rather than a means as an end. Every person in the goal of achieving a possible Kingdom of Ends enacts and is subjected to the legislative duties as rational beings with human dignity.

Besides the three categorical imperatives, Kant also presents Three Modes Presenting Principle of Morality which are interlaced between the categorical imperatives and themselves. Every maxim we choose to make a universal law must have

1. Form: The universality of the law (that must be willed). If there is universality there is unity in the form.

2. Matter: The end in itself. If there are ends with means and the self with others there is plurality in the matter.

3. Complete Determination/Characterization: All maxims ought to, by their own legislation, ought to harmonize with a possible Kingdom of Ends. There is totality that comes with complete determination of the form and matter and the categorical imperatives.

Besides giving his own system of morality, Kant also critiques others and this is called the Heteronomy of the Will. While autonomy of the will is to willingly choose to follow the duties for their own sake and to give yourself these laws, heteronomy is the opposite. He lists individual happiness or success, empirical happiness which is moral feeling such as compassion and empathy, the rational principle of perfection such as becoming the best person you can be such as in virtue ethics, and lastly he criticizes my beloved divine command theory which is rules given by the divinely perfected will and knowledge of God. For the first theory he states that there are bad people who prosper and good people who suffer for being good. Furthermore, imagine telling a child that they will be rewarded for good behavior for a piece of candy rather than telling them that it is the good thing to do. As for moral feeling, morality cannot be based on feeling because feelings are an uncertain and unreliable guide as feelings often change and can be confused and are not objective as they differ from person to person. It is a morality for people who do not want to think. The problem with virtue ethics, according to Kant, is that it is indefinite as there is no end goal in sight for perfection. As for divine command theory, he says that we do not know what a divine will is so therefore we act upon our own ideas. At least moral feeling, according to Kant, attempts to show that there is something desirable in morality.

How are categorical imperatives even possible? Actions are the effects of our will and they can be affected by our desires but do not have to succumb to them. These desires are from the world of sense but from our will is where morality is derived in the world of intelligence. The laws of our will come from reason and these laws of our will become imperatives. Following imperatives allow actions to become duties.