Lesson 3

Kantian Ethics (Deontological Ethics)

At this juncture, we will be discussing the Philosophy of Immanuel

Kant. Kant is one of the philosophers whose philosophy is very difficult to
comprehend. Mahirap na philosopher to. So, we will try to simplify his
philosophy as much as possible para mas madali nating maintindihan ang
lesson natin.

Ang story na ginamit natin dito to introduce our topic is the story of
Reggie, a taxi driver who was rewarded by the City Government of Baguio
for returning the suitcase left by one Australian named Trent Shields in his
taxi. What do you think is the distinction between a ‘reward’ and a
‘payment’. Anong pinagkaiba nila? Sa payment, the giving of the ‘money’ is
an obligation resulting from a contract. May contrata kayo nung say for
instance seller; obligasyon niang ibigay sayo yung binili mo (meaning to
transfer ownership), obligasyon mo namang magbayad. Sa reward naman,
hindi obligado yung driver na ibalik yung naiwang suitcase sa sasakyan,
pero binalik nia parin. So, the reward there is not a fulfilment of an
obligation, but an unrequired gift for one’s service or effort which he
performed absent any obligation to do so.

Now tatanungin natin, bakit kaya isinauli ni Reggie yung suitcase?

Pwede nating sabihing kasi para kay Reggie, yun yung tamang gawin.
Pero paano naman kung kay Reggie, ang tamang gawin ay hindi pagsauli
ng suitcase kasi para sa kanya, kailangang maturuan ng leksion ang may-
ari ng suitcase na kung mahalaga sayo, kung hindi mo kayang mawala,
alagaan mo, wag mong basta basta nalang iiwan, ingatan mo, wag
mong pababayaan.

Ang ipopoint out natin dito, is behind the back of Reggie merong
PRINCIPLE na yun yung tamang gawin. Ginawa nia yun kasi may
pinanghahawakan siang idea kung ano ang tama at maling gawin.
Now, since ito yung kinoconsider niang tamang gawin, ginawa nia
yun. Ito yung MORAL CONVICTION. So ang naging BASIS OF ACTION
nia is his moral conviction to his moral principle.

“To hold a moral conviction means believing that it is one’s duty to do

the right thing.” Dahil ito yung sa tingin mo ay tamang gawin, nagiging duty
mong gawin yun. What then is DUTY?
We go to Deontology. Deontology came from the Greek word deon which
means duty. It is the moral theory that evaluates actions that are done
because of duty. It refers to the study of duty and obligation. Sa
utilitarianism next topic, sasabihin natin na the end will justify the means, in
that an action is right if the result or the consequence is good, regardless of
the means employed to attain such end. Parang sa Robinhood dilemma,
wherein in order to help the poor, nagnakaw si Robinhood sa mga
mayayaman. Sa Deontology, sasabihin dito na ang pagiging tama ng isang
action ay nakasalalay, hindi sa consequence ng action, kundi yung action,
intrinsically right, tama talaga.

Bibigyan natin ng konting background ang philosophy ni Kant. Kant lived

during the time of the rise of Rationalism and Empiricism. By rationalism,
sinasabi natin na we can infer the truthfulness of something without prior
resort to experience. Such that when you say, 1+1=2, automatic na tama
na yan. Sa empiricism naman, lahat ng knowledge, product ng experience.
Pag sinabi mong it is raining, masasabi mo lang na tama ang statement
pag lumabas ka o dumungaw ka sa bintana mo ang it is actually raining.
Certain knowledge can only come after experience. Well, epistemology yan
so wag na nating iexpound masiado yan, focus tayo sa morality ni Kant.

The morality of Kant is known as the categorical imperative. Ang tanong na

gustong sagutin ni Kant is, how can we arrive at a set of principles na
binding upon everybody. Meaning, how can we establish a principle that is
universally accepted in such a way that all people recognize them as a
duty, kasi nga they are unquestionably right at all times. Parang 1+1=2, na
kahit taga saan ka, mayaman ka man o mahirap, presidente ka man o
mamamayan, lalaki ka man o babae, alam mo at tanggap mo na tama.

