KantKant

Author: John Waters

Socratic Ideas Limited © All Rights Reserved

A Concise Historical OverviewA Concise Historical Overview

Martin Luther (1483-1546 CE)

Plato (428-374 BCE)

Rousseau’s Social Contract (1772 CE) Rationalism versus

Empiricism

Isaac Newton (1642-1727 CE) David Hume (1711-1776 CE)

Kant’s Enlightenment

W.D. Ross (1927-1971 CE)

Two things fill the mind with wonder and awe: the starry heavens above and

the moral law within.

Animals Human Beings God / Angels

Kant’s understanding of human nature is best appreciatedwithin the context of:

DesiresInclinations

Animals follow their desires and inclinations only. They

have no reason, so behave in accordance to the empirical realm of cause and effect,

led by their appetite and instincts.

Reason

Human nature experiences the tension of desires

and inclinations (their animal self) versus the voice of

reason (their God-like self)

God and angels areperfectly rational beings,

without appetites and desires to lead them astray from

following reason and objective moral laws.

Kant’s view of Human NatureKant’s view of Human Nature

Phenomenal and Noumenal Realm

Desires & Reason

Phenomenal Realm Noumenal Realm

Noumenal Realm•Intelligible world

•Inaccessible world of things in themselves•Constant and unchanging

Phenomenal Realm•Sensible world

•The world as it appears to us•Changing and transient

Kant worked within a Platonic tradition, and, like Plato, believed in two Realms of

human existence: the intelligible World, the

Noumena; and the sensible Real, the phenomena.

ReasonIntellect

Noumenal Realm

Senses Inclinations

Phenomenal Realm

Kant’s view of human

nature (sharing the `animal self’ of desires /

appetites and an `angelic

self’ of reason)

means that humans have access to both the noumenal

and phenomenal

realm.

Autonomy (Self deciding)Versus

Heteronomy (Different laws imposed upon you)

Autonomy

The individual decides their own moral laws

Freedom of the willNoumenal realm

Heteronomy

People have laws imposed upon them by others

e.g. the church, the state, one’s family

Governed by laws of naturePhenomenal realm

Reason

A posteriori (after experience)A priori (before experience)

Desires / Inclinations

Categorical Imperative Hypothetical Imperative

Kant believed that morally human beings are autonomous

Newton’s laws of nature• Explains the sensible realm(Realm of the phenomena)

• Dependent on scientific observation / empiricism

• A posteriori – dependent onsense experience

Kant’s Moral Law• Located in the intelligible

realm (the noumena)

• Accessible by reason, which isinnate, within human beings

• A priori – not dependent onsense experience

Just as Newton asserted universal laws of nature, soKant asserted universal laws of morality.

The difference being that laws of nature are a posteriori, whilst laws of morality are a priori.

Nature Morality

Universal Laws

“The GOOD WILLshines forth like aprecious jewel”

(Kant)

AutonomyFreedom of will

Based on Reason(not empiricism)

Motive of duty“Duty for duty’s sake”

The Good Will chooses tofollow the moral law BECAUSE IT

IS THE MORAL LAW.

Sole intrinsic goodNo need of qualification

The Categorical ImperativeThe Categorical ImperativeVersusVersus

The Hypothetical ImperativeThe Hypothetical Imperative

Categorical Imperative

An unconditional command

Willed as an end in itself“Do `x’ for the sake of `x’”

Intrinsic goods

Universal Absolute

Deontological‘Duty for duty’s sake’

Hypothetical Imperative

A conditional command

Willed as a means to an end“Do `x’ if you wish to achieve `y’”

Instrumental goods

RelativeDependent / Contingent

Consequential‘The end justifies the means’

A priori, through reason A posteriori, desires / inclinations

Kant believed that the Good Will follows the Categorical Imperative

Categorical or HypotheticalCategorical or HypotheticalImperativeImperative??

