Deontology: Ethics of the Categorical Imperative

Dr. Schmid, Ph.D.Philosophy and Religion, UNCW

Key Concepts:MORALITY – FREEDOM – REASON

BEINGS PERSONS vs. THINGS

MOTIVATION OF THE WILL AUTONOMY vs. HETERONOMY

REASON FOR ACTION/ MORAL WORTH

DUTY vs. INCLINATION

TWO TYPES OF IMPERATIVES

CATEGORICAL vs. HYPOTHETICAL

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE TWO FORMS

UNIVERSALIZATION vs. PERSONS AS ENDS

METAPHYSICAL REALITY INTELLIGIBLE WORLD vs. PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

What makes it moral?

• A grocer sells you a good and healthy product, for what seems a fair price.

• Is this a moral act?

• What gives an action moral worth?

Kant on moral worth• What gives an action moral

worth is not:– its good consequences or your

goal in doing it– your feeling in doing it

• It is that it is:– Done from [a sense of] duty– The duty gets its moral value

from its maxim*– The motivation = acting out of

respect for the moral law

*Maxim = the ‘guiding principle’ embodied in the action.

What makes it a moral act?

The grocer’s maxim is:1. “Never cheat if you think

you can get caught”2. “Honesty is best for

everyone in the long run”3. “Do what makes you feel

proud of yourself”4. “Do what your society

expects of you”5. “Do it because it is right”

Ultimate Moral Principle = Categorial Imperative

Form #1: universalization

“I ought never to act in such a way that the maxim on which I act could not be made a universal law.”

Form #2: humanity as end

“Act in such a way that I treat humanity, in myself or anyone else, always as an end and never as a means.”

The Structure of Dutiesperfect vs. imperfect

Vs. self-harmful:•Kill yourself

•Enslave /maim yourself•Lie to yourself

•Violate yourself/dignity•Destroy your goods

Vs. other-harmful:•Kill another

•Enslave/maim another•Lie to others

•Violate others/dignity•Steal goods from others

Pro self-beneficial•Develop yourself

•Improve your well-being

*generally but not always; room for choice how to do this

Pro other-beneficial:•Benefit others in need•Give to other’s well-being

*not always; room for interpretation how to do this

Injunction vs. Suicide/Self-destruction

• Kant says suicide is immoral = treating yourself as a means, rather than as an end.

• Are there circumstances in which he might accept suicide? What would distinguish them?

• Do the same arguments apply to using addictive drugs, e.g. cocaine? Self-mutilation?

Immoral or personal choice?

Is it ever right to lie?• Suppose we agree it is

intrinsically wrong to lie• Do consequences ever

trump or outweigh the moral wrong of lying?

• Your neighbor Mr. Smith lent you his ax. You hear a violent fight next door, then he comes in your house and asks, “Where is my ax?”

• Must you tell the truth?

Is stealing always wrong?

• A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. But the druggist was charging $2000 a dose. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, could not afford six months supplies, which was what you needed. He asked to buy it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered it and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife?

Injunction to Develop Talents• “May I choose to waste,

rather than develop my talents? – (i) is it prudent? (will it lead

to happiness?)– (ii) does it conform to duty

(i.e. is it wrong)?”• If my maxim = ‘neglect

your abilities’ how am I treating myself? – as a ‘means’ (to a

pleasant stupor)– as an ‘end’ or

‘complete’ person?

Duty to help others

• No one can will that no one helps others in need

• Persons need to help themselves, sometimes need help to do that

• Unclear how much and at what cost to self, or who may be preferred (e.g. relative, countryman)

• This duty =secondary to negative duties

Kantianism• Provides

– universal moral theory– method to analyze if actions are moral

• Stresses – autonomy = free will vs. inclination: ability to evaluate/check– moral agents have rights (you must not X) and duties (I must X)– rights of individuals over ‘greater good’

• Claims to refute other theories:– Selfish theories (to individual or group)– ‘Accidental’ theories (impulse or custom-driven)– Consequentialist theories (b/c may intrinsically wrong actions, violate

humanity as an end)– Happiness theories (b/c may be duty to sacrifice our happiness)

The Kantian Moral Self• Individual with free will• A “self-legislator” of

universal moral duties• Guided by reason to

universal moral laws• Has universal rights

others should respect:– Life– Liberty– Freedom of thought– Right to property

Three PerspectivesUtilitarian Libertarian Kantian

Basic Principle Greater good Self-ownership Categorical imperative

Suicide/ addiction Usually wrong Your right

Casual sex Good if more happiness

Right of adults Morally wrong

Lying Sometimes justified Fraud; dubious Lie vs. mislead

Develop talents Duty if not vs. other duties

Not a duty Duty (can be. vs. > duty)

Help needy Usually right Not a duty Duty

A 21st Century Moral Dilemma

• You are a parent in 2020. Scientists have identified “life-enhancing” genes for mental and physical powers

• You are considering getting a set of such genes, to give your child a “genetic head-start” and shape her development.

• Should you do it? – What would the utilitarian say?– The Kantian?

The Gauguin Dilemma In 1885, the French artist, Paul Gauguin, made the existential choice to abandon his wife and family to go to the South Seas and paint. His family was left destitute, but he created some of the greatest art in the Western tradition. Was this a morally indefensible choice? What would Kant say? Sartre? Bentham or Mill? Does it matter than he did become great?

Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?