Dito papasok ang good will, meaning internal. When we say internal, the
reason for doing an act is not because the act is right, but because you
know for yourself that the act is right. Meaning, pinagcocombine natin ang
rationalism sa empiricism, wherein while yung act is true even without
resort to experience, the act remains right even after experience. So, the
rightness or wrongness of an act can be inferred either rationally or
empirically, and the result will still be the same. So, ginagawa mo ang isang
bagay, hindi lang dahil ito ang sinabi ng iba or authority (or anything that is
external), but because it is what you determine yourself na tama. So,
papasok dito ang intention, meaning kung ano talaga ang rason mo kung
bakit mo ginawa ang bagay na yun, is it because you wanted to obey the
law or culture, or is it because it is what you think is right. The first one is
acting in accordance with duty, the second one is acting from duty.

Now, this will is good because it is rational. So, yung pagsabi natin
kanina na ginagawa mo ito dahil ito yung sa tingin mo tama, we call it
rational will, which is the capacity to act according to principles that we
determine for ourselves. (Alam mo ‘sa sarili mo’, meaning you determined it
yourself, kung ano yung tama, and you act in accordance with what you
think is right.)

Para mas maintindihan natin ang rational will, idifferentiate natin ito sa
sentience which means that an organism has the ability to perceive and
navigate its external environment. Ito yung sinasabi natin na capacity natin
‘to perceive what is immediate’ which is common to animals. Diko alam sa
inyo a, pero di pa ko nakakita ng kalabaw o baka na dumiretcho sa isang
puno. We do not see them bumping on trees. Ito yung isa sa mga
pagkakapareho natin sa mga animals, and from this sentience comes our
capacity to ‘respond to stimuli’.

Where does the distinction lie then. Ang pinagkaiba natin sa mga
animals is our capacity for mental abstraction, yung advance mag-isip,
yung kahit hindi pa immediate, nakikita mo na, yung hindi ka pa nanliligaw,
nagmomoveon kana, o kaya yung joke ngayon na nilalagnat palang
pinacremate mo na, yung papunta ka palang sa inuman nagsusuka kana.
Ito yung sinasabi natin na kahit katatapos mo palang magbreakfast, kaya
mo ng ‘iimagine’ kung ano kakainin mo for dinner, o ngayon palang kaya
mo ng iimagine sarili mo nagtatrabaho sa isang accounting firm, o kaya
prestigious na hospital, o kaya sa isang sikat na restaurant. Kant will tell us
that this capacity for mental abstraction is a necessary consequence of our
capacity for reason.

To connect it with his moral philosophy, sasabihin ni Kant na since may

capacity tayo for mental abstraction, kaya nating makapagimagine ng isang
mas mabuting mundo, walang corrupt, walang kriminalidad, walang gulo,
walang gulangan, walang bumabatikos at nababatikos kasi wala namang
mababatikos. From this comes our capacity to imagine a better world. Our
capacity to imagine a better world, to create a mental blueprint of a world
that we wish to live in is the first construction na sasabihin ni Kant. And
second construction is the ability to imagine the ‘ways’ to attain that better
world. Parang naimagine mo na na ganito ang gusto mong bahay, may
blueprint ka na, and susunod na iisipin mo ay yung mga details kung pano
mo magagawa yung bahay. In relation to moral philosophy, the second
construction lies in our capacity to think of the ways wherein we could
affect change in the world in order to make it a better world. Now, when you
already determine the ways to arrive at a better world, it becomes the duty
you impose upon yourself.

Ito yung nageelevate satin sa mga animals, rational will, the faculty to
intervene in the world, to act in a manner that is consistent with our reason.
Kaya mong magisip, at parte ng pagiisip na yang ang kakayahanang
magimagine hindi lang ng isang bagay na natapos na (finished product),
kundi ng mga paraan kung paano ito gagawin at tatapusin.

Eh, sir, dahil ba ito yung sa tingin ko tama, tama na agad yun? Meaning,
lahat ba ng tamang intension, tama na para sa lahat?

Dito na natin ididiscuss ang categorical imperative. When we say,

imperative, it means it is in the nature of a command, utos. Pag sinabihan
kang ‘Anak, kelangan mong kumain para lumakas ka.’ Utos bay an? Hindi.
Pero, sinasabi nia kung ano ang ‘kelangan mong gawin’, so it becomes an
implied command.