• Be nice to your granny so she will leave

you money in her will.

• Use artificial contraception to avoid

unwanted pregnancies.

• Tell the truth so people will trust you.

How might you turn the first part of these

hypothetical imperatives into categorical

imperatives?

Kant’s Categorical ImperativesKant’s Categorical Imperatives

(1) Act only on that maxim through which

you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

(2) Treat other human beings as an end in their own right, never as a means to

an end.

(3) Act as though you are a member of a law making kingdom of ends. 

RATIONAL

Virtuous peopleare happy

Wicked people suffer Some wicked

people prosper

Some virtuous people suffer

IRRATIONAL

Kant’s Moral ProblemKant’s Moral Problem

But in the world

Universe

Consequently some

virtuous peoplesuffer

Consequentlysome

wicked people

prosper

But in the phenomenal world, of morally free human beings, desires and inclinations tempt

people away from acting rationally

Therefore to maintain a beliefin a rational universe where the highest good is achieved

Kant postulates

1. The Existence of God2. The immortality of the soul3. Human beings have free will

are postulates of pure practical reason

Dietriech BonhoefferMachiavelli

The Moral Law may be understood a priori by reason, and requires us to

achieve the highest good(Summum

Bonum)

Benefits of Kant’s Benefits of Kant’s Categorical ImperativeCategorical Imperative

Human beings are morally autonomous, Human beings are morally autonomous, authors of their own moralityauthors of their own morality

In the realm of the phenomena

Kant respected the determined

universal laws of nature,

as outlined by Isaac Newton

In the noumenal realm Kant

asserted humanity’s freedom to decide

for themselves the Good will, a priori,

through the use of reason

According to Kant’s view of human nature (rational and

empirical selves) it is up to the

individual whether to assert their freedom by acting rationally, or let themselves be governed by

empirical desires and inclinations.

NOUMENA

PHENOMENA

The categorical imperative promotes The categorical imperative promotes equality and is impartialequality and is impartial

      

Treat other human beings as an end in

their own right, never as a means to an end.

As all humansare rational

Act only on that maxim through which you can at

the same time will that it should become

a universal law.

Deontological approach

Kant was radical in challenging the accepted social convention of the nineteenth century which practised social discrimination.

Morality, grounded in reason, is impartial and egalitarian

The categorical imperative provides a deontological The categorical imperative provides a deontological structure which enables the individual to decide for structure which enables the individual to decide for

themselves the specific moral contentthemselves the specific moral content

REJECTION OFHETERONOMY (other laws)

IndividualAutonomy B

IBLE

e.g. 10 Commandments (Decalogue)

MAGISTERIUM

Categorical Imperative (C.I)

Structure

•Duty•Reason

Universal•People: end not means

•Good Will - UnconditionalOfficial

Church teaching

D IVINE

COMMAND

Specific Moral Maxims decidedby the individual using the C.I. structure

In an increasingly secular age Kant’s emphasis on In an increasingly secular age Kant’s emphasis on duty plays a significant counter-cultural role in an duty plays a significant counter-cultural role in an

individualistic, egotistical societyindividualistic, egotistical society

Dostoyevsky

Ayn Rand Nietzsche

The achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest

moral purpose

What is strong wins. That is the universal

law.

To act as an antidote to an egotistical society theidea of duty encourages people to think again about

their obligations to others. Duty tries to correct a fragmented society where individuals think only of

themselves, by placing reason above desires and inclinations.

Kant Kant Values Intrinsic Values Intrinsic HumanHuman Goods Goods e.g. e.g. FreedomFreedom and Dignity and Dignity

Kant was deeply influenced by Rousseau’s philosophywhich emphasised the inherent dignity

and freedom of humanity.

Such goods are not dependentupon consequential gain or

benefits, but logicallydiscerned through reason

according to the Good Will.

Categorical, not hypothetical,imperatives.

