Kant’s Moral Theory

Chapter 5 ETCI page 66-86

Ethics & Contemporary Issues
Professor Douglas Olena
 A Brief Narrative of
Kantian Moral Thought
Narrative of Kantian Moral Thought

The only thing good without qualification is a good will.

We define the good will as that in a person which does
good, not by inclination or habit, but out of a sense of duty.
Duty arises out of our recognition of the moral law as
discovered in the natural law which we discover by reason.
We perform duty not for the ensuing consequences but
because it is the right thing to do.
We discover what our duty is by means of the Categorical
Imperative.
Narrative of Kantian Moral Thought

The Categorical Imperative is a method of universalizing

our prospective action to the entire human race.
Secondly we must recognize that the Categorical
Imperative is only one kind of imperative and it is based on
the discovery by reason of the natural moral law.
Hypothetical Imperatives should be seen as goal based
rules leading to happiness.
Narrative of Kantian Moral Thought

A second statement of the Categorical Imperative requires

that we treat other people and ourselves as autonomous
rational beings.
Using the CI we make rules for ourselves to live by,
making us citizens in a literal Commonwealth of Ends.
We are both legislators and subject to our legislation.
It is a community where these rules emerge as methods of
interacting with each other in respect toward the
independence and rationality of its members.
A Synopsis of Ideas
From the Readings
What Gives an Act Moral Worth?

67 “It is not the consequences of an act that give it moral

worth.”
“The consequences of our acts are not always in our
control and things do not always turn out as we want.”
67, 68 “People have intrinsic value not just
instrumental value.”
 What Is the Right Motive?

68 Kant believed that an act had moral worth only if the

person performing it had a good will.
He believed there was a right and a wrong thing to do,
whether or not we knew or agreed about it. This was the
moral law.
Doing the right thing for the wrong motive had no moral
worth.
What Is the Right Thing to Do?

We must not only act out of the right motive but we

must do the right thing.

Motive Act Consequences

Both the motive and the act are morally relevant.

 What Is the Right Thing to Do?

69 Kant recognizes two kinds of obligations, what he calls

imperatives.
The first or hypothetical imperative is an obligation we
have that leads to happiness, it is of instrumental value.
These are avoidable or contingent.
ex. The imperatives are dependent on what I want or my
desires, like learning to ride a bicycle, or gaining
power, or being punctual.
If I want “Y” I have to do “X”
 What Is the Right Thing to Do?

69 Kant recognizes two kinds of obligations, what he calls

imperatives.
The second or categorical imperative however, is an
end in and of itself. An imperative of this kind makes a
demand on me and is a moral obligation.
I ought to do these whether or not I want to.
They are unconditional or necessary.
 What Is the Right Thing to Do?

69 Hypothetical oughts relate to goals we have as

individuals, therefore relating to happiness, while Moral
oughts stem from the ways in which we are alike as
persons, for only persons are subject to morality.
Moral oughts are categorical because they are
unconditional and universally binding.
 Categorical Imperative

The categorical imperative is Kant’s test for right or

wrong.
It can be formulated in a number of ways, more or less
specific.
The first most general formulation is this:
Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal
law.
 Categorical Imperative

The first form requires universalizing one’s contemplated

action.
Its scope is not limited to persons or society but also
encompasses our relationship to our environment in any
conceivable fashion.
However, even the farthest reaching application of this
formulation will affect humanity.
 Categorical Imperative

70, 71 The second formulation is specific to our behavior

toward ourselves and the rest of humanity as well as
individual humans.
Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or
that of another, never simply as a means but always at
the same time as an end.
 Categorical Imperative

71 This formulation specifies two principles about persons

that the first form does not.
1. Persons are autonomous.
2. Persons have intrinsic value or worth.
 Different Formulations

There are some interesting problems with Kant’s theory

that could be resolved by playing off the different
formulations against each other.
Applying the Categorical Imperative

72 What determines the morality of an action is not

whether its practice has good or bad consequences, but
whether there would be anything contradictory in willing
the practice as a universal law.
 Duty

73 Duty can be described as the obligation to do whatever

the categorical imperative has arrived at as an obligation.
Kant’s formulation of obligations often leads to the charge
that he is an absolutist, not an objectivist.
He often favors such rules as formulated by the
Categorical Imperative, such as “It is always wrong to
make a lying promise.”
This is extended easily to “Never Lie.”
 Duty: Problems With Absolutes

73 This leaves us in a quandary in come cases.

The example of the murderer at the door is one such case.
Kant wants us to tell the murder the truth about our
friend who has sought refuge in our house.
He suggests that once we have done that, we have
fulfilled our obligation to the moral law.
 Duty: Problems With Absolutes

The example of the murderer at the door…

He suggests that even if we lie and say our friend is not
here, that our friend may have left by the back door,
making our statement true after a fashion.
If the murderer then catches our friend because he left
having believed us, we may be accused of leading the
murderer to our friend and so be culpable as an
accessory to the crime.
 Duty: Problems With Absolutes

The example of the murderer at the door…

However, if our friend didn’t leave and we tell the truth
to the murderer who subsequently finds our friend and
kills him, Kant says we are not culpable because we
fulfilled our duty.
 Christine Korsgaard

Christine Korsgaard offers a solution to this dilemma.

The resolution to Kant’s treatment of this dilemma lies
between the first and second formulation of the CI.
The supposed prohibition to lie to the murder rests with
the second formulation of the CI where we are not
permitted to treat the murderer as merely a means to an
end.
However, could we universalize a rule about lying to
murderers on the basis of the first formulation of the CI?
 Moral Equality and Impartiality

73 Kant’s theory emphasizes the moral equality of all

persons.
Moral obligation and morality itself flow from our nature
as persons as rational and autonomous.
Another feature of Kant’s moral philosophy is its spirit of
impartiality.
 Not All Duties Are the Same

74 Because of the nature and complexity of human nature,

not all obligations are the same.
According to Kant we have duties of two kinds.
Perfect duties
Imperfect duties
 Not All Duties Are the Same

74 The perfect duties correspond to clear cases of moral

obligation, like our duty to preserve life or our duty not to
make a lying promise.
Imperfect duties correspond to cases of moral obligation
that are tempered by circumstance and respect for our own
autonomy, like our duty to improve ourselves and a duty of
beneficence.
 Not All Duties Are the Same

Perfect Duties are absolute obligations.

Since we can never treat persons or our selves as means
only, we are not permitted to kill ourselves.
Since we can never universalize a maxim of a lying
promise, yet can universalize a maxim of being truthful,
we are obligated to tell the truth whatever the cost.
 Not All Duties Are the Same

Imperfect Duties are contingent obligations.

Since the world would be better for us and others if we
would make the best possible improvement in ourselves, we
are obligated to do so. However if we are unable or
unwilling because of circumstances we can not be held
responsible.
Since we are not obligated to help others in every case we
will not be held responsible for not doing so. However, in
our world, improvement of the species as a whole and each
society can be had by these methods, so we should help
each other.