Module 5 Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant

Learning Outcomes

1.      Recognize the meaning of deontological ethics;

2.      Explain the categorical imperative;

3.      Appreciate and articulate the role of duty in crafting an ethical life; and

4.      Apply the principle of the categorical imperative in moral dilemma.

Introduction
Franz Kafka once gave voice to the solitude of man and his/her task to find their own way. Kafka wrote the story of “an
imperial message” directly addressing the reader as the pathetic subject. The story started with the sending of a
message from the farthest distance. A dying king ordered his Herald to bring his whispered message. After confirming
the accuracy of the message, the Herald was sent breaking down obstructing walls and going beyond the great ones of
the empire at first. Eventually, however, he is slowed down by the huge crowd and the infinite distance that lie between
him and the receiver of the message. The reader to whom the message is addressed in the end sits by the window
dreaming of the message that may come.

            The reader is directly addressed by Kafka and invited to move out of dreaming and end his/her pathetic passivity.
Left on their own, he/she is tasked to find their own way and not give in to dreams and fulness of knowledge that are
given to them or the discovery of a path that us yet to be revealed. A professor once hypothetically presented such a
situation by asking, “If early morning tomorrow you wake up so sure that there is no God, what would you do?”.

            The German thinker Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) proposed a viable human solution to this quandary. His
philosophy views man as autonomous and most of himself/herself as not subject to external conditions, results, and
mandates. If left to themselves, is it possible for the human person to be ethical? Immanuel Kant thinks so. In fact, he
was so confident in the ethical system that he came up with what he declares its systematic independence from religion
and even asserted that it is religion that is in need of his foundational ethics and not vice versa.

Immanuel Kant
Born April 22, 1724 to a religious and lower middle-class family, Immanuel Kant had his education at the local Pietistic
Friedrichskolleg of Konigsberg, East Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). His interest in Philosophy started when he
continued his studies at the University of Konigsberg. From 1746-1755 Kant worked as a tutor for rich families of his city
until he got an appointment as instructor at his own university. He was an effective teacher and in 1770 was awarded
full professorship.

“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe… the ember in the stars and the moral law
within.” These occupied the studies of Kant that he made a new name through his opus writings: General Natural
History and Theory of Heavens (1755), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical Reason
(1788), Metaphysics of Morals (1797) and Religion within the Limits of Reason (1792/94).

He was never married though he enjoyed a vibrant social life. He died on February 12, 1804 with the last words es ist
gut (It is Good).

Autonomous Reason, Goodwill, and Duty

          Kant insists that every time we confront moral situations, there are formally operative a priori principles that can
be brought to the forefront. Highlighting these a priori  truths can better help the learner of ethics sort through his/her
task of living ethically. Kant’s research on ethics has named these as reason, goodwill, and duty. These are, for Kant
the foundation (reason), source (goodwill), and motivation (duty) of ethical living.
Module 5 Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant
            The foundation of sound ethics for Immanuel Kant can only be the authority of human reason. The voice of God is
not heard directly today while man is living in this passing world. Voices of ministers and priests who claim to speak for
God are but other human beings who make use of their own reason in trying to understand what goes on around them.

          This common human reason is also what they use as they comprehend the revelation that is said to be the
foundation of this particular religion.  Given that they share the same humanity with everybody else including the
students of ethics, what they say ought to pass through the norm of reason that is internal to the moral subject
himself/herself. Otherwise, arbitrariness holds sway in their claim to authority and what they capriciously hold as
binding or gratuitously free.

           The reason therefore functions as the very effort to think through moral principles and apply what a person knows
to get to the right thing to do. In fact, this internal authority human reason is operative and takes precedence every time
the person confronts a particular moral situation. This is human rationality that is discursive, i.e. humans reason by
“talking to themselves”, according to one of the Philosopher-readers of Kant named Hannah Arendt.

            What is ethical necessarily always implies the use of reason. Human acceptance of external mandates also makes
use of this same reason.  Kant then tells us that the reason in itself can only be the sensible foundation of what is ethical
for man. He then bids his students sapere aude that is “dare to think for yourselves.” Autonomous reason ventures to
know what is ethical not on the authority of what is external to the self but grounded on (reason) itself. The loudness of
external authorities cannot bend the autonomy of reason that on its own knows what should be done. What others say
in turn is only acceptable if it is found to be reasonable by the use of one’s autonomous reason.