Problems of Kant’s Problems of Kant’s Categorical ImperativeCategorical Imperative

Acting out of a sense of Acting out of a sense of ‘duty for ‘duty for dutduty’y’s sakes sake’ is cold and impersonal’ is cold and impersonal

David Hume

Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions, and can

never pretend to any other office than to serve and

obey them.

Kant’s categorical imperative is therefore contrary

to human nature as physical, desiring human beings.

According to Kant the person who enjoys and

takes pleasures in helping someone is therefore NOT

acting morally – as they are following their inclinations

and desires.

Kant argues that the good will requires that an individual follow reason and acts out of a sense

of duty alone.

For Hume reason simplyprovides the means, the

devices, for gaining whatthe passions desire.

Hume’s view of morality isopposed to that of Kant, as Hume believed morality was

based on a universal sentimentof benevolence / fellow feeling.

For Hume sentiments such as sympathy, altruism, cooperation and mutual respect are grounded not inreason or duty, but in what human

nature desires and feels.

Analysis / Application / Analysis / Application / Analysis

On the one hand Aristotle, like Kant, recognises

the importance of reason,

“If the intellect isdivine compared with

man, the life of the intellect must be divine compared to the life of a human being.”

Nichomachean Ethics

Yet, Aristotle would have parted company with Kantian

duty which acts in isolation from emotion,

“We may even go so far as to State that the man who does not

enjoy performing noble actions is not

a good man at all. Nobody would call a man just who does not enjoy

acting justly, nor generous who

does not enjoy generous

actions…”

Nichomachean Ethics

It is worth making lateral comparisons with otherother moral philosophers … this demonstrates

higher order thinking skills.

Duty, without guidance from human benevolence and Duty, without guidance from human benevolence and sympathy, can lead to rigid moral fanaticismsympathy, can lead to rigid moral fanaticism

Trial of Adolph Eichmann, Chief Administrator of the HolocaustJerusalem 1961

Official Record of Adolph Eichmann’s pre-trial police examination“Eichmann suddenly declared with great emphasis that he had lived his whole life

according to Kant’s moral precepts, and especially according to a Kantian definition of duty… I meant by my remark about Kant

that the principle of my will must always be such that it can become the principle

of general laws.”

(Source: Peter SingerHow are we to live? p. 220)

‘Eichmann also cited, in support of his Kantian attitude to his duty, the fact thatout of the millions of cases that passed through his hands, he allowed sympathy to

sway him from his path of duty on only two occasions. The implication clearly is that on other occasions he felt sympathy for the Jews he was sending to the gas chambers, butbecause he believed one should do one’s duty unaffected by sympathy, he steadfastly

stuck to his duty, instead of being tempted to bend the rules and help the Jews.’

Implications of Kant’s emphasis on Implications of Kant’s emphasis on reason…the loss of the human spirit?reason…the loss of the human spirit?

Reason Passions

“Unless reason takes the reins of government into

its own hands, the feelings and inclinations play the

master over the man.”

“Reason is and ought to be the slave of the

passions.”

?

Implications offollowing Kant

and the exclusive path of reason

• For Kant persons are respected because of their rationality.• Like Star Trek’s Data intelligence, logic and reason are morally significant.• But where is the space for the human spirit within an android?!

Resolving Resolving Conflicting Duties…?Conflicting Duties…?

“Duty for duty’s sake”

But

What happens

when duties

conflict?

Mother Teresabelieved she

had a duty to protect the

life of innocent foetuses and

so opposedabortion

Judith JarvisThomson believes

that a womanhas a duty to

herself to pursue

her own life andif a pregnancy interferes then

abortion isacceptable

Both positions can be universalized, as much depends on whether the foetus is thought to be a life with potential or

a potential

life.

Deontological

Intrinsic goodWilled for its own sake

Categorical Imperative

Kant’s Contradiction?Kant’s Contradiction?For Kant is virtue not its own reward?

