Kantian Ethics

The Good Will and Duty

In the search for intrinsic ‘good’, Kant did not believe that any outcome was inherently good.
Pleasure or happiness could result out of the most evil acts. He also did not believe in ‘good’
character traits, as ingenuity, intelligence, courage etc. could all be used for evil. In fact, he used
the term good to describe the ‘good will’, by which he meant the resolve to act purely in accordance
with one’s duty. He believed that, using reason, an individual could work out what one’s duty was.
Free Will, God and Immortality
If our actions are pre-determined and we merely bounce around like snooker-balls, we cannot be
described as free and morality doesn’t apply to us. Kant could not prove that we are free – rather,
he presumed that we could act morally, and for this to be the case we must be free. He also thought
that it followed that there must be a God and life after death, otherwise morality would make no
sense.
Synthetic A Priori
We do not follow predetermined laws. However, we must act according to some laws, otherwise
our actions are random and without purpose. As a result, rational beings must determine for
themselves a set of laws by which they will act.
These laws are not analytic (true by virtue of their meaning), but they cannot be determined through
experience (a posteriori). Hume pointed this out when he said that you couldn’t move from an is
(a synthetic statement about the world) to an ought (a statement about the way the world should be).
The rational being has to determine the synthetic a priori – the substantive rules that can be
applied prior to experience.
The Categorical Imperative – Universalisability
An imperative is a statement of what should be done. We have said before that Hume realised you
can’t get a should statement out of an is statement. In other words, experience can only give us
hypothetical imperatives (If you want to be healthy, then you should exercise and watch what you
eat). A description of the way the world is cannot tell us the way we should act.
A Categorical Imperative is a should statement, but it is not based on experience, and doesn’t rely
on a particular outcome. Rather, it logically precedes experience, or helps us make sense of
experience. In another area of thinking, Kant showed that we must presume that time moves
forwards – our mind imposes this on our experiences to make sense of them. We therefore could
never demonstrate or prove this through experience.
It is like that with the categorical imperative: certain actions are logically inconsistent and would
make no sense as universal laws, such as lying. As a result, ‘Do not lie’ is a categorical
imperative. This understanding that our mind plays an active role in ordering and shaping our
experience was revolutionary, and is Kant’s greatest achievement.
Kant states the categorical imperative as follows:
I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a
universal law.
The Categorical Imperative – Law of Nature
Kant also states the categorical imperative as follows:
Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.
It is difficult to see how these two statements are different, and many texts treat them as
though they say the same thing. However, I think they give a real insight into how Kant
perceived the Categorical Imperative. Have a look at how the categorical imperative can be
applied to euthanasia.
The Categorical Imperative – Ends and means
A good will is one that acts in accordance with rationally-determined duty. No character trait or
consequence is good in itself. However, as good is defined in terms of rationality, Kant argued that
all rational beings were ends in themselves and should never be treated purely as a means to an
end. He put this two different ways:
So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as
an end in itself, never as means only.
So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
These latter statements of the Categorical Imperative are really an extension of the statements
regarding universalisability – we hold laws if we would will that all other rational beings would
also follow them. As a result, it would be contradictory for any rule to treat a rational being as a
means to some greater end: there can be no greater end. Put another way, I cannot prescribe a rule
that, if held by someone else, would result in my being treated merely as a means to end.
The categorical Imperative, stated four different ways above, could be seen as a rational
justification for following the golden rule that is the cornerstone of Christian morals (as well as
most other religions):
Love your neighbour as yourself.

Criticisms
All deontological (duty or rule-based) systems will have problems when two rules come
into conflict. It is possible to have a third rule (Always tell the truth unless doing so
endangers someone’s life), but this complicates the theory, resulting in rules with lots of
clauses and sub-clauses (a little like our legal system).
There could also be literally millions of rules that are not self-contradictory but, if
universalised, would seem absurd. Here Kant says that we should reject those rules
which, if universalised, would produce a state of affairs utterly objectionable to
all rational people. This suddenly looks less convincing than before – how can we tell
what rational people would find objectionable? As with Utilitarianism, many
philosophers prefer to adapt Kant’s theory rather than discard it completely.
WD Ross
Ross adapted the Kantian approach. He described our obligations as 'Prima Facie' duties. This
means that they are, 'at first appearance', things that we must do. Just like Kant, he might say that
we have an obligation not to kill, steal etc. In fact, he lists our obligations as follows, although this
is not an exhaustive list:
• Duties of fidelity.
• Duties of gratitude.
• Duties of justice.
• Duties of beneficence to others
• Duties of self-development.
• Duties not to injure others
So, Ross may actually agree with a utilitarian that we have a duty or obligation to bring about the
greatest good! This doesn't sound very Kantian at all, but wouldn't we will universal laws that
brought about the greatest good?
So, we have obligations, but Kant said these were absolutes, Ross disagrees. They appear to be
absolute (prima facie), but if two of them contradict, we clearly cannot honour both obligations. We
need to determine which is the greater obligation, and then we have an absolute duty to follow that

Applied Ethics
Most Ethics students find Utilitarianism the most accessible theory, and the easiest to
apply. You weigh up consequences - how many people affected, for how long etc. Kant,
as a deontologist, is obviously not concerned with outcomes at all. So with Kant you use
reason to find rules, and this scares some students off. Really, though, it's very simple.
• Start with a maxim - a principle or rule that we want to follow. For example, Jenny should
have an abortion.
• Make it universal - All women should have abortions.
• Is it self-contradictory? - Yes. It's illogical, because if you say everyone should abort, there
is no one around who could abort.
So, you try again (you get better with time).
• Start with a maxim - Jenny, whose life is threatened by her pregnancy and wants an
abortion, should abort.
• Make it universal - All women whose life is threatened by their pregnancy and want an
abortion should abort.
• Is it self-contradictory? - No, it's not self-contradictory
• Is it a contradiction of the will? Could a rational person want to live in a world with this
rule?
Now you probably find that a hard question, which is a valid criticism of Kant. We all disagree
about the sort of world and laws that we would choose. However, there's more to the theory:
• Could you will that it became a universal law of nature?
• Is it using a person merely as a means to an end?

Kant and Euthanasia

We can use euthanasia to show the difference between thinking of universal laws and thinking of
universal laws of nature. You cannot start with the maxim "Dianne Pretty should be killed", as the
universal law would then follow "All people should be killed", which is self contradictory. So in
your ethics class, you may well have changed your initial maxim to something like this:
"Someone who is terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, who are suffering greatly and
wish to die should be helped to die".

You could universalise this into a decent universal law that doesn't contradict the will:
"All people who are terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, who are suffering greatly
and wish to die should be helped to die".

- hey presto, Kant supports Euthanasia. However, could this be a law of nature? I'm sure you could
imagine a world where people die when they are suffering greatly through terminally illness with no
hope of recovery. Could we imagine a world where wanting to die led to death? Even if combined
with the other factors, would we want to live in such a world? Surely some people feel they can't
cope when first diagnosed but change their minds later?
In other words, we get one answer when we think about making laws in society - we'd need two
doctors to verify that someone had no hope of recovery. We'd do tests to make sure someone was in
their right mind and had time to think through the alternatives etc. We get a different answer when
we imagine that this all happens according to nature. The universal law of nature makes us think
twice before we start making universal laws. Kant isn't utilitarian, and never wanted to take account
of the effects of the laws we make. He just wanted to work out the moral laws that could be made
into universal laws of nature.