If reason is the foundation of what is ethical for Kant, in turn its source can only be goodwill. This simply means that
what is morally binding is rooted in reason as “doable for the human person.” The moral authority for Kant is immanent
in man – the origin of ethical obligation for man is his/her own goodwill. Instead of looking at the good as external to
man, Kant locates the good in the very interiority of the self. The good that is relevant to the person who through their
reason knows what one ought to do, is that which he/she can do and know as good. This goodwill implies the
achievability of what is known through reason. One who claims moral obligation can do so by being free of impositions
from outside. That is, they are capable of carrying out their obligations on his/her own doing. It can only oblige a person
insofar as they know in their own reason knows it is an obligation.

            Kant calls “duty” the obligation that follows what reason deems as the action which is most worthy of our
humanity. This duty is founded on human reason, it passes through the sorting out made by our autonomous and
discursive reason. Duty is the doable obligation for the human person, it is not duty if it is impossible for man to do it.
Duty, therefore, is a doable good for the human will. While founded on human reason for determination, duty, is at the
very same time originating from the goodwill as a voluntary action that is doable for the human being.

            Duty or obligation is the motivation for reason and goodwill of the human person. If one asks why they had to do
what they ought to do, the answer can only be because it is his/her duty. Reason tells the human person to do the
obligation that is doable for the goodwill again since it is their duty. The good that is reachable for the will of the human
person is therefore owned by him/her as a duty. This then excludes any other external or internal motivation for the
human person for doing what he/she ought to do; whether he/she likes it or not; be it success or failure; whether it
comes with applause or accusation; his/her reason and goodwill simply binds them to do what they ought to do because
it is their duty.

Obligation is Understood as “Man as an End in Himself/Herself,” Autonomous, and Universalizable

Obligation for the human person is something one’s reason elects and his/her goodwill own simply as something she
ought to do. Obligation is simply a must, a “categorical imperative” or a duty that is defined by reason as doable for
man’s volition and should be carried out by the human person. In this sense, “Man as an end in himself/herself” means
Module 5 Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant
the obligation cannot be passed on to others. That is, if confronted by a particular situation, the human person in his/her
integrity as a reason and good will is obliged to do his/her duty as the agent of action.

The human person is himself/herself the center of action and responsibility in a given ethical situation. Their obligation is
theirs and their participation in this particular ethical event. He/She is autonomous in reasoning and willing the
execution of his/her defined duty.

Reason as earlier mentioned is always discursive in its execution. A person’s autonomous reason, being thinking that is
talking with oneself presupposes dialogue. Dialogue with the self approximates a reaching out beyond the confines and
determinations of oneself only. One’s reason is also the presence of other reasonable beings one ought to strive to be in
accord with. One’s definition of duty or his/her obligation ought to be universalizable in this sense.

“Man as an end in herself” conjoined with his responsibility to reach for duty that is universalizable necessarily demands
that other human persons ought to be treated not as instruments in the execution of what one should do but as fellow
reasonable beings, ends in themselves. They are reasonable human beings too before whom the self stands
accountable.

Kantian Ethics and Religion

Immanuel Kant fully established the independence of his ethics from religion via the recognition of reason as the
foundation, goodwill as the source, and duty as the motivation of what obliges the human person. In his essay “Religions
within the Limits of Reason”, Kant went as far as setting up his ethical system as that which is definitive in the
recognition of true religion.

A “religion is not true to itself” according to Kant if it goes against what man “ought to do” as defined by his/her
autonomous reason and goodwill that reaches for universalizability. Only false religion or cult falls unreasonably to
superstition and does away with duty as an obligation for his/her goodwill. Thefore, Kantian ethics is the foundational
for religion and not vice versa.

Kant however, is not against religion. For him, the value of religion rests on its reality as an openness to “what one can
hope for”. Religion for Kant is the very openness of ethics of the complementary strength that is provided by hope.
Unlike Aristotle, Kant does not define “happiness” as the motivation for his ethics of duty. What is ethical is indifferent
to happiness for Kant and is purely motivated by duty itself. One does the obligation to reach for happiness, that will be
self-serving for Kant and self-interest here moves away from the purity of duty.

