Kant’s deontological ethics

Kant’s deontological ethics

Kant’s deontological ethical theory is a perennial favourite for A-level students. Jennifer Goodyer clarifies the issues arising from a consideration of this distinctive theory

Jennifer Goodyer

One of the important, yet challenging, questions considered by ethical thinkers is whether an action can ever be good in itself without reference to the consequences. Is telling the truth something that is always good or do we need to look at the circumstances and consequences in order to assess whether a person should tell the truth in a particular situation? There are two main approaches to answering this question: a teleological approach and a deontological approach.

Whereas teleological ethical theories are endbased and stress the importance of consequences, deontological theories are duty-based and emphasise the motivation and reasoning behind an act. According to teleological thinkers, the moral worth of actions can only be judged by their outcomes. Sometimes telling the truth is morally justified, while at other times it is better to lie and the only way to decide is to assess the individual circumstances and possible consequences. By contrast, deontological thinkers argue that moral actions, such as telling the truth, have intrinsic worth and carry their own moral force.

Immanuel Kant and Groundwork

One of the most important and influential deontological ethical theories is presented by the eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. This work is so titled because of Kant’s claim that morals are based not in experience, intuition, feeling or human nature but in what lies beyond this realm — namely, in metaphysics. In simpler terms, morals are known only by reason. Kant writes: ‘all moral concepts have their seat and origin in reason completely a priori’.

Kant’s reasoning for this claim relies on his twin beliefs that, first, morals must be universal in order to be authoritative and command respect and, second, whereas the world of experience is always changing, reason is fixed and identical in every rational human being. However, although morals derive from reason, their scope extends beyond the mental realm as they tell us how to act. Therefore, according to Kant, moral statements are both synthetic and a priori. This means that they tell us new information about the world (they are synthetic) but are understood and verified by reason (they are a priori). For example, the moral statement ‘Do not lie’ tells us something about the world — namely, that we should not lie — but is knowable and verifiable through reason. This is a big claim and positions Kant in direct opposition to utilitarian thinkers who argue that both the foundation and application of ethics are in experience and a calculation of consequences.

Kant’s big claims in Groundwork

In addition to his overarching claim that morals are known through reason yet apply to the sensory world, Kant uses the three chapters of Groundwork to make other claims which, when linked together, produce an outline of his deontological ethics. Kant’s writing can sometimes be difficult to understand and his arguments hard to follow but focusing on these key claims helps to make sense of his thought.

Chapter One

■ Only the good will is good without exception.

Kant opens Groundwork with a bold claim: ‘It is impossible to imagine anything at all in the world, or even beyond it, that can be called good without qualification — except a good will.’ As Kant argues, everything else that we might call ‘good’ — for example, intelligence or wealth — can become harmful if a good will does not steer the moral agent. By contrast, a good will is intrinsically good — it is good in itself because, if it ceased to be good, it would no longer be a good will.

■ We display a good will when we act out of duty. Duty involves doing something because it is inherently right to do so and this corresponds with the intrinsic goodness of a good will. In other words, because a good will is demonstrated without recourse to consequences, it is only when we do something for the sake of its inherent goodness that we act with a good will. ‘The moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth, not in the objective to be reached by that action, but in the maxim in accordance with which the action is decided upon.’

■ Duty and respect for the law are synonymous.

According to Kant, it is impossible to extricate duty from the moral law: ‘Duty is the necessity of an act done out of respect for the law.’ When we act out of duty we are following the moral law which is absolutely, unconditionally and universally good.

■ Summary: good will, duty and respect for the law are all inextricably bound together and form the foundation of Kant’s deontological ethics.

Chapter Two

■ The moral law is a type of imperative.

Central to Chapter Two is Kant’s discussion of imperatives. As Kant explains, imperatives are commands. He writes: ‘Imperatives say that something would be good to do or to leave undone.’ As Kant is aware, all laws are composed of commands and the moral law is no exception. According to Kant, there are two types of imperative: hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives.

■ Hypothetical imperatives are useful but not moral. Hypothetical imperatives always include an ‘if’ as they tell us what to do if we want to achieve a certain result. For example, if I want to be trusted I must keep my promises. According to Kant, although these are useful they cannot be moral as they do not command absolutely and universally.

■ The categorical imperative is the imperative of morality. In contrast to hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives command absolutely — for example, ‘Do not murder’. Kant writes: ‘A categorical imperative is limited by no condition and can actually be called a commandment in the strict sense, being absolutely, although practically necessary.’ Categorical imperatives are universal because they apply to everyone, absolute because they never provide a means to an end and unconditional because there are no exceptions.

KANT USES THE THREE CHAPTERS OF GROUNDWORK TO MAKE OTHER CLAIMS WHICH, WHEN LINKED TOGETHER, PRODUCE AN OUTLINE OF HIS DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS.

