Kant on Morality

1. Kant on Morality 1

2. Issues in moral theory 2 1) phenomenology of moral duty Separating duty from desire (for happiness) 2) How do we know what is our duty? Formulations of the Categorical Imperative 3) relation of duty and happiness: the Highest Good 4) realizability of the Highest Good: antinomy of practical reason Leads to discussion of the postulates of morality 5) what is the source of the power of moral consciousness?

3. Background: Kant�s Mind Bows Fontenelle says, �I bow to a great man, but my mind does not bow.� I can add: to a humble plain man, in whom I perceive righteousness in a degree higher than I am conscious of in myself, my mind bows whether I choose or not, however high I carry my head that he may not forget my superior position. Rationalist moral theories (Descartes and Leibniz): based on science Utilitarian ethics of calculating consequences of actions: elitist But what about an illiterate peasant? Kant learns humility from Rousseau 3

4. Technical imperatives there is a necessity or objectivity in any complex action: I want to make tea, and so I must boil the water. The goal is arbitrary: based on my desire But the means are necessary Our choices give rise to all kinds of technical necessities or �imperatives� 4

5. Pragmatic imperatives But making tea is not all that arbitrary: I like tea; my tea breaks are restful and help be get through the day; drinking tea makes me happy In technical imperatives the goal appears arbitrary but the means necessary Here the goal appears necessary and universal: we all want to be happy Eudaimonistic philosophy (Aristotle, Mill, etc.) attempt to base moral laws on the desire for happiness 5

6. Relativity of pragmatic imperatives But if the goal is necessary and universal, the means are relative, changing, fluid Should everyone drink tea? Eudaimonistic theories fail to find necessity in the means Utilitarian solution: If universal good is impossible, seek the greatest amount of good�greatest good of the greatest number =Democracy in morality 6

7. Two kinds of imperatives 1) Hypothetical: arbitrariness in either the end or the means Two forms: technical and pragmatic 2) Categorical: necessity (objectivity) in both the end and the means I want to have tea, but I promised Martha I would take her shopping I have a duty to keep my promise here that overrides my desire for tea 7

8. Hierarchy of imperatives Qualification of pragmatic imperatives: We may do what makes us happy as long as our doing so does not violate a higher duty to humanity Imperatives are nested in a hierarchy: Tech imperatives refer to pragmatic ones Pragmatic imperatives refer to categorical ones 8

9. 1st person necessity The necessity of the ought: Not physical but moral necessity Not 3rd person but 1st person Not for a �he� or a �she�: he will tend to keep his promise because of his nature, up-bringing, interests, etc But a necessity/law that �I� ought to uphold because I am its source I made the promise, so I ought to keep it: my own will should be a law for me General rule: Be able to will the maxim of one�s action as a law 9

10. Paradox of �duty� The ought or �duty� implies an objectivity that contradicts ordinary subjectivity I want this (sensuous) But I ought to do that Compare to objectivity in experience of a house 10

11. Can we rise above desires? Versus: Power of the passions? (Hobbes, Hume) Kant�s example: �Sexual desires are irresistible.� Suppose a gallows were built outside the house where your desires are satisfied. Could you resist? Does this prove free will? 11

12. Betraying an innocent person 2nd part of example: Suppose a powerful ruler �makes you an offer you can�t refuse.� Could you refuse it? �Whether he would or not he perhaps will not venture to say; but that it would be possible for him he would certainly admit without hesitation. He judges, therefore, that he can do something because he knows that he ought, and he recognizes that he is free�a fact which, without the moral law, would have remained unknown to him.� 12

13. Real freedom Without the moral law we would not know real freedom: Choice between two kinds of necessity 1) Our ordinary desires and interests 2) Our duty not to use an innocent person as a means for satisfying our desires = Experience of an inner power that is greater than all our ordinary desires and interests 13

14. Phenomenology of morality 14 1st issue: the experience of morality as a certain inner intention People at bedside of a dying man Are the morally motivated, or looking for a share of the money? Need to distinguish the moral motive from all other motives Especially desire for happiness �Deontology� versus eudaimonism

15. 2) How do we know what our duty is? 15 Central formulation of the Categorical Imperative: �Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.� 1) consider the action you intend to perform 2) formulate the �maxim� implicit in that action 3) ask yourself whether you can will that maxim as a universal law Not ask yourself (only) whether it could as a universal law. exist

16. Why maxims? 16 Rational persons implicitly formulate their goals in terms of general rules: I want this here and now = a person wants a certain kind of thing So there are maxims or general ideas implicit in all our actions I.e., when we act we implicitly intend to realize a general idea (rule or law) Can we do so without contradiction?