So why does Kant postulate a life after death where the virtuous are rewarded by God with happiness?

Has the categorical imperative turned hypothetical?

Virtue is its own reward?

Is happiness a reward for virtuous conduct?

Consequential

Instrumental“Means to an end”

Hypothetical Imperative

Kant is Kant is SSpeciesistpeciesistLack of respect for animal rights

Although Kant does not uphold the Biblical sanctity of human life (image

of God) as the Bible is based upon revelation and faith… Nevertheless

Kant is speciesist, as he thought human beings alone are rational,

and so non-rational beings (i.e animals) have no moral significance.

“But so far as animals are concerned, we have no

direct duties. Animals are there merely as a means to an

end. That end is man.”

“The question is not can they reason,

can they talk, but can they suffer?”

(Jeremy Bentham)

But…•Jeremy Bentham, founder of utilitarianism, considered that sentience was an ethically important characteristic – the ability to feel

pleasure or pain. •More recently Peter Singer, a preference

utilitarian, has developed Benetham’s thinking asserting that personhood is central to ethical rights. Singer argues that many animals have

sentience, rationality and relationships (e.g. chimps and dolphins) and so are

ethically significant.

Similarities between Kant and Marx•Like Kant, Karl Marx considered that as people

are rational they are capable of making free choices and should be treated with respect, ends in their

own right, not as means to a capitalist end.•People should collectively act as though they were

a member of a law making kingdom of ends.

The ‘Good will’ is not enough…The ‘Good will’ is not enough…Consequences do matter!Consequences do matter!

HOWEVER

“The philosophers

have only interpreted the world

in various ways; the point is to

change it.”(Karl Marx)

Historical Materialism• Marx believed that it was essential to change people’s social situation.• Having a good will is not enough. The consequences of moral action and social goals which result in a fairer society are extremely important.

The Case of the Inquiring MurdererThe Case of the Inquiring MurdererIf a `would be’ murderer asked you where his next intended victim was hiding (and you are sheltering her in your house)

should you lie?

Do not lie Lie

It is impossible to universalize lying – as

people would stop believing one another

James Rachels

But it would be possible to universalize “Lie - if so doing

would save an innocent person’s life.” There is no contradiction here and it promotes beneficial

consequences.•But by lying you might inadvertently cause the death of the innocent person.

You can never know for sure that good consequences will occur by

lying. So you should always avoid doing evil – and so should never lie. •Even if a murder does occur, it will not be your fault, as you will have

acted out of a sense of duty, following the categorical imperative.

* Kant is wrong to take such a pessimistic view of our ability to

predict consequences with accuracy.

* It is highly questionable that one would have no moral responsibility for

the person’s death – after all by not lying one has aided the criminal

Ross asserted that we havePrima Facie duties “at first glance”

which we recognise intuitively through reason

W.D. RossIntuitionis

t

Prima facie duties areconditional duties

and ought be followed, and so become actual duties,unless circumstances mean that there is an over-riding reason not to follow them

e.g. I ought not to lie, unlesslying might mean saving

an innocent life.

Prima facie duties are therefore more flexible than

Kant’s rigid, absolute and universal moral maxims as they may change according

to the particular contexts and likely consequences.

So Ross, like Kant, believed that morality is objective.

But, unlike Kant, Ross did not believe that morality was absolute and universal.

Ross’s Prima Facie DutiesRoss’s Prima Facie DutiesAn antidote to Kant’s absolute and universal approach

W.D Ross: Prima Facie DutiesW.D Ross: Prima Facie Duties

Do not lieProtect innocent

life.W.D. Ross

Prima Facie Duties are conditional, not absolute, and may change

depending on the situation.

Prima Facie duties “at first glance” which the mature person recognises intuitively through reason

What should one do when intuitions conflict? For example: Do you lie to a gunman to protect the intended innocent victim?

• W.D. Ross was an intuitionist who argued that the

mature person intuitively knows what is good.

