Everything Kant
Ā IMMANUEL KANT
WHAT IS KANTāS THEORY OF ETHICS?
Kant believed in an objective right and wrong based on reason. We should do the right thing just because it is right and not because it fulfils our desires or is based on our feelings. We know what is right not by relying on our intuitions or facts about the world, but by using our reason. To test a moral maxim, we need to ask whether we can always say that everyone should follow it and we must reject it if we cannot. Kant opposed the view that all moral judgements are culturally relative or subjective so that there are no such things as moral absolutes. Kantās approach to ethics was deontological, where the right takes precedence over the good, and basic rights and principles guide us to know which goods to follow. Modern deontology avoids too close a link with Kant and rejects his absolutism and complete disregard for consequences; however, his moral theory has been and continues to be influential.
Ā KANTāS COPERNICAN REVOLUTION
Kantās main area of study was to investigate the formal structures of pure reasoning, causality, a priori knowledge (knowledge not based on experience) and the question of objectivity. Kant was concerned with the problem of objective knowledge: can I have any knowledge of the world that is not just āknowledge of the world as it seems to meā? How do we know what we know and what does it mean to know?
OTHER PHILOSOPHERSā VIEWS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE
DESCARTESThe foundation of knowledge is the knowledge of oneās own existence.
LEIBNIZWe can have knowledge untouched by the point of view of any observer.
HUMEWe cannot have any objective knowledge at all.
Kant is closer to the rationalist views of Descartes and Leibniz and opposed to the empiricist views of Hume, which spurred him to explain his own view. Kant considers that our knowledge is not of the world as it is in itself, but of the world as it appears to us. Kant is saying that humans can never know the world for what it really is because as it is experienced it is changed by our minds. Kant argued that various structures or categories of thought were built into the structure of our minds. This means that we all can really know about scientifically are our own experiences and perceptions, which may not correspond with ultimate reality. Kant called this the Copernican Revolution because its implications for humanity are just as vital as the implications of discovering that the solar system revolves around the sun. Science can never give us knowledge of objective reality, as it can never move beyond the view of the world given to us by the categories of our mind.
KANTāS MORAL THEORY
Practical reason looks at evidence and argument and tells you what ought to be done. This sense of the moral āoughtā is something which cannot simply depend on external facts of what the world is like, or the expected consequences of our actions. Kant saw that people are aware of the moral law at work within them ā not a vague feeling but a direct and powerful experience. Kantās moral theory tries to show the objectivity of moral judgement and the universal character of moral laws and attempts to base morality on reason as opposed to feelings, inclinations, consequences or religion. He roots the view of morality in reason to the exclusion of everything else, and rejects especially Humeās idea that morality is rooted in desires or feelings. He does not reject desires and feelings, but says that they have nothing to do with morality. Only reason is universal. Kant approached morality in the same way as he approached knowledge ā he looked at the categories we use: what makes a moral precept moral? Kant declared that these were rooted in rationality, were unconditional or categorical, completely unchanging and presupposed freedom.
A POSTERIORIA statement which is knowable after experience.
A PRIORIA statement which is knowable without any reference to any experience.
GOOD WILL
The idea of good will is Kantās starting point for his reality.It is only the āgood willā which counts and which is the starting point for ethics. Abilities, talents and even virtues count for nothing, as do consequences.
Only the will is within our control and so only the will can be unconditionally good and can exercise pure practical reason. This will means the total effort involved in making conscious moral choice. This is the opposite of Humeās argument that morality is only based on making people happy and fulfilling their desires ā it is just a servant of the passions, and morality is founded on our feelings of sympathy for others and depends on our human nature.
DUTY
Duty is what makes the good will good. It is important that duty be done for its own sake and it does not matter whether you or others benefit from your action ā our motives need to be pure. Doing duty for any other reason does not count. The good will chooses duty for dutyās sake.
Kant does not rule out pleasure in doing oneās duty, but pleasure will not help us to know what duty is or the morality of our actions. According to Kant, there is no moral worth in the feeling of satisfaction we get from doing our duty ā if giving to charity out of love for others gives you that warm sense of having helped others, it is not necessarily moral. If I give to charity because my duty commands it, then I am moral. We are not moral for the sake of love but for dutyās sake only.