All categorical imperatives are fractals (identical repetitions on varying scales) of an ultimate, overarching imperative which is the content of the moral law: ‘All imperatives of duty can be derived from this one imperative as their principle.’

■ The categorical imperative can be formulated in a number of ways. Kant gives three main variations of the categorical imperative but all emphasise that the law is universal and holds for all rational beings who are intrinsically worthy of respect.

■ Universal law formulation: ‘Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ In other words, only perform an action if you would be happy for the principle behind it to become a law that applies to everyone.

■ Means and ends formulation: ‘Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.’

This formulation commands that we should always treat ourselves and others as intrinsically worthy of respect and should never use ourselves or others to attempt to achieve a particular result.

■ Kingdom of ends formulation: ‘Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.’

This formulation combines the other two formulations and contends that each rational, moral agent should always act as though he or she, alongside every other human being, is a law maker.

■ Examples: suicide and false promises. Kant deliberately refrains from giving a list of actions allowed or disallowed by the categorical imperative as he believes that any rational being, through using their reason, will be able to discern which actions are in line with the categorical imperative and are therefore permissible.

However, he uses the examples of suicide and false promises to outline how the categorical imperative can be applied in practice. According to Kant, suicide is banned by the categorical imperative as it involves an individual failing to recognise and uphold his or her intrinsic value and, rather, using him-or herself as a means to escaping an unhappy life. False promises are also banned as they use the other person as a means to achieving some self-serving end.

■ Summary: the categorical imperative is the moral law which we must obey if we are to live moral lives. A good will is one that wills in accordance with the categorical imperative or, in other words, wills what the categorical imperative commands.

Chapter Three

■ Human beings are autonomous. One of the most important claims made by Kant is that moral law does not lie over and above human beings but exists within and is fully accessible by a priori reason. This is crucial because it means that, for Kant, human beings are autonomous or self-ruling. When human beings act morally, they are not obeying extrinsic laws but are subjecting themselves to laws understood by, and in some sense created by, their own reason. As Kant explains, every rational being ‘as an end in itself, must be able to regard himself as also the maker of universal law in respect of any law whatever, to which he may be subject’.

■ Although moral behaviour requires us to be free, we cannot prove we are free. Some of the more challenging passages of Groundwork concern the nature, possibility and necessity of freedom.

According to Kant, freedom is something we have to assume we have in order to act as moral beings but can never prove actually exists. Although we need to be free in order to make moral choices, we only ever see what happens as an unfolding of distinct, seemingly determined events. As Kant writes, on one hand ‘a rational being…should take…freedom as the fundamental condition of all his voluntary actions’ and yet ‘the freedom ascribed to the will seems to contradict the necessity of nature’. Kant’s conclusion is that there are two standpoints from which to consider our agency as human beings: the standpoint of nature and the standpoint of freedom. The standpoint of nature allows us to perceive ourselves as determined, embodied beings and the standpoint of freedom enables us to perceive ourselves as moral agents.

Strengths

On one hand there are several strengths to Kant’s ethics. First, because his theory is absolutist it provides clear rules for moral living.

Second, because Kant’s ethics is undergirded by a fundamental respect for rational human beings, it helps to uphold human dignity and is compatible with modern understandings of human rights. Third, Kant’s understanding of the moral life as centred on good will, duty and obedience to law frees moral agents from both anxiety about and responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Weaknesses

However, Kant’s ethics can sometimes appear cold and disinterested. Crucially, there is no mention of love as a motivating factor in moral decisionmaking. He may also be regarded as naïve in his assumption that all human beings have the same ability to reason and to perceive a priori truths.

Above all he may be regarded as lacking subtlety. There is no allowance for situations being different and this opens the possibility for actions to be deemed moral even though they run counter to what we intuitively believe to be wrong (for example, answering truthfully when asked by a Nazi guard if one is hiding Jews).

THE DECISION YOU COME TO ABOUT THE WORTH OF KANT’S ETHICS DEPENDS ON THE PERSPECTIVE YOU TAKE ON HIS KEY CLAIMS

Similarly, he does not recognise that following the categorical imperative can result in situations where duties conflict and a clear course of action is impossible to determine.

Alternative perspectives

Ultimately the decision you come to about the worth of Kant’s ethics depends on the perspective you take on his key claims. Does his claim that ethics is absolutist enable clear, decisive decisionmaking or does it oversimplify the messiness of the moral life and fail to recognise the possibility of conflicting duties? Does the elevated place he affords human reason point towards human dignity and rights or does it deny the importance of emotions, affection and, above all, love? And does his separation of ethics from consequences liberate moral agents from the impossibility of predicting consequences or does it permit humans to self-righteously perform actions which most, if not all, would intuitively sense are wrong?

Jennifer Goodyer teaches religious studies and theology at Bedford Modern School.