• Morals, like the principles of mathematics, are self-evident.

• Morality is objective, but morals are conditional – whether

they should be followed depends on which is one’s over-riding

duty in the particular situation.

• W.D. Ross takes a deontological, not consequential approach,

“Besides the duty of fulfilling promises I have and recognise

a duty of relieving distress, and that when I think it is right to

do the latter at the cost of the former, it is not because I think I

shall produce more good thereby but because I think it the duty

which is in the circumstances more of a duty.” (W.D. Ross)

W.D. Ross W.D. Ross

Six Prima Facie DutiesSix Prima Facie Duties(Duties one intuitively ought to follow,

in the absence of an over-riding duty)

• Fidelity – faithful to promises made.

• Gratitude – appreciation for support offered.

• Justice – impartial, equal treatment of others and distribution of pleasure

• Beneficience – help for others.

• Self-improvement – self-fulfilment

• Non-malificence - avoid harming others.

•Ross does not rankthese duties in order

of importance.•The mature person intuitively knows these prima facie

duties are true and may follow the

appropriate duty given the demands

of the particular situation.

Case StudiesCase Studies

KantKant

Is Hunting the Romanian Brown Bear Moral?Is Hunting the Romanian Brown Bear Moral?

• Romania is the only country in Europe, apart from the former Soviet Union, where the `sport’ of hunting bears is legal.

• Aves, a nature protection group, are concerned that current hunting will lead to the extinction of the brown bear in Romania, home to the largest European number of bears outside of Russia.

• Would a Kantian support current Romanian legislation which approves of such hunting.

Is Hunting the Romanian Brown Bear Moral?Is Hunting the Romanian Brown Bear Moral?

• There are currently 6,276 brown bears in Romania, 2004. Romanian government officials claim this is higher than the ideals figure of 4, 080 recommended by specialists who have monitored the existing habitat.

• The Romanian government has licensed 658 bears to be shot this season.

• Romania is a poverty-stricken country and earns a large amount of foreign currency from hunting; last year making £21 million.

• Brown bears are sentient beings, who fulfil many of the personhood criteria outlined by Peter Singer.

• Hunting can involve cruel practises .

Some further points to consider…

Should Tyrants and TerroristsShould Tyrants and Terrorists

Face the Death Penalty?Face the Death Penalty? Should people who deliberately inflict

torture and suffering on innocent people, to the point of death, face

capital punishment for their actions?

Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are two examples of those who have been

accused of committing crimes against humanity.

How might a Kantian respond? Be sure to offer reasons for your views.

Capital Punishment for Tyrants and Terrorists?Capital Punishment for Tyrants and Terrorists?Some further points to consider…

George Bush is in favour of Capital Punishment, believing in retributive justice.

Alternatively Desmond Tutu adopts a position of restorative justice – looking to see how the grace of God may reform perpetrators of evil and heal those who have experienced dreadful wrong doings.

For Kant treating a person as an end in their own right meant holding them to account for their particular actions.

Is Compulsory Aversion Is Compulsory Aversion Therapy Moral?Therapy Moral?

In Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange the film’s anti-hero, Alex, is a hostile and violent youth who terrorises people in the community

In order to correct Alex’s anti-social behaviour he is subjected to

cinematic brainwashing, a type of aversion therapy, where he is

physically compelled to watch scenes of violence and pornography which

cause him to be sick and so condition his future behaviour.Alex

Is Compulsory Aversion Therapy Moral?Is Compulsory Aversion Therapy Moral?

• A utilitarian might argue that greater emphasis should be placed on

reforming the offender, not only for their own sake, but also for the

future safety and protection of society.

• Kant believed in retributive justice where the individual received the due punishment

their crime warranted. • However, the autonomy of

the individual is vital. The state should not manipulate

people to its way of thinking if this is contrary to their

personal wishes.