AUTONOMYSelf-directed freedom, arriving at moral judgement through reason.
ABSOLUTEA principle that is universally binding.
ABSOLUTISMThere is only one correct answer to every moral problem.
GOOD WILLMaking a moral choice expresses good will.
DUTYA motive for acting in a certain way which shows moral quality.
Kant was looking for some sort of objective basis for morality ā a way of knowing our duty. Practical reason must give the will commands or imperatives.
THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE ā NON-MORAL
Hypothetical imperatives are not moral commands to the will, as they do not apply to everyone. You only need to obey them if you want to achieve a certain āgoalā ā that is why a hypothetical imperative always begins with the word āifā.
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE ā MORAL
Categorical imperatives are moral commands and do not begin with an āifā because they tell everyone what to do and do not depend on anything, especially desires or goals. According to Kant these categorical imperatives apply to everyone because they are based on an objective a priori law of reason which Kant calls the categorical imperative. This is a test to judge whether an action is in accordance with pure practical reason.
1) Act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time know that it could become a universal law.
Kant calls this the Formula of the Law of Nature. This first formulation of the categorical imperative asks everyone to universalise their principles or maxims without contradictions. In other words, before you act, you must ask yourself whether you would like everyone in the same situation to act in the same way. If not, then you are involved in a contradiction and what you are thinking of doing is wrong because it goes against reason. Kant always wants to universalise rules, as he wants everyone to be free and rational, and if rules are not universalisable then others will not have had the same freedom to act in the same moral principles as I use. However, Kant does not claim that everyone should be able to do the same thing as I choose to do in order to be moral ā but rather that everyone should be prepared to act in the same way. (Maxim: A general rule in accordance with which we intend to act.) To make his argument as clear as possible, Kant uses four examples:
Kantās followers disagree about how to apply his universal law test. Hare suggests an alternative approach to test a proposed moral maxim:
Ā Ā Ā Ā Try to understand the consequences of following it on affected individuals.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Try to imagine yourself in the place of these individuals.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Ask yourself whether you want the maxim to be followed regardless of where you imagine yourself in the situation.
The challenge is to distinguish right maxims from wrong ones. This is the role of reason in choosing only maxims that can be universalised.
Ā 2) So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, never solely as a means but always as an end.
Kant calls this The Formula of End in Itself. He means that we should not exploit others or treat them as things to achieve an end, as they are as rational as we are. To treat another person as a means is to deny that person the right to be a rational and independent judge of his or her own actions. It is to make oneself in some way superior and different. To be consistent, we need to value everyone equally.
3) Act as a legislating member in the universal Kingdom of Ends.
This he calls the Formula of a Kingdom of Ends. Everyone should act as if every other person was an āendā ā a free, autonomous agent. Kant believed that each person is autonomous and moral judgements should not be based on any empirical consideration about human nature, human flourishing or human destiny. However, this idea of autonomy of the individual does not mean that everyone can just decide their own morality, but rather that each individual has the ability to understand the principles of pure practical reason and follow them. Pure practical reason must be impartial and so its principles must apply equally to everyone.
4) Any action that ignores the individual dignity of a human being in order to achieve its ends is wrong.
THE THREE POSTULATES OF PRACTICAL REASON
Apart from making the individual the sole authority for moral judgement, Kantās theory of ethics seems to grant freedom to do anything that can be consistently universalised. This morality sets limits but does not give direct guidance; therefore, in order for it to make sense Kant has to postulate (say there has to be) the existence of God, freedom and immortality.
Kantās ethical theory could be said to be a religious morality without God but he seems to take for granted God as a lawgiver and he argues that there must be a God and an afterlife, as there has to be some sort of reward. Kant believed that happiness is not the foundation or reason for acting morally ā it is its reward. Kantās ideas seem to be really twisted with regard to happiness. He says that we have a duty to make ourselves happy, not because we want to be happy but because it is necessary for us to do our other duties. Kant seems to place duty separately from our everyday lives.
