I.

Kantian Ethics (Overview)

Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical

theory ascribed to the German philosopher Immanuel
Kant. The theory, developed as a result of
Enlightenment rationalism, is based on the view that
the only intrinsically good thing is a good will; an
action can only be good if its maxim – the principle
behind it – is duty to the moral law.

Central to Kant’s construction of the moral law is the

categorical imperative, which acts on all people,
regardless of their interests or desires. Kant
formulated the categorical imperative in various ways.
His principle of universalizability requires that, for an
action to be permissible, it must be possible to apply
it to all people without a contradiction occurring. His
formulation of humanity as an end in itself requires
that humans are never treated merely as a means to
an end, but always also as ends in themselves.

1
 The formulation of autonomy concludes that rational
agents are bound to the moral law by their own will,
while Kant’s concept of the Kingdom of Ends requires
that people act as if the principles of their actions
establish a law for a hypothetical kingdom.

Kant also distinguished between perfect and imperfect

duties. A perfect duty, such as the duty not to lie,
always holds true; an imperfect duty, such as the duty
to give to charity, can be made flexible and applied in
particular time and place.

II. Deontology

The word deontology derives from the Greek words

for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). It is
an ethical theory that says actions are good or bad
according to a clear set of rules. Actions that align with
these rules are ethical, while actions that don't aren't.

Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to

distinguish right from wrong. Deontology is often
associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant
believed that ethical actions follow universal moral
laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.”

Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that

people follow the rules and do their duty. This
approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition
about what is or isn’t ethical.

2
 Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by
their results, deontology doesn’t require weighing the
costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids
subjectivity and uncertainty because you only have to
follow set rules.

III. Immanuel Kant / Notable Works in Ethics

Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) was a German

philosopher of the Age of Enlightenment. He is
regarded as one of the most important thinkers of
modern Europe, and his influence on Western thought
is immeasurable. He was the starting point and
inspiration for the German Idealism movement in the
late 18th and early 19th Centuries, and more

3
 specifically for the Kantianism which grew up around
him in his own lifetime.

Kant whose comprehensive and systematic work in

epistemology (the theory of knowledge), ethics, and
aesthetics greatly influenced all subsequent
philosophy. But in this chapter, we will focus on his
ideas on ethics.

Kant's main works in ethics are his Metaphysics of

Morals (1797) and the Groundwork of the Metaphysics
of Morals (1785).

IV. Duty and Agency

Duty
• According to Kantian Ethics, 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. The
"will" is defined as that which provides the
motives for our actions.

Rational Will
• The faculty to intervene in the world, to act in a
manner that is consistent with reason.

4
Agency
• It refers to the capacity of individuals to act
independently and to make their own free
choices, based on their will,

To consider the rational will is to point out the

difference between animals and persons. On one
hand, animals are sentient organisms. Sentience,
meaning an organism has the ability to perceive and
navigate its external environment. Insofar as dogs
and carabaos are sentient organisms, we do not see
them bumping into trees and walls unless their senses
are weak. Animals constantly interact with their
surroundings. This is also true to us humans, we are
also sentient. Thus, both animals and persons interact
in and with the world, reacting to external stimuli and
internal impulses to survive and thrive.

On the other hand, people are also rational.

Rationality consists of the mental faculty to construct
ideas and thoughts that are beyond our immediate
surroundings. This is the capacity for mental
abstraction, which arises from the operations of the
faculty of reason. Thus, we have the ability to stop
and think about what we are doing. We can remove
ourselves mentally from the immediacy of our
surroundings and reflect on our actions and how such
actions affect the world.

5
 Thus, we do not only have the capacity to imagine
and construct mental images, but we also have the
ability to act on – to enact and make real – those
mental images. This ability to enact our thoughts is
the basis for our rational will. Rational Will refers to
the faculty to intervene in the world, to act in a
manner that is consistent with reason.

As far as we know, animals only act according to

impulses, based on their natural instincts. Thus,
animals “act” with immediacy with nothing that
intervenes between impulse and action. They do not
and cannot deliberate on their actions. In fact, we may
say that animals do not “act”. They only “react” to
their external surroundings and internal impulses.

In contrast, we humans have reason, which

intervenes between impulse and action. We have the
ability to stop and think about what we are doing to
evaluate our actions according to principles. Simply
stated, we are not only reacting to our surroundings

6
 and internal impulses, but are also conceiving of ways
to act according to certain rational principles.

