Saint Louis University

School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts

Department of Philosophy
2nd Semester AY 2019 - 2020
GEthics
Kantian Ethics (Deontology)
Basic Summary:
German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was a staunch opponent of utilitarianism. Unlike John Stuart
Mill, Kant believed that certain types of actions (e.g. lying, theft, murder) are absolutely prohibited in all
circumstances (even if those would bring about more happiness to the greatest number of people).
Kant reminds us to ask two questions first before we act:
1. Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? (Can I universalize the act?)
2. Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own
purposes?
If the answer to both questions is NO, then we must not perform the action.
Kantian ethics is also known as deontological moral theory since the rightness or wrongness of an action does not
depend on its consequence/s but on whether it fulfills our duty.
For Kant, an action can have moral worth if and only if it is done from duty. 1 In other words, we do what is right
just because it is right.

Morality and Imperatives

Kant believed that there is a supreme principle of morality which he refers to as The Categorical Imperative. The
CI determines what our moral duties are.

What is an imperative?
An imperative is a command. (e.g. “Pay your taxes!”, “Don’t kill animals!”)
Hypothetical Imperatives: personal command; command conditionally on your having a relevant desire.
(e.g. “I want to be a lawyer in the future so I will take philosophy in college.” If you don’t want to
become a lawyer, this imperative does not apply to you.)

Categorical Imperatives: These command unconditionally. They can be universalized.

(e.g. “Don’t cheat on your exams.” Even if you want to cheat and doing so would serve your own
interest, you may not cheat.)

1
Stratton-Lake, Philip. 2006. Kant, Duty and Moral Worth. New York: Routledge, 11.
Lecture Notes on Deontology Viener Love Joy B. Urminita
What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives?
Morality must be based on the categorical imperative (universal command) because it does not give any
excuses. No one can opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you. In other words, it is a 24/7 job. We have
to be moral anytime, anywhere, whoever we are with.
Formulations of the Categorical Imperative
1. The Formula of Universal Law: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you at the same
time can will that it become a universal law [of nature].”2
 Maxim: A maxim is the rule or principle in which you act.
o For example, you may make it your maxim to give some of your extra money to beggars.

 Basic Idea: You are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to allow
everyone else to do as well.
o You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself.
o For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are also obligated to
keep your own promises.

Should you lie to a would-be murderer?

 Imagine your friend came running at your house because someone is trying to kill him.
Now, the would-be murderer knocks at your door and asks if you have seen someone
that looks like your friend.
 Would you lie to the would-be murderer?
 Kant said you should not because if you lied in that situation, then you are actually
saying that you are exempted from lying.
 Lying cannot be universalized. In this case, Kant is just emphasizing consistency and
observance of the categorical imperative.
o What can you do to save your friend? You may give him a head start before the
would-be murderer comes.

2. The Formula of Humanity: “So act that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person
of every other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.”3
 This tells us that the motive of duty consists in acting out of respect for the worth of rational nature as
an end in itself, as it is found in some person or persons.4
 Rational nature as end itself is the fundamental value in the world.
o All human beings have the capacity to think (some are just lazy or afraid to think for
themselves. Nevertheless, they still have the capacity to think.)
o Thus, all people are free and dignified beings because they have rational nature.
o If all people are free and dignified, then it follows that no one, not even one, should be
sacrificed for the good of the many (an explicit counterargument against utilitarianism.)
 Doing so will violate their very nature as rational beings.
o Hence, we should not use others for our own gain/benefit.

2
Bird, Graham (ed.) 2006. A Companion to Kant. MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing, 291.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., p.300.
Lecture Notes on Deontology Viener Love Joy B. Urminita
  REMEMBER:
a. The humanity formula does not rule out using people as means to our ends.5
 Paying the cab driver after dropping you off to your destination is not using him/her as a
means to your end.
 What the humanity formula rules out is engaging in this pervasive use of humanity in such
a way that we treat it as a mere means to our ends.