Happiness is understood by the human reason as reasonable related to ethics. “He/She who has lived justly by doing
his/her obligation dutifully is the most fitting for happiness.” This truth, the human reason knows and even goes as far as
protesting the reality of just men living miserably. “Happiness ought to be related to the ethical task of man,” reason
asserts in protest.

For Kant, the ethical human person is like someone who woos in courtship the person one likes. They cannot oblige the
other to give him/her a positive answer to their offering of love and devotion. They can only make themselves worthy of
a “yes”. Responding to their love is a gift they can only receive from the other. The answer cannot be forced in the same
wat that happiness is something one expects to collect aster a lifelong striving of doing one’s duty. Happiness is a
gratuitous gift that one recognizes as within the realm of hope. Different religions for Kant express this balance between
task of doing the duty and the hope for what one cannot give to oneself. Religion for Kant is the reconciliation of ethics
and hope, the task of fulfilling one’s duty and the gift of happiness that one cannot gain by one’s efforts alone.

Conclusion

Kant’s ethics provided for a ground of legislating norms of rational behavior for autonomous persons. His ethical system
emerged at a time when Western civilization sought for a foundation of moral behavior that did not depend on faith or
Module 5 Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant
tradition. Kant provided that and in effect gave the justification and possibility for reason being the sole ground for
determining the good. The next ethical theory will provide another possible basis for determining the good using reason
alone. Kant’s ethics provided for a ground of legislating norms of rational behavior for autonomous persons. His ethical
system emerged at a time when Western civilization sought for a foundation of moral behavior that did not depend on
faith or tradition. Kant provided that and in effect gave the justification and possibility for reason being the sole ground
for determining the good. The next ethical theory will provide another possible basis for determining the good using
reason alone.

Why is autonomous reason the only acceptable foundation of ethics for Kant?

Kant insists that every time we confront moral situations, there are formally operative a priori principles that can be
brought to the forefront. Highlighting these a priori  truths can better help the learner of ethics sort through his/her task
of living ethically. Kant’s research on ethics has named these as reason, goodwill, and duty. These are, for Kant
the foundation (reason), source (goodwill), and motivation (duty) of ethical living.

The foundation of sound ethics for Immanuel Kant can only be the authority of human reason. The voice of God is not
heard directly today while man is living in this passing world. Voices of ministers and priests who claim to speak for God
are but other human beings who make use of their own reason in trying to understand what goes on around them.

What is ethical necessarily always implies the use of reason. Human acceptance of external mandates also makes use of
this same reason.  Kant then tells us that the reason in itself can only be the sensible foundation of what is ethical for
man. If reason is the foundation of what is ethical for Kant, in turn its source can only be goodwill. This simply means
that what is morally binding is rooted in reason as “doable for the human person.” Duty or obligation is the motivation
for reason and goodwill of the human person. If one asks why they had to do what they ought to do, the answer can
only be because it is his/her duty.

How do you understand categorical imperative? Give an example to apply the concept.

Obligation for the human person is something one’s reason elects and his/her goodwill own simply as something she
ought to do. Obligation is simply a must, a “categorical imperative” or a duty that is defined by reason as doable for
man’s volition and should be carried out by the human person. In this sense, “Man as an end in himself/herself” means
the obligation cannot be passed on to others. That is, if confronted by a particular situation, the human person in his/her
integrity as a reason and good will is obliged to do his/her duty as the agent of action.

The human person is himself/herself the center of action and responsibility in a given ethical situation. Their obligation is
theirs and their participation in this particular ethical event. He/She is autonomous in reasoning and willing the
execution of his/her defined duty.

What is the reasonable relationship between religion and ethics for Kant?

For him, the value of religion rests on its reality as an openness to “what one can hope for”. Religion for Kant is the very
openness of ethics of the complementary strength that is provided by hope. Unlike Aristotle, Kant does not define
“happiness” as the motivation for his ethics of duty. What is ethical is indifferent to happiness for Kant and is purely
motivated by duty itself. One does the obligation to reach for happiness, that will be self-serving for Kant and self-
interest here moves away from the purity of duty.