This means that because of our Rational Will, we

humans have the capacity to be the cause of our
actions based on reasons and not merely to mindlessly
react to the environment and base impulses. In
philosophical discussions about human freedom, this
capacity is called agency, which is the ability of a
person to act based on her intentions and mental
states.

V. Autonomy and Heteronomy

Notes:
Autonomy
• in Western ethics and political philosophy, the
state or condition of self-governance, or leading
one's life according to reasons, values, or desires
that are authentically one's own.
Heteronomy
• is the condition of acting on desires, which are not
legislated by reason.

7
Free choice
• Choice determined by “Pure Reason”
Animal Choice (Arbitrium Brutum)
• Choice determined only by inclinations [Sensible
impulse (bodily and emotional), Stimulus]

Kant claims that the property of the rational will is

autonomy, which is the opposite of heteronomy.
Consider this trivial example of brushing one’s teeth,
which is not yet a moral dilemma but is sufficient to
explain the difference between autonomy and
heteronomy. When you were a child, did you like to
brush your teeth? As far as we can tell, children do
not like to brush their teeth, but parents know that
children should, to maintain oral hygiene. So parents
try to find ways to get their small children to brush
their teeth before going to bed, Using a variety of
incentives or threats of undesirable consequences.
This is an example of being heteronomous as their
parents are the ones that legislate the principle that
children should brush their teeth before they go to bed
impose such a principle by using threats or incentives.
Take for example when these children turns to
their mid-twenties. Suppose they brush their teeth
every night before they go to bed, and they do so
without the prodding of their parents. At a certain
point, perhaps when they were growing up as
teenagers, they reflected on the whole business of

8
brushing one’s teeth. They may have concluded that
they (1) agree with the principle behind it (oral
hygiene) and thus, (2) every night they impose it
upon themselves to brush their teeth before going to
bed. Number 1 refers to the act of legislating a
principle, while number 2 refers to the enacting of the
principle. Thus, it also refers to the willing of the
adopted principle into reality. Are they autonomous?
Yes, certainly. Kant describes this as follows:

“The will is thus not only subject to the law, but

it is also 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.”

The will must give the law to itself. Therefore, the will
is, at the same time, the authority figure giving the
law to itself. In regards to our example, they who have
adopted such a law about brushing their teeth. They
regularly impose such a law on themselves out of the
will to follow the law.
This distinguishing point here is the locus of the
authorship of the law. In any given scenario where a
person complies with the law. We ask where the
author is, whether it is external or internal. If the
author of the law is external, the will is subjected to
an external authority, thus heretonomous will. In
9
contrast, if the author was the will itself, imposing the
law unto itself, then we describe the will as
autonomous.
But what about our personal inclinations (sensible
impulse, stimulus)?
Kant claims that there is a difference between rational
will and animal impulse. Take a close look at how he
describes the distinction in this passage:

“The choice that can be determined by pure

reason is called free choice, that which is
determinable only by inclination (sensible
impulse, stimulus) would be animal choice
(arbitrium brutum). Human choice, in contrast,
is a choice that may indeed be affected but not
determined by impulses, and is therefore in
itself (without an acquired skill of reason) not
pure, but can nevertheless be determined to do
actions from pure will.”

Thus, there is a difference what determines a choice

or decision, whether it is caused by sensible impulse
or by pure reason. Bodily instincts and desires (urge
to eat, drink, sleep, or have sexual intercourse
comprise the set of compulsions for survival and the
propagation of the species). Emotions and sentiments
(jealousy, rage etc.) also make up what Kant
considers sensible impulses.

10
On the other hand, there is a choice or action that is
determined by pure reason. Kant calls this kind of
action free choice, and one may argue that human
freedom resides in this capacity of reason to
intervene, to “mediate” within arbitrium brutum.
Previously, rationality was described as the mental
capacity to construct ideas and thoughts that are
beyond one’s immediate surroundings. This mental
capacity is what makes the intervention possible
between stimulus and reaction. With the faculty of
reason, a person can break the immediacy of stimulus
and reaction by stopping to deliberate and assess
possible alternative actions. One can refrain from
reacting mindlessly to the triggering stimuli and
instead construct a rational response. However this do
not imply that people are not affected by sensible
impulses. The bodily instincts, desires, emotions and
sentiments are present, but they do not immediately
and automatically cause the actions. Based on the
quote above, Kant describes that human choice can
be affected but is not determined by sensible
impulses.
What does it mean for a human to be affected but is
not determined by sensible impulse? It implies that
we are indeed basically animals, but we cannot be
reduced to mere animality. This is where the
correlative conjunction “not only, but also” is useful.
When we claim, “the human person is not only an
animal, but is also rational,” we admit to two possible
causes of our actions: sensible impulses and the