Now there are two kinds of imperatives. Hypothetical and categorical. Sa

hypothetical, ito yung mga imperatives, mga command na sinasabi sa atin
just like the example sa nanay. Meaning, the command, being external, is
only a proposition, a proposal of an action which others think to be what
you need to ne, but you can always refuse. Categorical, is something that
is rather internal, the morality within each of us.

Dito sa formulations of categorical imperative:

First formulation: “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time
will, that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

To state it simply, ang sinasabi dito, act in such a way that your act will be
done by everybody. Parang ang action mo, gusto mon a yan din ang gawin
ng iba, or lahat. Kaya ng pinasok ang golden rule dito, do to others what
you want others do to you.
Ito yung Universalizability Principle. Meaning, before we act, we need to
determine whether the act is universalizable, meaning, ok lang ba pag
ganyan din ang gawin ng lahat ng tao? Example, umihi ka sa tapat ng
signboard na nagsasabing ‘Bawal umihi dito’. Sasabihin ni Kant, imagine
mo (mental abstraction) na lahat ng tao gagawin din yan. We need to take
note here na para kay Kant, iimagine mo na iihi din sila not because ito
yung sa tingin mo tama kundi dahil ‘obligasyon’ nilang umihi dun. So
sasabihin ni Kant, sa bawat gagawin natin, sa bawat maxim na meron tayo,
kelangan nating iimagine na ito din ang gagawin ng ibang tao. And take
note a, gagawin nila as a form of obligation! So, our maxim, the principles
that we live be, should be universalizable, ibig sabihin pwede at dapat ding
gawin ng lahat.

I will give another example, yung paghiram ng pera sa kaibigan, kahit na

alam mong hindi mo na maisusuli o hindi mo na mababayaran yung
hiniram mo. Nung humiram ka ng pera, nangako ka na ibabalik mo din,
pero alam mo na noon pa na ibebreak mo naman yung promise mo at hindi
ka na magbabayad in the future. False promising tawag jan. Itong kaibigan
mo naman, dahil gusto ka niang tulungan, pinahiraman ka ng pera. Now,
iimagine mo na mauniversalize itong false promising na to, at obligado
kang gawin din. So, ang obligado kang gawin is humiram kahit na alam
mong hindi mo babayaran ang hiniram mo.

Now, how can we determine kung ang isang ‘action’ ay

universalizable? Tanong natin ‘if it makes sense’, or if it is logically
plausible. Now, kung magiging obligado ka na humiram ng pera kahit alam
mong hindi mo na babayaran, papahiraman ka pa ba ng kaibigan mo?
Hindi na diba? So, no one will lend money anymore since it becomes the
obligation of the borrower not to return the money anymore. So,
magseself-destruct yung isang magandang bagay.

I will insert some inputs sa worktext natin. Ididifferentiate natin yung

‘consistent with itself’ sa ‘contradict itself’. When we say ‘to borrow’, part ng
definition nian na ibabalik. Bumulod, han nga dumawat. No alame jai bagi ti
padam nga tao nga awan met intension mo nga mangisubli, dawatek man
kunam ,haan nga buluden. Paarang pag sinabi mong ‘parents’, parte sa
definition yan na dapat may anak, kasi pag walang anak couple lang o
married couple. Now, kung pag ‘humiram’ ka, tapos hindi mo na binayaran,
‘hindi na sia consistent’. Meaning, hindi na sia part ng word na ‘to borrow’,
kasi hindi mo naman na isinauli o binayaran. Kasi, when you say ‘to
borrow’, there should already be the intent to return, pero pag una palang,
wala na yung intent to return, contradiction na yan. So, irereject mo yung
‘false promising’ as a universalizable concept kasi it is not logically
plausible, it is rationally impermissible.

What Kant is pointing here is that, when we say something is morally

permissible, it means the action is objectively and necessarily valid.
Parang, hindi mo maidedeny na tama sia. Parang pag sinabi mong 1+1=2,
totoo na agad yan. Hindi pwedeng 1+1=3 kasi intrinsically, tatlong 1 ang
nasa 3, hindi dalawa lang.

Second Formulation: “Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own

person or in that of any other, every case as an end, never as mere
means.”

