Summary

Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, published in 1785, is Kants first major work in ethics. Like the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, the Groundwork is the short and easy-to-read version of what Kant deals with at greater length and complexity in his Critique. The Critique of Practical Reason, published three years later, contains greater detail than the Groundwork and differs from it on some pointsin the Critique of Practical Reason, for instance, Kant places greater emphasis on ends and not just on motivesbut this summary and analysis will cover only the general points of Kants ethics, which both his major works share in common. Morality applies to all rational beings, and a moral action is defined as one that is determined by reason, not by our sensual impulses. Because an action is moral on account of its being reasoned, the moral worth of an action is determined by its motive, or the reason behind the action, not by its consequences. We can determine the worth of the motive behind any given moral action by asking whether we could turn that motive into a universally applicable maxim. Reason is the same at all times and for all people, so morality too should be universal. Therefore, an action is moral only if it embodies a maxim that we could will to be a universal law. Kant calls it a categorical imperative that we must act in such a way that we could will the maxim according to which we act to be a universal law. He contrasts this with the hypothetical imperative, which would demand that we act to achieve certain ends. The maxim of a hypothetical imperative would assert, do such -and-such if you want to achieve such-and-such result. There are no ifs in moral action, according to Kant. Morality works according to a categorical imperative because we must act in a given way simply because the motive is admirable, not because we have calculated that we can achieve certain ends as a result. Once we recognize the universality of moral law, we must also recognize that it applies equally to all people. Acting morally, then, requires that we recognize other people as moral agents and always treat them as ends in themselves, not as means by which we can achieve our own ends. We must also ensure that our actions do not prevent other people from acting in accordance with moral law. Kant envisions an ideal society as a kingdom of ends, in which people are at once both the authors and the subjects of the laws they obey. Morality is based in the concept of freedom, or autonomy. Someone with a free, or autonomous, will does not simply act but is able to reflect and decide whether to act in a given way. This act of deliberation distinguishes an autonomous will from a heteronomous will. In deliberating, we act according to a law we ourselves dictate, not according to the dictates of passion or impulse. We can claim to have an autonomous will even if we act always according to universal moral laws or maxims because we submit to these laws upon rational reflection. Kant answers the tricky question of free will and determinismhow can we at once assert that we have a free will and that we live in a world that functions according to necessary physical laws?by drawing on his distinction from the Critique of Pure Reason between the phenomenal world of appearances and the noumenal world of things-inthemselves. Physical laws apply only to appearances, whereas the will is a thing-in-itself about which we have no direct knowledge. Whether the will is actually free we can never know, but we still act in accordance with the idea of freedom.

Analysis
In Kantian ethics, reason is not only the source of morality, it is also the measure of the moral worth of an action. Like some of his predecessors, Kant recognizes that our status as moral beings follows from our status as rational beings. That is, our actions can be considered moral or immoral to the extent that they are reasoned. However, in saying that rational decisions are open to moral judgment, we have not determined the grounds on which we should judge them. Many of the ethical theorists who preceded Kant attempt to ground moral judgment in the law of God or of a sovereign monarch. Kant recognizes that grounding morality in an externally imposed law compromises the autonomy of the will: in such a case, we act under a feeling of compulsion to a will that is not our own, and so we

are not entirely accountable for our actions. We act autonomously only if we act in accordance with a law dictated by our own reason. While earlier philosophers recognize that rationality is the source of morality, Kant is the first to argue that reason also provides the standard by which we make moral evaluations. Kants ethics is the most influential expression of an approach to ethics known as deontology, which is often contrasted with consequentialism. The distinctive feature of deontology is that it approves or disapproves of actions in and of themselves. For instance, according to Kant, lying is always wrong because we cannot will it as a universal maxim that lying is okay. The consequentialist view, by contrast, argues that moral value lies not in our actions but in their consequences. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is one of the most influential forms of consequentialist ethics. Mill argues that we should always aim at ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and that, for instance, telling a lie in particular consequences is good if telling that lie produces good consequences. The consequentialist view has the intuitive appeal that we presumably determine that actions are good or not depending on the effect they actually have. However, a Kantian would argue against this view, pointing out that we have full control only over our motives, not the consequences of our actions, so our autonomous will can only approve or disapprove of motives. An ethics that focuses on consequences, then, is not based in the autonomy of the will. Kantian ethics rely on a universalist conception of reason and morality that is characteristic of the Enlightenment. Kant is quite clear that his ethics apply equally to all people. We can only consider an action moral if we could will that it apply as a universal law to everyone, and we should aspire to a kingdom of ends, in which everyone is both author and subject to the moral laws dictated by reason. This conception of morality was first questioned by Hegel, who argued that morality varies depending on cultural and historical circumstances, and moral relativism has become a foundation stone of the postmodern worldview. A postmodernist critique of Kant would suggest that Kant is insufficiently sensitive to the great variety of individual experience and that it is paternalistic, if not arrogant, to assume that one can apply ones own moral standards to peoples and cultures of which one has no understanding. A Kantian would reply that Kantian ethics are based in a shared humanity that applies to all people. Certainly, we adopt different practical identities, such that we might hold different values depending on whether we identify, say, as a Canadian, a postal worker, or a jazz aficionado. However, Kantian ethics are based not on these particular practical identities but on our shared identity as rational beings, which we cannot revoke without revoking our humanity.

