Kantian Deontology: The Categorical Imperative

1. Kantian Deontology: The Categorical Imperative “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”

2. Kant’s Copernican Revolution • Where does Copernicus (=Polish astronomer) place us in the physical universe? • Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) turned astronomy inside-out by hypothesising that the earth moved around the sun (instead of the other way round) • Where does Kant (= Prussian philosopher) place us in the moral universe? • Kant turned epistemology inside-out by theorising that objective reality depends on the mind (instead of the other way round). • Similarly, morality depends purely on rational considerations. • The individual moral agent is at the centre of their own moral universe.

3. Deontology – Assessing Acts • Morality is a matter of duty and obligation. • Actions are right or wrong in themselves. • Whether something is right or wrong doesn’t depend on its consequences. • But on the way choosers think when they make choices. • We each have duties regarding our own actions: we are autonomous moral agents.

4. Happiness vs. Reason • Morality motivates us to act • Our actions must be brought about 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.

5. The Good Will • Reason  only one of our traits of character is inherently/unconditionally good • Name some virtues • Are they always good or used for good ends? • The ‘Good Will’ = our power of rational moral choice = unconditionally good • found only in humans • gives us inherent dignity as autonomousmoral agents

6. 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 – to act to maximise your happiness, basically. • What does it mean to act out of duty? • when you act out of respect for the moral law. • How do act out of duty?  • we must know what the moral law is. • How do we know that?  • we use the "Categorical Imperative."

7. 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 • But nothing compels you to do Y • A categorical imperative is not hypothetical. It is unconditional. • i.e. do X • It is irrational and immoral not to obey it • For Kant, morals = categorical imperatives

8. Kant’s Categorical Imperative • Morality is universal, the same for everyone: • “Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to be [legitimately binding] has to carry absolute necessity with it…” Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals • Rationally speaking, the moral law must be obeyed. • And when we act, we act on maxims or practical principles of action. • so “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.

9. The three formulations of the Categorical Imperative • Formula of Universal Law: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to secure through your will a universal law of nature"  • Formula of Humanity: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only" • Formula of Autonomy: “Act as if you were through your maxims a law making member of a kingdom of ends."

10. Starter: Quickfire Questions • What two things fill Kant with awe? • What is Kant’s ‘Copernican Revolution’? • Fill in the blanks: A_______ M_____ A_______... • Why reason, not happiness? Why duty, not inclination? • What is Kant’s ‘Good Will’? • What is the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative? • What do the phrases ‘Universal Law’, ‘Humanity’, ‘Autonomy’ refer to?

11. What is a Categorical Imperative? • In effect, two rules for testing rules of conduct or maxims - pass = a possible CI • First test: ‘contradiction in conception’ or ‘self-contradiction’ • First, generalise the maxim and see if it makes sense. • 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.

12. The Categorical Imperative • Second test: “contradiction in will”(a.k.a. ‘reversibility’) • If the maxim you’re testing isn’t self-contradictory • then ask: would you choose to live in a world where it was followed by everyone • as then it would apply to you as an individual • would you mind being governed by it? • It is logically possible to universalise some unpleasant maxims • e.g. ‘don’t help others in need’ • But we can’t will this maxim, because we might need help ourselves. • So such a maxim is not ‘reversible’. • So it cannot be willed without contradiction.

13. The case of the false promise • Kant’s example about non-contradiction • 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 the ‘contradiction in conception’ test.

14. 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.

15. The case of The Bad Samaritan • Kant’s example about reversibility • 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. • So being mean passes the non-contradiction test for it to be a Categorical Imperative:

16. The Bad Samaritan II • 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. • But: ‘contradiction in will’ test - logical force...?

17. Starter: some objections to Kant • Exceptionless rules are extremely dangerous. • The standard is an inhuman one against which to judge our actions. • Isn’t it a very high standard? Is it possible not to use people in order to obtain your goals or seek an edge or unfair advantage? Might this not make us goal-less? • Surely our natural desires are worthy? Would Kant really view parental love for children as immoral? • Doesn’t duty sound rather like habit? Isn’t it better to do things from inclination? Suppose I am inclined to hit you but control myself – surely this is more valuable to you than someone who is just nice to you from habit? • What role does character play in all this? Would a habitually moral scumbag be possible? • The choices necessary to live a good life could involve actions which entail results incompatible with happiness. • How far should respect for persons go? • Can we imagine circumstances where contingent circumstances might really matter? • Can we imagine circumstances where imperatives might clash?

18. Starter: some strengths of Kant • People have rights which would supersede, for example, the tyranny of the majority in utilitarianism. • Achieving good ends by despicable means is ruled out. • People cannot be exploited. • We avoid the many problems to do with weighing up and working out consequences. • We don’t have the issue of explaining why or how we have moral intuitions.

19. Starter • What is the contradiction in conception test? • What is a maxim? • What is the contradiction in will test? • What is wrong with lying? • What is wrong with not helping? • What is wrong with liking helping? • What is wrong with loving your children? • What is wrong with inclination, and what does Kant prefer? • What shines like a star for its own sake? • Name each of the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative.

20. Example essay-questions • 08 Examine the difficulties non-consequentialists face in explaining how certain actions are necessary. (50 marks) • 0 8 Assess the view that what makes an action moral is that it is motivated by a sense of duty. (50 marks)

21. Starter: who or what? Kant’s influences… Plato David Hume (1711 –1776) The Age of Enlightenment, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason) Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778) Martin Luther Lutherans (1483-1546) Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)