Some further points to consider…

Psychological AutopsyPsychological AutopsyFor Serial Killers?For Serial Killers?

Would it be moral to offer Serial killers preferential treatment in prison if they agreed to a `psychological autopsy’ with the aim of finding out more about serial killing, so as to assist police in preventing future crimes? Offer a Kantian response to this suggestion. Be sure to give reasons to support your views.

Be sure to think about theimplications of your views.

Socrates Says Links

Plato (384-322 BC) The RepublicPlato (384-322 BC) The Republic

• Kant worked within a Platonic tradition and, like Plato, believed in two realms of human existence:

• (1) The intelligible world which Kant called the Noumenal realm. (The inaccessible world of things in themselves; constant and unchanging)

• (2) The sensible world which Kant called the phenomenal realm. (The world as it appears to us. Changing and transient)

Kant’s Kant’s LuthLutheraneran BackgroundBackground

• The Lutheran background of Kant’s parents emphasized intrinsic values such as sincerity, honesty and integrity as opposed to church doctrine (official teachings).

• The foundation for Kant’s universal idea of duty was also a feature of the pietism of the Lutheran church and so influenced this feature of Kant’s categorical imperative.

1483-1546

Rousseau’s Social ContractRousseau’s Social Contract• There is an `urban myth’ of the time when Kant

was so engrossed by reading Rousseau’s Social Contract that he was delayed for his famous daily `philosopher’s walk’ – and the townsfolk, who kept their watches by Kant’s daily walk, were all late for their appointments that day!

• Central to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract is the freedom and dignity of all human beings. This influenced Kant’s ideas.

• By having free will and following their rational selves people are truly autonomous. People are capable of establishing their own code of morality; as opposed to having morality imposed upon them by a moral law giver, be it God or the church.

Rationalism versus EmpiricismRationalism versus Empiricism

Rationalists, such as Rene Descartes, thought that reason could explain the

working of the world; without reference to sense experience.

Conversely John Locke’s empiricism argued that the mind was like a

tabula raza (blank sheet of paper) which was informed by the world of

experience.

Kant rejected Locke’s empiricism, arguing that the rational mind

is capable of structuring and interpreting sense

experience.Rene Descartes John Locke

Newton’s Laws of NatureNewton’s Laws of Nature• Newton explained the physical world as

being governed by universal laws of nature.

• Kant accepted Newton’s laws of nature as governing the sensible, empirical

world (which Kant called the phenomenal realm)

• But Kant also asserted the intelligible realm (which he called the noumenal

realm) accessible by reason alone. Such a realm is the moral realm, accessible

through reason alone which, like Newton’s laws of nature, is universal.

Kant showed great respect for David Hume as a philosopher.

David Hume

However, Kant strongly disagreed

with Hume’s moral philosophy

that “reason is and ought to be the

slave of the passions.”

For Hume sentiments of sympathy and benevolence

were the core of human morality.

“Unless reason takes the reins of

government into its own hands,

the feelings and inclinations

play the master over the man.”

(Immanuel Kant)

The Dawn of the EnlightenmentThe Dawn of the Enlightenment“Enlightenment is man’s emergence

from self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use

one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-

imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! (Dare to Know) Have courage to use your own understanding! That is the

motto of enlightenment.”

Kant, What is Enlightenment (1784)

Ross’s Prima Facie DutiesRoss’s Prima Facie DutiesAn antidote to Kant’s absolute and universal approach

Ross asserted that we havePrima Facie duties “at first glance”

which we recognise intuitively through reason

W.D. RossIntuitionis

t

Prima facie duties areconditional duties

and ought be followed, and so become actual duties,unless circumstances mean that there is an over-riding reason not to follow them

e.g. I ought not to lie, unlesslying might mean saving

an innocent life.

Prima facie duties are therefore more flexible than

Kant’s rigid, absolute and universal moral maxims as they may change according

to the particular contexts and likely consequences.