Kantian ethical theory is one of several moral/ethical theories that provide the following: 1) a method for deriving moral rules and guidelines and 2) a justification and criteria for evaluating the moral value of particular human actions.

So like cultural relativism, which was discussed beforehand, the Kantian theory of ethics seeks to establish an organized approach to how morality is formed and how various actions can be judged and analyzed in terms of their moral legitimacy. As we will see, however, there are vast differences between the two methodologies. Kantian ethical theory is named after its founder, Immanuel Kant, an 18 th century German thinker of the Enlightenment Age. It is important to keep in mind the context in which Kant formulated his ethical theory. During this optimistic time period, there emerged a strong belief in the ability of human reason to help understand the world and solve its various problems including ethical ones. Thus, Kant sought to establish an approach to morality that would be reason-based. Indeed, Kant believed that to be ethical is to be perfectly rational, and that the most rational behavior is naturally the most ethical one. He also believed that behaving morally was a matter of obligation for which there could be no exception or loophole hence the emphasis on rules rather than on consequences. For this reason, the Kantian approach to morality is classified as a type of Deontologicalethical theory. Derived from the word deon, which is Greek for duty, this ethical theory holds that there is an innate aspect to a given moral rule that makes it either good or bad. Put another way, it judges the morality of an action not on, say, its consequences or utility, but on said actions adhere to a rule or set of rules. Thus, Kantian/Deontological ethical theory is based around established rules and guidelines, and as such, considers morals to be unconditional, obligatory, and universal. So it is best defined as a rules-based or duty-based system of ethics. For a Kantian ethicist, the ends of an action never justify the means; rather, it is the action itself that is intrinsically good or bad. We cant control consequences anyway, since there is no telling whether a particular action will lead to the intended results. Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives But what does it mean to have a moral system that is obligatory and rules-based? Keep in mind that Kant is not trying to create any moral rules himself. Hes not directly telling us what is good or bad. Rather, he wants to establish a universal method for determining what is moral. Basically, hes giving a way to test the legitimacy of other moral rules and actions. The core of this approach is something known as the categorical imperative. This is a command or recommendation of action that is completely absolute. For example, you should never lie or you should always keep your promises. Kant contrasts this with thehypothetical imperative, which is a dictate that is based around certain conditions or desires. An example of this would be, you ought to tell the truth if you want people to trust you, or if you want to be a good person. A hypothetical imperative usually contains keywords such as ought, should, or if in order to connect the command to a particular condition or motive; categorical imperatives have no such considerations: basically, its you ought to do something, period. Intuitively, there doesnt seem to be anything wrong with believing that you should tell the truth for the sake of winning peoples trust. After all, this appears to be a perfectly rational expectation and motivation, and Kant was all about basing morals on reason. So why does Kantian ethical theory hold that rules must be unconditional in order to be legitimate and rational? Whats so irrational about conditional morals? The problem is that having ones actions contingent upon particular conditions builds into them a loophole: if you don t care about the conditions, you have no reason to follow through with the moral action. If I dont care whether or not people will trust me or see me as a good person, I have no reason to tell the truth. Ill only be moral insofar as doing so meets certain relevant desires, circumstances, or environments. Thus, the categorical imperative obliges us to behave a certain way out of duty, with no other external or ulterior factors in mind. This makes for a more reliable moral system, since it ensures that we do indeed always tell the truth or behave justly no matter what. But what compels us to follow these categorical imperatives? Why should we be good for the sheer sake of it? And how do we determine what should be a categorical imperative?

