CORRESPONDENCE LEARNING MODULE

ETHC 1013 (ETHICS)

AY 2023-2024

Lesson 9: Immanuel Kant’s Ethics

Topic: Kant’s Deontological Ethics

Learning Outcomes: At the end of this module, you are expected to:

1. Describe Kant’s Deontological ethics;

2. Explain Immanuel Kant’s notion of Duty;
3. Distinguish Categorical Imperative from Hypothetical Imperative;
4. Point out the kind of statements that Kant believed to be moral statements; and
5. Determine the reasons why Immanuel Kant believes human being should act morally.

LEARNING CONTENT

Introduction:

Kantian Ethics uses a deontological approach to ethics. It gives emphasis to the proper motives in
one's actions. For Immanuel Kant, the "good will" refers to the will that acts for the sake of duty alone, that is,
acting out of respect for the moral law. It involves categorical and not hypothetical imperatives. The possible
problems that one has to deal with Kantian Ethics, however, have something to do with overemphasis on moral
autonomy, the act of ignoring legitimate concern for consequences, vagueness in formulating maxims, and
rationality with ethics.

IMMANUEL KANT

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is one of the philosophers in the modern period or in the Age of Reason
and Enlightenment. His categorical imperative is an outstanding contribution to Ethics. According to Rachels
(2003), like a number of other philosophers, Kant believed that morality can be summed up in one ultimate
principle, from which all our duties and obligations are derived. He called this principle the Categorical
Imperative. In the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), he expressed it like this:

ETHC 1013- ETHICS | 1

 This is what Kant called the Universalizability Principle. By unpacking what Kant is saying, a maxim
is just a rule or principle of action and universal law is something that must always be done in similar
situations. He thought that there was exactly one moral rule: Universal law. So, as a Kantian, before I act, I
would ask myself, “what’s the maxim of my action?” In other words, what’s the general rule that stands behind
the particular action I’m considering? Let’s say you forgot your wallet in your dorm this morning. You don’t have
time to get it between classes and you’re really hungry. Near a store, you noticed that the student working at
the store was much focused talking to someone else and you could easily get a snack and be on your way.
The question is that, is it okay, morally, for you to do that? Well, the particular action we are dealing with here
by taking a snack without paying for it is stealing. And if you approve of the maxim of stealing, which you’re
doing, whether you admit it or not, then what you’re actually doing is universalizing that action. You’re saying
that everyone should always steal. If you should be able to do it then everyone should be able to do it. The
thing is, this leads to a contradiction. And remember Kant’s word specifically says that moral actions cannot
bring about contradiction. The contradiction here is, no one would say that everyone should steal all the time
because if everyone should always steal then everyone should be stealing each other’s property and things
from each other. Therefore, stealing isn’t universalizable. So what Kant is really saying is that, it’s not fair to
make exceptions for yourself. You don’t really think stealing is okay and by imagining what it would be like to
universalize it, which becomes clear. Now, Kant’s view that moral rules apply to everyone equally sounds nice
and fair. But it can sometimes lead to some pretty counter intuitive result (Crash Course, 2016).

Let’s say, one morning, Elvira and Tony are having breakfast. Then a stranger comes to the door and
asks where Tony is, so he can kill him. Obviously, Elvira’s impulse is to lie, and say that Tony isn’t
around right now in order to protect him from this would-be murderer. But Kant says she can’t lie, not
ever, not even to save Tony’s life. Here’s the reasoning: Suppose she’s at the front door, talking to the
stranger. At the time, she thinks Tony’s in the kitchen, where she left him. But it turns out he was
curious about the caller, so he followed her into the living room, and heard the stranger make his
threats. Fearing for his life, Tony slipped out the back door. Meanwhile Elvira, in her desire to save
him, tells the stranger that Tony isn’t here, even though she thinks he is. Based on her lie, the stranger
leaves, and runs into Tony as he rounds the corner heading away from the house and kills him. Had
she told the truth, the stranger might have headed into the kitchen looking for Tony, which would have
given Tony time to escape. But she didn’t (Crash Course, 2016).

Now, by Kant’s reasoning, Elvira is responsible for Tony’s death, because her lie caused it. Has she
told the truth, only the murderer would have been responsible for any deaths that might have occurred. Now,
she could have refused to answer the stranger altogether, or tried to talk him out of it. But one thing she is
never permitted to do is to violate the moral law, even if others are doing so, even for a really good cause
(Crash Course, 2016).

So, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is about the universality of our actions. But the
second formulation focuses on how we should treat other people. Kant also gave another formulation of the
Categorical Imperative. Later in the same book, he said that the ultimate moral principle may be understood as
saying:

ETHC 1013- ETHICS | 2

 Likewise, it goes this way: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of
another, always as an end, and never as a mere means.” Again, we have to define some terms here to figure
out what this is all about. To use something as a “mere means” is to use it only for your own benefit, with no
thought to the interests or benefit of the thing you’re using. Now, we use things as mere means all the time. I
use this mug to hold my coffee, and if it would stop benefitting me, like if it got a crack in it and started leaking,
I wouldn’t use it anymore. It’s perfectly fine to use things as mere means, but not humans. This is because we
are what Kant called ends-in-ourselves. We are not mere objects that exist to be used by others. We’re our
own ends. We’re rational and autonomous. We have the ability to set our own goals, and work toward them.
Coffee mugs exist for coffee drinkers. Humans exist for themselves. So, to treat someone as an end-in-herself
means to recognize the humanity of the person you’re encountering, to realize that she has goals, values, and
interests of her own, and you must, morally, keep that in mind in your encounters with her.

Means vs. Mere Means

In addition, what Kant is saying is that, he does say that you should never use another person as a
means, rather you use people as a means for your own ends every day. What he says is never treat yourself
or any other person as a mere means. So, if you treat someone as a means, make sure to treat her as an end
in herself, that is, respect her as an agent with ends of her own. And with respect to rational consent, in order
for you to determine whether you treat the other as mere means, you need to ask only this: Would this person
rationally consent to being treated as such?

Now, Kant pointed out that we do use people, all the time, and that’s ok. Because, most of the time, we
use other people as a means for something, but not as a mere means. We still recognize their humanity when
we use them, and they agree to being used. So, for example: You are using me right now to get information
about Kantian ethics. I am using Nick and Nicole to help me get that information to you. Kant said that you and
I, and Nick and Nicole, we all deserve to not be used as mere means, because of our autonomy. Unlike other
things in the world, we’re self-governed. We’re able to set our own ends, to make our own free decisions based
on our rational wills. We can set goals for ourselves and take steps to realize those goals. This imbues us with
an absolute moral worth, Kant said, which means that we shouldn’t be manipulated, or manipulate other
autonomous agents for our own benefit. And this means that things like lying and deception are never okay
because if I’m being deceived, I can’t make an autonomous decision about how to act, and my decision is
based on false information.

For instance, I might agree to loan you money so you can buy books for schools, but I wouldn’t agree to
loan you money so that you can get a new Xbox. So, when you lie to me about what you’re going to be doing
with the money you’re asking for, you rob me of my ability to autonomously decide to help you. You’ve treated
me as a mere means to accomplish your goals, with no thought to my own goals and interests. And that’s a
violation of Kant’s second categorical imperative. So, Kant argued that proper, rational application of the
categorical imperative will lead us to moral truth that is fixed and applicable to all moral agents. No God
required. Of course, not everyone agreed with him.

Immanuel Kant provides a formulation of fundamental

moral principles that, though exceedingly formal and abstract, are
based upon the twin ideals of equality and moral autonomy.
Human rights are rights we give to ourselves, so to speak, as
autonomous and formally equal beings. To act out of a "good will"
for Kant means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or
'duty'. Kant answers that we do our moral duty when our motive is
determined by a principle recognized by reason rather than the
desire for any expected consequence or emotional feeling which
may cause us to act the way we do.

ETHC 1013- ETHICS | 3

Deontological Ethics

Morality is a matter of duty. Whether something is right or wrong doesn't depend on its
consequences, rather, actions are right or wrong in themselves. This is to say whether they fulfill our
duty. There are general duties towards anyone. Each has duties regarding our own actions. Duty is not
based on what is pleasant or beneficial, but rather upon the obligation itself. Example: You are duty-
bound to keep your promise to be faithful to your spouse, even if a more attractive person comes along; you
are duty-bound to always telling the truth, even if it cost you a job.

Goodness or badness is determined by the action. The only behaviour that can be considered ethical is
the one that has a good will behind it. A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes
(consequentialist) but because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end, it is good through its willing
alone- that is- good in itself. Kant argues that no consequence can have fundamental moral worth; the only
thing that is good in and of itself is the Good Will. The Good Will freely chooses to do its moral duty. That duty,
in turn, is dictated solely by reason. The Good Will thus consists of a person's free will motivated by reason.
But what is duty for Kant? Kant's theory is an example of deontological moral theory- according to these
theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they
fulfill our duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as The
Categorical Imperative. Also, what does Kant mean by a goodwill? o act out of a “good will” for Kant means to
act out of a sense of moral obligation or “duty”. A will is good when it conforms with the moral law (Categorical
imperative). The goal of humanity is to achieve perfect happiness and virtue (Summum Bonum).