So Ross, like Kant, believed that morality is objective.

But, unlike Kant, Ross did not believe that morality was absolute and universal.

This fascinating quotation illustrates an essential aspect of Kant’s philosophy:

(1) The heavenly stars above show how insignificant human beings are in relation to the rest of the vast universe.

(2) Yet, because human beings have the ability to reason they have intrinsic value and dignity, as humanity is capable of being a moral agent, unlike all other beings in the world.

(3) The human will, a priori, can use reason to comprehend the moral law of the universe.

Noumenal RealmNoumenal Realm

Phenomenal RealmPhenomenal Realm

Empiricism

(Sensesexperience)

a priori(prior to experience)

a posteriori(after experience)

Discovers the Moral law

Discovers laws of nature

•Kant accepted Newton’s laws of science, explaining how the phenomenal world is governed by universal laws of nature.

•The moral law is based on reason, a priori, which in order to be valid must be universal – as otherwise it would be contrary to reason. To claim that an action is right for me, but wrong for you, in the same situation, is illogical.

Freedom ofthe will

Causally DeterminedIsaac Newton

UNIVERSAL

AbsoluteNecessity

Reason

• Kant considered that morality is a priori, which individuals can freely choose, in the noumenal realm, when following reason.

• “The ground for obligation must be looked for, not in the nature of man nor in the circumstances of the world in which he is placed, but soley a priori in the concepts of pure reason.” (Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals)

NOUMENA

PHENOMENA

“When we think of ourselves as free, we transfer ourselves into the

intelligible world and recognise the autonomy of the will together with its

consequences – morality; whereas when we think of ourselves as under obligation, we look upon ourselves as

belonging to the sensible realm”Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

• Kant accepted that in the phenomenal realm Newton’s laws of science applied, resulting in laws of universal necessary causation where everything could be determined according to the laws of nature.• Physical functions of the human body are restricted by the laws of nature in the phenomenal realm.

• The moral self is the noumenal self, the self as it is in-itself. • In the noumenal realm the laws of nature do not apply, the individual can be truly free, untouched by the laws of science.• The noumenal realm is accessible by reason alone.

Isaac Newton

“Everything in nature works in accordance with

laws. Only a rational being has the power to act in

accordance with his idea of laws – that is in accordance with principles –

and only so has he a will.”

• According to Kant the good will is the sole intrinsic good as it is good in itself and requires no further qualification.

• It is different from other goods, such as pleasure or courage, as other goods can be misused by wicked people and so they cease to be good.

• By contrast the good will always adopts a motive of willing the good for its own sake, according reason.

• The good will is grounded in the freedom of the individual. It is not imposed upon someone by the state, church or any other organization.

• The individual follows their moral, noumenal, self and so is free from the causal necessity of the phenomenal realm.

• The good will is known a priori through reason and not a posteriori through sense experience.

• Sense experience, the empirical realm, is dependent on peoples’ desires and inclinations and as such it is no basis for the moral law.

• The Moral law acts in accordance with reason and is therefore universal and absolute.

• Being known a priori, through reason, the good will is a democratic ethic – open to every rational human being and is therefore not elitist – unlike some aristocratic regimes who imposed moral laws on the under-class.

• The good will acts out of a sense of duty to the moral law which is understood by reason, a priori.

• The good will does not act out of a sense of pursuing happiness, as Kant recognised that happiness is:

• (a) not an unqualified good i.e. a person wishes to be happy for a purpose and

• (b) happiness without good will is undeserved luck and at the mercy of contingent factors of the empirical realm.

(1) Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

• This ensures that moral judgements are impartial and objective and so avoids the dangers of appealing to self-interest

• Reason maintains that the moral law be applied universally; to admit of exceptions to the rule would be inconsistent and therefore illogical.

• (2) Treat other human beings as an end in their own right, never as a means to an end.