17. Permits the egotism of the scoundrel? 17 Rawls/Sedgwick: permits the egotism of the scoundrel I.e., there can be egotists who will the rule of their own egos as a universal law = let everyone act for their own interests as separate individuals This is the law of laissez-faire economics (Adam Smith)

18. Maxim of the egotist 18 Kant�s formulation of the maxim of the egotist: �Let everyone be as happy as Heaven wills or as he can make himself; I won�t deprive him of anything; I won�t even envy him; only I have no wish to contribute anything to his well-being or to his support in distress!�

19. Moral hypocrisy 19 This is a higher maxim than the one that normally rules our world: �Now admittedly if such an attitude were a universal law of nature, mankind could get on perfectly well�better no doubt than if everybody prates about sympathy and goodwill, and even takes pains, on occasion, to practice them, but on the other hand cheats where he can, traffics in human rights, or violates them in other ways.� = this is the maxim of a real world, but it cannot be willed without producing a contradiction

20. Internal contradiction 20 Maxim of a thief: I want to take someone else�s property if I can get away with it. = people should take each other�s property when they can do so without danger to themselves But as a universal law, this makes property impossible I want there to be property (so I can have some) I will destroy property as a means of getting property Actual maxim: Other people should support property so I can have it for myself I recognize the law of property in general But I make an exception for myself =law of the parasite who does not take responsibility for the law that he recognizes as valid

21. Two kinds of exceptions 21 1) People should not steal from each other, except when a) there is dire need and b) the person from whom the property is stolen has more than he needs 2) People should not steal from each other, except for me 1) is a general rule or law, like Do not kill innocent persons: i.e., do not kill, except for criminals or unjust attackers Kant is critical of this second kind of exception, which cannot be formulated as a general law

22. Contradiction of the will 22 The maxim of the egotist does not contradict itself in this way A world could and does exist that is based on self-interest of separate egos: it is our world, though with the addition of hypocritical moral sentiments thrown in But such a law cannot be willed without contradiction

23. Why egotism cannot be willed 23 �For a will which decided in this way would be in conflict with itself, since many a situation might arise in which the man needed love and sympathy from others, and in which, by such a law of nature sprung from his own will, he would rob himself of all hope of the help he wants for himself.�

24. Two conflicting maxims 24 All he needs is a little help: throw me a life-preserver; I�m drowning But the law of egotism which he first wills deprives him of this help when he needs it. Thus two contradictory laws are involved in his will 1) let each live his own life without contributing to others, except when it serves their own interests 2) people should help one another in need, even if it does not contribute to their own interests Thus the only consistent rule: help others when we can

25. The order of explanation 25 The categorical imperative is not the starting point of Kant�s ethics, but a secondary formulation We start with the experience of duty in moral experience: this rules out the scoundrel from the start How explain that experience? Duty implies that we go beyond the Ego to the Personality or Self: in unity with humanity With this hypothesized foundation in the Intelligible World we can understand the formulations of the Categorical Imperative

26. Willing for humanity 26 To say �I want �� is to say �A human being wants �� Egotism is ruled out by the general formulation Hence each of us implicitly legislates for humanity in general When I throw out garbage without thinking about it, I am legislating a world of ecological irresponsibility This is a world I would not want to live in myself In each action we are sowing the seeds of a possible world Can we consciously will the world that we are implicitly creating? Thus the 2nd formulation: �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.�

27. Holiness of humanity 27 �Man is certainly unholy enough,� as a self-interested being, �but humanity in his person must be holy to him.� Need to respect �the divine human� in each person

28. Diversity of moral points of view 28 Variety of food-moralities 1) meat-eating 2) vegetarianism 3) veganism 4) no root vegetables should be torn from the earth 2nd formulation: respect the humanity of each person who is striving to do his or her best Each rule can be willed as a law The individual should be consistent re her own laws, not try to impose them on others = Beneath the particular moral rules of individuals is a more fundamental moral truth

29. 3rd formulation: Kingdom of Ends 29 Economic values are relative Use value (utility) Exchange value: a bible equals a bottle of whisky (because an equal amount of average labor is embodied in each) Such values change with technological improvements (the value of a high-powered computer keeps going down) Human beings are �priceless� Kingdom of Ends: consider the action as willed by a legislature consisting of all humanity Economic values should be subordinate to the intrinsic dignity or worth of the human being

30. 3) Relation of morality and happinessA stern, Stoical morality? 30 I serve my fellow gladly, more gladly if I like him And so I worry, am I moral or not? There is no other way, you must seek to despise him And with repugnance do what duty gives to you as lot

31. (4th) Formulation of the Highest Good 31 3rd: economic values should not contradict human worth (4th) Highest Good: goods should be distributed according to the moral worth of the individual People who perform their duties to the best of their ability should have their basic needs met They should be happy

32. Two stages in moral analysis 32 1st: isolate the moral motive from other kinds of motives Stage of analysis 2nd: relate the different motives What is should the relation be between morality and happiness Not: empirical relation but �a priori synthetic� relation: given moral awareness, what ought to be the relation between morality and happiness?