The Formulations of the Categorical Imperative Kants answer to these questions is based on an appeal to reason: just as hypothetical imperatives ought to be done for certain desires, categorical imperatives ought to be driven by rational considerations. The first formulation, or principle, for determining whether an act is morally permissible is as follows: Act only according to that maxim by which you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law In other words, when youre considering doing something, ask yourself the following: 1) What rule would you be following were you to go through with the act? This would be the maxim or guideline for said action. 2) Would you be willing to have this rule become universal law, to be practiced by everyone else around you at all times? If the action youre considering meets these requirements, then youve devised a categorical imperative a sound moral rule for which you must oblige yourself to follow absolutely. If not, however, then this action is not moral and therefore not permissible. So if Im thinking about making a categorical imperative that states you ought to lie, I must measure it against the first formulation: would this be a maxim that Id want to become universal? Would I want to live in a world were everyone has a duty to be dishonest in every circumstance? If Im a reasonable person, I would most certainly be opposed to this. The second formulation of the categorical imperative states the following: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. What this basically means is that we should treat people as intrinsically valuable. Indeed, Kant held that human beings are valuable above all price, because unlike objects, a person is irreplaceable. Furthermore, objects can only serves as a means: a car is only valuable insofar as it serves its purpose as a form of transportation. People, however, have an inherent value to them that is beyond serving anyone elses means. Humans have dignity. But more importantly, theyre autonomous moral agents: they have free will and the ability to guide their actions. Because we humans are rational agents capable of making our decisions and setting our own goals, we are innately valuable. After all, without humans, there would be no conception of either morality or reason. It is because of this that we should never be used as mere instruments for anothers ends. People must be respected as the rational, independent actors that they are, and must not be reduced to the roles of objects. Thus, a proper moral action must preclude manipulating someone for the sake of self-interest, or forcing them to commit actions against their will. Hiring someone to fix a problem wouldnt be a problem given that theyre doing so knowingly and willingly; using a slave to do the task, however, would no doubt violate this formulation and make for an unacceptable moral maxim. It is interesting to see how Kantian ethical theory would apply to the justice system. Kant would be opposed punishing someone to deter criminal behavior because he doesnt deal in consequences and hypothetical scenarios. Recall that for the Kantian, morality is based solely upon the intent of a particular action and whether it comports with a rule thus, consequences or other considerations dont matter. Instead, Kant would approve of punishment for the sake of retribution; rather then correct a criminals behavior, this sort o f punishment simply addresses a wrong that has already been committed (albeit proportional to the crime, as Kant was keen to clarify). Furthermore, punishing a criminal treats them as an autonomous moral agent i.e. ends themselves

and to not punish them would treat them as objects that have no self-guiding morals. In a sense, retributive justice acknowledges the criminals human dignity. Pros and Cons of Kantian Ethical Theory Kant put a lot of thought into his ethical theory, and he established a rather sophisticated universal methodology for determining proper morality. Even so, like any ethical theory, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Among the greatest attribute of Kantian ethical theory is its c onsistency: because this theory is rules-based and absolute, it requires us to be consistent in our morality. Recall that the first formulation of the categorical imperative obliges us to follow rules only if wed want everyone else to do so too. Similarly, if one accepts considerations as reasons to do (or not do) something in one case, then you must accept those reasons in others. To quote James Rachels, moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are binding on all people at all times. All this makes for a moral system that is as stable as it is rational. On the other hand, this same absolutism is a major weakness as well, for it leads to a possibleconflict of rules. What happens when we face a scenario that forces us to choose between two or more obligatory moral rules? Consider the two imperatives never tell a lie and never allow innocents to die if you can help it. Within the Kantian framework, both these moral rules would be unconditional. But what happens if, during Nazi-era Germany, youre secreting harboring Jews and the Gestapo come knocking on your door? In this instance, youd be forced to choose between lying or letting innocent people die, thereby violating one rule by virtue of choosing another. Absolutism in such circumstances can be very troubling and arguably irrational: shouldnt a rule be broken if following it would lead to harmful consequences? Furthermore, Kant underestimates the importance of taking consequences into account when considering an action. He believed that we could never be certain of the results of our actions, whether theyre well -intended or not. But is this realistically applicable to all scenarios? Arent there certain cases where we could be pretty sure of the consequences? Moreover, Kant suggests that regardless of the consequences of our actions, what matters is our intention and adherence to an unconditional rule. But could we really be blameless if we commit an act that were reasonably sure would lead to more harm than good, even if we were being consistent in our morality? Ultimately, while Kantian ethical theory provides some crucial moral insights, it also seems ill-suited to deal with the complex reality of many ethical problems.