Examples of pervasive use of humanity:

 Rape, theft, slavery, torture, forgery, adultery, bribery, murder, cheating

b. It is not human beings per se but the “humanity” in human beings that we must treat as an end in
itself.
 Our humanity is that collection of features that make us distinctively human like, but not
limited to:
 Capacities to engage in self-directed rational behavior
 Pursue our own ends
 Think and decide for ourselves

3. Formula of Autonomy: “the idea of the will of every rational being as a will giving universal law” or “Not
to choose otherwise than so that the maxims of one’s choice are at the same time comprehended with it in
the same volition as universal law.”
 This supports the formula of humanity in the sense that our actions should not hinder our own freedom
and the freedom of other people.
 So in connection to Human Rights, we all have rights but these are not absolute.
o Our rights end where the rights of others begin.
o Thus, we have the duty to promote and protect these rights because this will allow us and others
to enjoy our freedom.

4. The Formula of the Realm of Ends: “Act in accordance with maxims of a universally legislative member
for a merely possible realm of ends.”6

 This combines the previous formulations in the sense that:

o it requires that we conform our actions to the laws of an ideal moral legislature
o that his legislature lays down universal laws, binding all rational wills including our own will
o that those laws are of “a merely possible kingdom” each of whose members equally possesses
this status as legislator of universal laws, and hence must be treated always as an end in itself.

 Connecting it to the first formula (Formula of Universality), this fourth formulation reminds us that
our fundamental moral obligation is to act only on principles (maxims) which could be accepted by all
rational beings and in which they have an equal share in legislating these principles or maxims for
their own community.

5
Johnson, Robert 2016. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, July 7, 2016. Accessed March 27, 2020.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#AutFor.
6
Bird, Graham (ed.) 2006. A Companion to Kant. MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing, 292.
Lecture Notes on Deontology Viener Love Joy B. Urminita
On our Moral Worth
The Moral Worth of Persons: What makes someone a good person is not the consequence of her action but her
motivation behind her action.
Motivation: what caused you to do the action (i.e. your reason for doing it).
 One can only have a moral worth if she is motivated by morality.
 If other words, if a person’s desires or emotions drove her to do something, then that action does not
have a moral worth.
Why motivation is what matters:
Moral worth only comes when you do something because you know that it is your duty and you would do
it regardless of whether you liked it or not.
o If you are happy doing your duty, that should only be a bonus. Your primary motivation should
still be your sense of duty.
 For example, imagine yourself winning Php 100,000,000 in the lottery. You can buy
the things that you want and you would still have lots of money left. Then, you thought
that it would really be fun to donate to charity and enjoy that feeling of contentment
when you see people happy.
 According to Kant, you are not morally worthy because after all, you just did whatever
you thought would be the most fun and there is nothing admirable about such a selfish
act.
 What motivated you? Was it your sense of duty or just because you have lots of money
to spare?
Why consequences do not matter:
 (Luke 20:45-21:4) Consider what Jesus tells us about the rich and a poor widow when they both
offered money in the temple. The rich put their gifts in the temple treasury and same with the poor
widow but she only offered two very small copper coins.
o The question is: Who put more than all the others?
o Jesus went on to say: “All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her
poverty put in all she had to live on.”
o Whose motivation has a moral worth?
Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties
- Perfect duties (duties of justice) can appropriately be enforced by means of the public, juridical use of
coercion. It means, it does not give any exemption.
- Imperfect duties (duties of virtue), are judged after personal assessment but not coercion.

Perfect Duties Imperfect Duties

To others tell the truth, don’t break promises assist others in need
don’t steal, murder, enslave help others achieve goals
To self refrain from committing suicide develop one’s talents

Summary: A good person is someone who always does their duty because it is their duty. It is fine if they enjoy
doing it but they still should even if they do not.
- We must be good for goodness sake.
- Even if we are the last person to do it, if it is the right thing to do, then do it.
Lecture Notes on Deontology Viener Love Joy B. Urminita