33. The way the world is, and how it ought to be 33 In the world as it is, there is a divorce between morality and happiness The motive of self-interest drives economic life People satisfy their needs and desires based on their position in the market place People who do their duty are often punished while those who step on others, betray innocent people, etc., are ecomomically rewarded But this is not how it ought to be! This is unjust! People who fulfill their duties ought to be rewarded Those who violate duties ought to be punished

34. The Highest Good 34 The Highest Good is therefore a world in which people are happy in proportion to their moral worth The moral person does not want happiness as an end in itself, but wants to deserve happiness

35. 4) Is morality a fantasy? 35 Major issue: is such a world really possible, or is it a fantasy? But all of morality points to this goal of creating a just world Therefore if it is not practically realizable, morality itself is just a fantasy For a goal that is impossible to realize cannot be a duty (ought implies can) = �Antinomy of practical reason�

36. Antinomy of Practical Reason 36 But if this is not possible, then all of morality falls down = Keystone of morality But empirical life seems to imply that the Highest Good is impossible We live in a dog-eat-dog world of egotism Kant on �the general injustice� �This is human nature� Apparent powerlessness of the moral individual to change this

37. Responses to the Antinomy 37 1) the empirical evidence is appearance, not based on reality People choose to act as egos They are able to choose otherwise 2) the postulates of morality 3) teleology of history

38. Postulates of morality: 1) Freedom 38 The Highest Good is possible It is necessary to believe in certain principles which regarding its realizability 1) Freedom: the world of empirical experience issues from moral choice: people in general choose to act as egos, and create a world that embodies their choice. It is possible then for us to choose otherwise

39. 2) God 39 It is necessary to believe in a power capable of realizing the Highest Good 1) Coming about unconsciously through a teleology of history = Providential character of human egotism: it plays a limited positive historical role, and so even egotism is promoting the moral good See teleology of history 2) The Power implicit in the moral will The power of united humanity in the will of the morally attuned individual

40. Two kinds of religion 40 1) God as maker of the laws and as source of justice: External source of the moral law (external religion) Rewarding the good and punishing the evil Especially in the next life 2) God as the source of the Power experienced in morality Acting for a reward and to avoid punishment: destroys morality The moral law arises out of the inner nature of human acts, not as an external set of commandments (inner religion) Morality is a duty for this world and for human agents Belief in a power capable of realizing the Highest Good is rooted in actual moral experience and its postulated source: Intelligible World

41. 3) Immortality 41 Two meanings of immortality also: 1) rewards and punishments in the next life But this is External Religion 2) belief in immortality as a postulate of inner moral experience We are imperfect moral beings, who only realize our duties fitfully, incompletely, with limited progress in our moral lives One lifetime is insufficient for becoming a fully moral person Hence, to support our commitment to morality it is helpful to believe that we will have many lifetimes

42. Metaphysical choice 42 Either we are fleeting beings arising out of the chance collisions of an indifferent universe Belief that arises out of the evidences of sensible life Or we are immortal beings, fulfilling a destiny prepared by a humanly attuned nature/providence Belief that supports moral experience and is suggested by it

43. 5) Source of moral power? 43 1) Hume argues that morality is a powerful force that moves people to act But reason is cold So morality must be a feeling of a certain kind But this deterministic perspective undermines morality (Kant) 2) Rousseau: conscience is a sentiment of the soul, not a feeling of the body 3) Kant: �noumenon� v. �sensible phenomena� But there is a kind of 1st person evidence of this noumenal reality in moral experience

44. The Intelligible World 44 Duty! Thou sublime and mighty name � what origin is worthy of thee, and where is the root of thy noble descent which proudly rejects all kinship with the inclinations � It is nothing else than personality, i.e., the freedom and independence from the mechanism of nature � so that the person belonging to the world of sense is subject to his own personality so far as he belongs to the intelligible world. For it is then not to be wondered at that man, as belonging to two worlds, must regard his own being in relation to his second and higher vocation with reverence, and the laws of this vocation with the deepest respect.

45. The power of the personality 45 As �noumenal� beings or �things-in-ourselves� we belong to an �intelligible world� This is the world of the true �personality� which is in unity with humanity As distinct from the ego which is separate from other egos. We don�t know this, but choose to believe it as the basis of moral experience How else explain the power within us that is capable of setting aside all our sensible desires, feelings, interests?

46. Why be moral? 46 If morality means setting aside all our ordinary desires and interests, why should this interest us? Kant: because we ourselves, as autonomous personalities, are at the source of the moral law Thus in morality, we (believe that we) are more than our sensible selves (ego)

47. Teleology of history 47 But postulates are feeble supports in the face of empirical evidence Hence the 3rd Critique and Kant�s historical essays supply empirical evidence for progress morality as the guiding thread for understanding history We don�t know this (1st Critique) But the 3rd Critique defends another kind of knowing: teleological perspective And the historical essays provide evidence: e.g., progress in political life over the centuries

48. Kant on the French Revolution 48 The �Platonic Ideal (respublica noumenon [the noumenal republic]) is not an empty chimera, but rather the eternal norm � A civil society organized conformably to this ideal is the representation of it in agreement with the laws of freedom by means of an example in our experience (respublica phaenomenon [the phenomenal republic]) and can only be painfully acquired after multifarious hostilities and wars; but its constitution, once won on a large scale, is qualified as the best among all others to banish war, the destroyer of everything good.� (1798)