Kantian Deontology: The Categorical Imperative

Deontology – Assessing Acts

• Morality is a matter of duty.

• Whether something is right or wrong doesn’t depend on its consequences.

• But on the way choosers think when they make choices.

• Actions are right or wrong in themselves.

• We each have duties regarding our own actions.

Happiness vs. Reason

• Only reason and happiness motivate us to act.

• Morality motivates us to act, so must be driven by either reason or happiness.

• Happiness is conditional: what makes people happy differs, and happiness can be good or bad.

• But reason is universal, categorical. unconditional.

The Good Will

• Reason tells us only one [kind of] thing is inherently and unconditionally good, and that is the Good Will.

• found in humans but not nonhuman animals (questionable?)

• our power of rational moral choice

• its presence gives humans their inherent dignity

More about the Will

• What makes the will good? – when it acts out of duty, not out of inclination.

• What does it mean to act out of inclination? – To do something because it makes you feel good or

because you hope to gain something from it.• What does it mean to act out of duty?

– we you act out of respect for the moral law.• How do we do that? 

– We must know what the moral law is.• How do we know that? 

– We use the "Categorical Imperative."

What is an imperative?

• An imperative is just a command.

• A hypothetical imperative is a command that presupposes some further goal or end i.e. if I want X I should do Y

• A categorical imperative is not hypothetical. It is irrational and immoral not to obey it i.e. I must do X

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

• We act on maxims or practical principles of action.

• Morality is universal, the same for everyone.

• Rationally speaking, the moral law must be obeyed.

• so “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.

What is the Categorical Imperative?

• a rule for testing rules:• Before you act, generalise the maxim or principle on

which you are acting.• If, once generalised, it no longer makes any sense, then

it is wrong to use that maxim as a basis for action.• First test: ‘contradiction in conception’ or self-

contradiction– a maxim is wrong if the situation in which everyone acted on that

maxim is somehow self-contradictory. – Take stealing: If we could all just help ourselves to whatever we

wanted, the idea of ‘owning’ things would disappear; – And then no one would be able to steal.

The Categorical Imperative

• Second test: “contradiction in will” (a.k.a. Reversibility) • If the maxim you’re testing isn’t self-contradictory, then

ask whether you would choose to live in a world where it was followed by everyone.

• If not, do not act on that maxim. • It is logically possible to universalize some maxims, e.g.

‘don’t help others in need’ (even though it would be unpleasant).

• But we can’t will this, because we might need help ourselves.

• So such a maxim is not reversible.

Kant's example: The case of the false promise

• Maxim: “I may make a false promise in order to reap financial gain.”

• Generalised: Anyone may make a false promise to get something s/he wants.

• This is self-contradictory because:– If anyone may make a "false promise," nobody would

take a promise seriously; promising becomes meaningless.

– Result: I may not act on that maxim, as the maxim fails Test One.

Stealing, Lying

• Similar reasoning leads Kant to conclude that any maxim permitting theft or lying must be rejected. Why…?– A thief's maxim, once generalised, would overturn the

institution of property, – but unless the institution of property exists, there can

be no theft.

• A liar's maxim, once generalised, would overturn the assumption of truthfulness, – but without this assumption, no lie can even be

attempted.

The Bad Samaritan

• Kant's example of the Bad Samaritan (Using Tests One and Two)

• Maxim: I may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot pay me even though I could do so at little cost to myself.

• Generalised: Anyone may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot pay her even though it would cost her little to help.

• Can it be conceived without contradiction? Yes.

The Bad Samaritan II

• So being mean passes the first test for it to be a Categorical Imperative: Non-contradiction.

• But does it pass the second test, Reversibility? Could you will yourself in the same position?

• Probably not, because you might find yourself in a situation of extreme need and nobody else would help you.

• If this did happen to you, you would wish to be helped. • So the Bad Samaritan maxim is not reversible, hence not

really universalisable.• Result: You cannot act on the "Bad Samaritan" maxim.

Other forms of the Imperative

• There are other forms of the Categorical Imperative – that is, ways in which it can be rephrased (see Handout for more of them).

• Kant claims they’re all the same, but perhaps they aren’t.

• The most famous is the Humanity Formula: ‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’

Some objections

• Any action can be justified, as long as we phrase the maxim cleverly.– But the test is what our maxim really is.

• Conflict of duties– Duties never really conflict, but knowing how

to apply the CI requires judgment.

• Strange results: ‘I shall never sell, but only buy’ is immoral!

A key quote from Kant

• “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”