11
 faculty of reason. Human freedom resides in that
distinction.
Is it always autonomous agency when a person enact
apparently self-legislated principle? Certainly not.
Autonomy is a property of the will only during
instances when the action is determined by pure
reason, When the action is determined by sensible
impulses, despite the source of those impulses being
nevertheless internal, it is considered heteronomous,
because a sensible impulse is “external” to one’s self-
legislating faculty of reason. Kant confirms this point
when he states that the action caused by sensible
impulses results always only in the heteronomy of the
will because it is what he calls “a foreign impulse”,
insofar as the will does not give itself the law.

VI. Good Will

Kant’s seminal work in The Metaphysics of Morals

begins by saying: “Nothing can possibly be conceived
in the world, or even out of it, which can be called
good without qualification, except a good will.” In
order for something to be good “without qualification”
it must not be merely “good” as a means to an end
but “bad” as a means to some other end. Kant’s point
is that to be universally and absolutely good,
something must be good in every instance of its
occurrence.

12
To act of a “good will” means to act out of a sense of
moral obligation or “duty.” In other words, the moral
agent does a particular action not because of what it
produces (its consequences) in terms of human
experience, but because the agent recognizes by
reasoning that it is the morally right thing to do and,
consequently, there is a moral duty or obligation to do
that action.

e.g.

“I will do my duty to study for my exam because

it is the right thing to do.” (duty as an end-in-
itself, action with goodwill).

“I will do my duty to study for my exam so that

I will get my grade, eventually graduate, find
employment, and help my family.” (duty for
other ends).

Kant confirms this by comparing motivation by duty

with other sorts of motives, in particular, with motives
of self-interest, self-preservation, sympathy and
happiness. He argues that a dutiful action from any of
these motives, however praiseworthy it may be, does
not express a good will. Assuming an action has moral
worth only if it expresses a good will, such actions
have no genuine “moral worth.” The conformity of
one’s action to duty in such cases is only related by
accident to morality. For instance, if one is motivated

13
 by happiness alone, then had conditions not conspired
to align one’s duty with one’s own happiness one
would not have done one’s duty. By contrast, were
one to supplant any of these motivations with the
motive of duty, the morality of the action would then
express one’s determination to act dutifully out of
respect for the moral law itself. Only then would the
action have moral worth.

VII. Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

The main difference between hypothetical and

categorical imperative is that hypothetical imperatives
are moral commands that are conditional on personal
desire or motive while categorical imperatives are
commands you must follow, regardless of your desires
and motives.

Hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative

are two philosophical concepts originally introduced
through the writings of Immanuel Kant. According to
Kant, it is possible to sum up morality in an imperative
or an ultimate commandment of reason. It is from this
imperative that all duties and obligations derive.

14
What is Hypothetical Imperative?
Hypothetical imperative is a moral command that is
conditional on personal desire or motive. In other
words, a hypothetical imperative is a command you
should follow if you want something. They tell us how
to act in order to achieve a specific goal. For example,
if you want to get a good grade, you should study;
similarly, if you want to earn money, you should get
a job. Moreover, hypothetical imperatives are
15
imperatives based on desire or inclination, and their
commandment of reason applies only conditionally.
Although hypothetical imperatives tell us which means
best achieve our ends, they do not tell us which ends
we should choose. Furthermore, Kant divides
hypothetical imperatives into two categories as the
rules of skill and the counsels of prudence.
What is Categorical Imperative?
Categorical imperatives are commands you must
follow, regardless of your desires and motives.
Moreover, these are moral obligations derived from
pure reason. According to Kant, categorical imperative
can be understood in terms of different formulations;
basically, there are three main formulations for the
categorical imperative:
The First Formulation: The Formula of
Universality and Law of Nature

“act only in accordance with that maxim through

which you can at the same time will that it become a
universal law”

Note:
Maxim = Rule or principle of action.
Universal law = something that must
always be done in similar situations.
16
Meaning that you should act a certain way only if
you’re willing to have everyone else act the same way
too.
Kant explains, the distinguishing feature here is
that we consider whether our maxim could function as
a law of nature—and specifically, whether it is free
from contradiction.
To illustrate, Kant gives four examples that he
thinks represent our main types of moral duties. The
clearest of the four examples is this: Suppose I borrow
money from you promising to return it later, but I
know full well that I will not return it. The intended
maxim or guiding principle behind my action is this:
“Whenever I believe myself short of money, I will
borrow money and promise to pay it back, though I
know that this will never be done.” Kant then explains
that a contradiction arises once I view this maxim as
a universal rule. Specifically, if such deceit were
followed universally, then the whole institution of
promising would be undermined and I could not make
my promise to begin with. So, on the one hand, I state
“I promise such and such” yet, on the other, once
universalized the practice of promise keeping itself
would be nonexistent.
For example, when it comes to relationships, the
categorical imperative means that you should avoid
being rude to people, unless you want everyone to be
rude to each other.