Dito naman yung Humanity Principle, meaning we do not use persons as

means to an end, but treat them as an end in themselves. So, an act is
wrong if we use persons as a means for an end. For example, ang end mo
is gusto mong magmukhang matulungin. Now, tinulungan mo yung
mahirap. So, yung pagtulong mo sa mahirap is not the end (kung naaalala
nio pa ang distinction ng means sa end), but the means to an end, which is
para magmukha kang matulungin. Kaya nga we condemn human
trafficking e, for those who watched Taken Series already? Because rich
people buy the girls which were kidnapped to satisfy their carnal desires.
Ang end is carnal desires, means mo, mga babae na nakidnap, and even
drugged.

Third Formulation: “So act that your will can regard itself at the same time
as making universal law through its maxims.”

Dito naman tayo sa autonomy principle. Dito papasok yung mental

abstraction natin kanina, our capacity na magisip ng advance.

In this point, ang focus natin is our capacity to make the law ‘our own’,
which means hindi natin ginagawa ang isang bagay dahil ‘sinabi ng iba’
kundi dahil sinabi natin mismo sa sarili natin. Sisimplehan nalang natin to,
autonomy is self-law, heteronomy is other law. Ang example natin dito is
yung pagbubrush ng ngipin. Nung mga bata tayo, nagbubrush tayo hindi
dahil ito yung alam nating ikabubuti natin kundi dahil ito yung sinabi ng
ibang tao na dapat nating gawin. Pero nung mejo tumanda na tayo, nung
may tamang gulang na, hindi ka nalang nagbubrush dahil ito yung sinasabi
ng mga magulang mo na pag hindi na nila sinabi hindi ka na din
magbubrush, nagbubrush ka na dahil ito na yung alam mong ikabubuti mo,
para healthy ngipin mo at healthy din ang mga katabi mo. Nung bata ka,
yun yung heteronomy; nung tumanda ka na, yun na yung autonomy. (Ang
purpose ng example is to emphasize na may mga bagay na ginagawa tayo
dahil sinabi ng ibang tao, at may mga bagay naman na ginagawa natin,
hindi dahil sinabi nila, kundi dahil alam natin na ito yung dapat nating
gawin.)

Take note of this: “The will is thus not only subject to the law in such
a way that it gives the law to itself (self-legislating), and primarily just in this
way that the will can be considered the author of the law under which it is
subject.” Ibig sabihin, hindi na ibang tao yung gumagawa ng batas na
sinusunod mo, parang ikaw na mismo ang gumagawa ng batas na
sinusunod mo. Parang hindi ka pumapatay ng tao ‘dahil ito yung nakalagay
sa batas na ginawa ng mga legislators’, kundi hindi ka pumapatay dahil ito
yung sinasabi mong tamang gawin. Another example dito is yung may
nirequest ka sa adviser nio na gusto na klase, pero subject to his/her
approval. Gusto mo, pero nakasalalay ang paggawa mo sa gusto ng
adviser. May authority. Sa self legislation, wala kasi ikaw mismo ang
gumagawa ng batas. Heteronomy is like ‘mamahalin kita kasi ito yung
gusto mo’; autonomy is ‘mamahalin kita kasi ito yung gusto ko’.

Fourth formulation: “So act as if you were through your maxims a law-
making member of a kingdom of ends.”

Now, since lahat tayo are ‘ends in ourselves’, in that we cannot be ‘means
to an end’, we therefore a community of ends, and hindi lang community,
but WEB OF RATIONAL BEINGS. So, our actions should be done mindful
of the rights and dignity of all beings. As in a web, our actions have
resulting consequences to others, so before we act, we need to visualize
the possible consequences our actions might have in the lives of other
people.

Sa criticisms, in the form of a question nalang:

1. Wala bang exception sa universalizability, meaning can we not go in
proceed in a case to case basis? Is lying bad all the time?
2. Is it really possible that we can perceive of ‘duty’ with any authority
imposing those duties? Meaning, is it really possible to know our
 duties in its entirely without the aid of external laws provided by
legislators?
3. So, is an insane an amoral person? Meaning, wala bang moral na
insane kasi impaired ang rationality nila?

That’s all for our Lesson in Kantian Morality.