• People should be treated with respect and dignity as all human beings are rational beings and therefore are worthy of the respect of the moral law.

• Kant deliberately asserts a moral law that upholds equality and does not treat people differently according to class, wealth or race. Such an ethic of equality was forward looking in the eighteenth century.

• (3) Act as though you are a member of a law making kingdom of ends

• Kant regarded the moral community as a kingdom of people who should apply moral maxims in such a way that showed respect for others (based on their rationality) and, in line with reason, moral maxims should be universal in application – thus maintaining the justice of impartiality.

• Understanding the word POSTULATE is vital to appreciating Kant’s moral reasoning.

• Kant is NOT saying that he has proven the existence of God.

• Rather, the term `postulate’ means “to assume without proof, especially as the basis of an argument.”

• So, for Kant, in order for the universe to be rational it is necessary to postulate that humans to have an immortal soul which, after bodily death, is judged by God.

• God’s existence therefore is a necessary postulate; as God acts as a moral guarantor – ensuring that justice occurs. Those who have lived a moral life on earth in accord with the good will receive eternal happiness.

• It is worth noting that whilst Kant claimed that “people should be treated as an end, never as a means to an end” there are seriously implications of this assertion.

• Kant believed that justice requires holding people to account for their moral actions. For example, believing in retributive justice Kant was in favour of Capital Punishment for serious offences. “Even if a civilised society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of its members… the last murderer in prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realise the deserts of his deeds, and that blood guiltiness may not remain on the people.”

HAPPY BIRTHDAYMUM

I should send mum a card (this can beuniversally applied and respects her

rationality – end in own right) - but I must make sure I take no pleasure and don’t enjoy

writing Happy Birthday.. (!?)

A celebration to enjoy! Birthdays are an opportunity to

express our love and appreciation.

Imagine you are a mother of twin boys: Immanuel and David. You receive two birthday cards

sent by contrasting philosophies…

A son cannot love a mother for duty’s sake. Acting out of a sense of

`duty for duty’s sake’ is cold and impersonal and is a denial of what it

is to be a (per)son! (Mum)

• A serious criticism of any philosophy is that of inconsistency; and it is this weaknesses that is charged against Kant.

• Kant’s “good will” emphasises intrinsic values, and yet at the last moment Kant seems to appeal to a consequential, hypothetical imperative, as justification for behaving in a virtuous way.

• This consequential justification, that virtue will be rewarded by happiness after bodily death, suggests that the good will is not followed purely for its own sake – but rather for the posthumous prize of eternal happiness, so undermining the whole of Kant’s supposedly deontological ethic.

• It seems ironic that Kant should reject belief in God as the authority for ethics (on the grounds that human beings would cease to be autonomous) and yet, in order to make sense of his belief in justice, Kant ends up postulating the existence of God as a divine moral guarantor.

• One may also ask `Why does one need a God to act as a moral guarantor? Why not simply a powerful angelic being?

• Kant’s understanding of humanity’s duty toward animals only arises indirectly.

• Kant would argue along the lines that, “Inhuman treatment of animals blunts our sympathy with their suffering and thereby weakens our natural disposition which is very helpful to our morality in relation to other people.”

• In short, if human sympathy with animal suffering is blunted, then people may start to lose the inherent respect (person end in own right) of other people.

James Rachels argues that by offering specific categorical imperatives it is possible to overcome the rigidity of Kant’s universal application of moral maxims.

Alasdair MacIntyre has argued a similar point, “with sufficient ingenuity almost every precept can be universalized. For all that I need to do is characterize the proposed action in such a way that the maxim will permit me to do what I want while prohibiting others from doing what would nullify the maxim if universalized. e.g. ‘I may break promises only when….’ The gap is filled by a description devised so that it will apply to my present circumstances but to very few others. In practice the test of the categorical imperative imposes restrictions only on those insufficiently equipped with ingenuity.” (A Short History of Ethics p. 198)