Kant looks at the postulates of God and immortality: after death, in the next world, there is no conflict between ādutyā and āhappinessā, as ādutyā is part of our natural harmony of purposes created by God. Kant thought that our aim in acting morally is not to be happy but to be worth of being happy. The summum bonum or highest good is a state where happiness and virtue are united ā but for Kant it is the virtuous person who has a good will which is vital for morality; happiness is not guaranteed. The summum bonum, however, cannot be achieved in this life and so there must be life after death where we can achieve it ā thus for Kant, morality leads to God.
STRENGTHS OF KANTāS THEORY OF ETHICS
Ā Ā Ā Ā Kantās morality is very straightforward and based on reason.
Ā Ā Ā Ā There are clear criteria to assess what is moral.
Ā Ā Ā Ā The moral value of an action comes from the action itself.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Kantās categorical imperative gives us rules that apply to everyone and command us to respect human life.
Ā Ā Ā Ā It makes clear that morality is about doing oneās duty and not just following feelings or inclinations. This means that we cannot assume that what is good for us is morally good and so good for everyone else.
Ā Ā Ā Ā It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so corrects the utilitarian assumption that the minority can suffer so long as the majority are happy.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Kant sees humans as being of intrinsic worth and dignity as they are rational creatures. Humans cannot be enslaved or exploited. This is the basis of the Declaration of Human Rights.
WEAKNESSES OF KANTāS THEORY OF ETHICS
Ā Ā Ā Ā Kantās theory is abstract and not always easily applied to moral situations ā it tells you what type of actions are good, but it does not tell you the right thing to do in certain situations. The universalisable principle can be used to justify anything.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Kantās emphasis on duty implies that an action is only made moral by an underlying intention to do oneās duty. However, it is not always possible to separate intentions from ends, as intentions are closely linked with what we do. In addition, our motives are not always pure and people seldom act from pure practical reason; we more often help others because we like them or we feel sorry for them. Some philosophers think that putting duty above feeling is cold and inhuman. Kantās theory severs morality from everyday life and everyday feelings and emotions.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Many people would consider that thinking about the result of an action is an important part of ethical decision making, and if the outcome hurts another person, most people would feel guilty.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Kantās system only seems to work if everyone has the same view of the final purpose and end of humans. It depends on some notion of God to justify this rationally ordered world. We do not all even have the same views on life and obeying the moral law could put one at a real disadvantage when dealing with people who are wicked, immoral or simply less rational.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Kant is clear when explaining the conflict between duty and inclination but he does not help us understand the conflict between different duties, each of which could be justified.
Ā Ā Ā Ā Although Kant tells us to respect others and not to treat them as ends, this does not tell us what to do in individual cases. Kantās theory here seems to lead either to a position where no decision can be made or to a situation where I may consider doing my duty is just wrong.
THE THEORY OF W.D. ROSS
W.D. Ross made certain changes to Kantās theory of ethics. He argued that exceptions should be allowed to Kantās duties ā Ross called these prima facie duties (first sight duties). These duties are conditional and can be outweighed by a more compelling duty. Ross listed seven prima facie duties:
Ā Ā Ā Ā Fidelity or promise keeping
Ā Ā Ā Ā Reparation for harm done
Ā Ā Ā Ā Gratitude
Ā Ā Ā Ā Justice
Ā Ā Ā Ā Beneficence
Ā Ā Ā Ā Self-improvement
Ā Ā Ā Ā Non-maleficence
These stress the personal character of duty. The first three duties look to the past and the last four look to the future, but they do not need to be considered in any particular order, but rather as to how they fit the particular situation. Ross shows that there are possible exceptions to any rule and these exceptions depend on the situation in which I do my duty the possible consequences of doing my duty and the personal relationships involved.
HOWEVER
Ā Ross says that we simply know which acts are right by consulting our deepest moral convictions, but is this an adequate response? Can we beĀ sure that Rossās list of duties is correct?
Please note:- I did not make this document, I found it getrevising, but I found it very useful and thought Iād share it