17
 The Second Formulation: The Formula of
Humanity

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity,

whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means, but always at the
same time as an end.”
In other words, we should not use people as objects,
but instead recognize the inherent dignity and value
that we all have. It helps to understand Kant’s point if
we distinguish between things that have merely
instrumental value and things that have inherent
value. Some things in life are valuable only as
instruments to obtain something else. My car keys, for
example, are very valuable to me, and when I lose
them, my life grinds to a halt. But my car keys are
valuable only as tools that perform a task—namely,
the task of starting my car. Even the value of my car
itself is mainly instrumental insofar as it allows me to
get from one place to another. By contrast, Human
Beings are not to be used as mere means because
they have inherent dignity and value that is to be
respected. Unlike instruments or tools, Human beings
are not to be used as a mere means because we have
the capacity to make our own end or goal (Man as an
end-in-itself).

VIII. Perfect and Imperfect duties

18
Kant raises a distinction between what he calls perfect
duties and imperfect duties in the Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals and again in the Metaphysics of
Morals: Doctrine of Virtue. You have the basic
definition in hand: a perfect duty is one which one
must always do and an imperfect duty is a duty which
one must not ignore but admits of multiple means of
fulfillment.

Kant specifies two imperfect duties: the duty of self-

improvement and the duty to aid others. To
understand why Kant thinks of these as imperfect
duties, we need to first understand the nature of duty
for Kant. The literature on this is vast, so I'm going to
skip over some parts of the mechanics and summarize
it as follows: a duty is something that we are obligated
to by the Categorical Imperative. In other words, it is
something that that we can see as a universal rule for
all of humanity necessary for a morally just society.

Let's say that I want to lie to someone. If we

universalize this, then every rational creature will lie
whenever it is convenient. This will turn out to be self-
defeating because no one will believe what anyone
says. Since we have a constant need of truth in our
dealings, this is something we must practice at all
times. (i.e., we cannot add an exception "except when
telling the truth is inconvenient). This makes this a
perfect duty in the Kantian system.

19
Imperfect duties reflect the nature of human rational
existence. We are born weak and frail, we cannot do
everything by ourselves, and we die. These realities
create interesting non-rational features of our reality:
I needed someone to feed me when I was a baby. I
need someone to help me when my car is stuck. I
need a surgeon when my liver fails. These needs are
not universal either in time or duration nor are they
purely rational laws. To make these desires moral,
Kant needs us to universalize them. Thus, we
transform I need help at times into every [limited]
rational creature has a duty to help other rational
creatures at times. Thus, I have a requirement to aid
others at times reflective of my own need for help at
other times. This is one of the two imperfect duties for
Kant.

The second imperfect duty is to perfect myself. This

duty arises because when I need help, I need experts.
Thus, the only way that rational creatures can have
their needs met is if rational creatures are developing
their talents. So, I too have a need to develop my
talents in order to create a universalizable rule that
would make it so aid is available when I need it of
sufficient ability.

PERFECT AND IMPERFECT DUTIES (KANT)

To Self To Others
Perfect Duty Do not commit Keep Promises.
Suicide. (negation is
(negation is
20
 impossible to impossible to
universalize) universalize)
Imperfect Duty Develop your Help others
talents who are in need
(negation is (negation is
irrational to irrational to
universalize) universalize)

Kant held that ordinary moral thought recognized

moral duties toward ourselves as well as toward
others. Hence, together with the distinction between
perfect and imperfect duties, Kant recognized four
categories of duties: perfect duties toward ourselves,
perfect duties toward others, imperfect duties toward
ourselves and imperfect duties toward others. Kant
uses four examples in the Groundwork, one of each
kind of duty, to demonstrate that every kind of duty
can be derived from the CI, and hence to bolster his
case that the CI is indeed the fundamental principle of
morality. To refrain from suicide is a perfect duty
toward oneself; to refrain from making promises you
have no intention of keeping is a perfect duty toward
others; to develop one’s talents is an imperfect duty
toward oneself; and to contribute to the happiness of
others is an imperfect duty toward others.

21