Difference between Hypothetical and Categorical Imperative

ETHC 1013- ETHICS | 4

 Imperatives are instructions; they tell us what to do. Kant distinguished between two types of
imperative: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperative tells you what to do in order to achieve a
particular goal. It is subjective and conditional as it suggests if I wanted to buy clothes I should find a job, or if I
don't want to go to prison then I should not steal. It tells us what we should do, given that certain other
conditions are satisfied. This imperative commands conditionally on your having a relevant desire.
Categorical Imperative tells us what we must do, no matter what. This commands unconditionally. Morality,
according to Kant, isn’t like hypothetical imperative. Morality doesn’t tell us what to do on the assumption that
we want to achieve a particular goal, e.g. staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Moral behaviour isn’t about
staying out of prison or being well-liked. Morality consists of categorical imperatives. The Categorical
Imperative is supposed to provide a way for us to evaluate moral actions and to make moral judgments. It is
not a command to perform specific actions- it does not say, “follow the ten commandments”, or “respect your
elders”. It is essentially “empty”- it is simply formal procedure by which to evaluate any action about which
might be morally relevant.

Categorical imperative means a command to perform actions that are absolute moral rules that do not
consider consequences. According to Kant, this meant that moral statements could only be known through
reason, because they are a priori and so there must be a method to work out if a statement is true or false.
This helps us know what our duty is and is applied universally, and what you must do regardless of your goals.
This is manifested in the Ten Commandments. For some, the commandments that say “you should not steal,
you should not kill, and others are examples of commands. Kant points these as imperatives. So, morality in
general is telling what we should be doing, what we ought to be doing or what we ought not to be doing. We
have duties to do certain things and duties to refrain from doing certain things.

The categorical imperative is a moral absolute. It is

expressed in three distinct formulations. In the first
formulation, Kant is giving content to morality, defining what
is right and wrong. He describes it as a “compass” that we
can use to distinguish between right and wrong. He said that
an act is wrong if its maxim cannot be willed (by others and
yourself) into becoming universal law. Whatever can be
universally agreed to is what is right or wrong without
contradiction. The second formulation suggests that we
should treat other rational beings as ends in themselves,
never as a means to an end. He is saying that the identity of
a person is tied to the rationality of their actions, not their
ego. A person’s rationality is definitive of what we are made
up of, our absolute worth. Kant's third and final formulation of
the categorical imperative is the principle of autonomy–the
autonomy of will. It outlines that every rational being is able to
reason through to the necessary conclusions to act morally,
as a "maker of laws in the kingdom of ends" This principle of
autonomy allows the first formulation of the categorical
imperative to make sense. (studocu.com)

To summarize, here are the main points of Kant’s theory (Fieser, 2017):

• Motives behind true moral choices are not those of selfish inclination but instead those of a rational duty
conforming to the categorical imperative.
• Hypothetical imperatives have the form “If you want something, then you must do some act”; the categorical
imperative mandates, “You must do some act.”
• The general formula of the categorical imperative has us consider whether the intended maxim of our action
would be reasonable as a universal law.
• Specific formulations of the categorical imperative focus on a particular feature of human rationality, such as
the absence of contradiction, free choice, and inherent dignity.
ETHC 1013- ETHICS | 5
REFERENCES

Textbook

Kant, Immanuel (1964). "Categorical Imperative." In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by
H.J. Paton, 162-176. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.

Online Reference

1. Canterbury Christ Church University (2017). Categorical and Hypothetical Imperative. Retrieved on October
10, 2021 from https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/canterbury-christ-church-university/philosophy-of-
religion/explain-the-difference-between-categorical-imperative-and-hypothetical-imperative/1546572

2. Fieser, J. (2017). The Categorical Imperative. Retrieved on October 10, 2021 from
https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm

3. Crash Course (2016). Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35. Retrieved on
October 10, 2021 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoEDw

4. Legum, R. (2017). Kant’s Theory Hypothetical vs Categorical Imperatives. Retrieved on October 10, 2021
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Yq9EDs3

Picture Reference:

1. Muscente, K. K. (2020). Categorical Imperatives and the Case for Deception: Part I. IRB Blog Institutional
Review Board. Teacher’s College, Columbia University. Retrieved on October 10, 2021 from
https://www.tc.columbia.edu/institutional-review-board/irb-blog/categorical-imperatives-and-the-case-for-
deception-part-i/

2. Fieser, J. (2018). Kant and the Categorical Imperative. Retrieved on October 10, 2021 from
https://brewminate.com/kant-and-the-categorical-imperative/

ETHC 1013- ETHICS | 6