ETHICAL TEACHING OF

IMMANUEL KANT
Immanuel Kant was the son of a saddler;
he was born in Konigsberg, East Prussia
in 1724. At 16, he studied theology at
Konigsberg University. Later, his interest
was focused on science and philosophy.
In 1746, after his father died, he forced
himself to become a private tutor.
Through the help of a friend, Kant was
able to finish his university studies. In 1770, Kant enjoyed a full
professorship title at Konigsberg University. There were two things
Kant did for whatever reasons nobody knows. First, he never got
married. Second, he never traveled outside Germany.
 DESPITE THIS, KANT WAS ABLE TO WRITE EPOCH-
MAKING BOOKS. HE WROTE : THE CRITIQUE OF PURE
REASON, THE PROLEGOMENA, THE FOUNDATIONS OF
METAPHYSICS OF MORALS, THE CRITIQUE OF PRACTICAL
REASON, THE CRITIQUE OF JUDGEMENT, AND THE
RELIGION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PURE REASONS.
Kant asserts that morality is a pure philosophy. For him,
philosophy can be divided either on the basis of experience
or on the basis of what is a priori. A philosophy which is
based on experience of Kant empirical, while philosophy
which is based on a priori principles is pure philosophy. He
argues further that pure philosophy can be divided either
as formal, i e .., logic and as that which studies definite
objects of understanding, i e .., metaphysics. Metaphysics
for Kant , however, is of two kinds the metaphysics of
nature and the metaphysics of morals.
Kant is keen in distinguishing ethics from morals. As far as
he sees it, ethics is not pure philosophy for it involves an
empirical part, on the one hand, which he calls practical
anthropology, and a rational part which he calls moral
proper, on the other hand. I f this is the case, ethics for the
thinker is both empirical and rational while morality is
purely rational.
NO WONDER KANT CONTENDS THAT THE BASIS OF
MORALITY IS NOTHING ELSE BUT REASON. THUS,
HIS SCHOOL OF THOUGHT IN ETHICS CANNOT BE
USED AS A SYNONYM OF MORALITY. TO CONTENT,
HE USES MORALS, INSTEAD OF ETHICS.
Argues Kant : All philosophy, so far as it is based on
experience, may be called empirical; but so far as it
presents its doctrines solely on the basis of a priori
principles, it may be called pure philosophy. The latter,
when merely formal is logic; when limited to definite objects
of understanding, it is metaphysics. In this way, there
arises the idea of a two-fold metaphysics, a metaphysics of
nature and a metaphysics of moral ….In ethics, however,
the empirical part may be called more specially practical
anthropology; the rational part morals proper.
Because Kantian morality is founded on reason, Kant
Keeps on ponding the idea of the good will, motive, and
duty. For Kant, to live a moral life is to live in accordance
with the laws of reason. Kant argues that this command is
true, valid, and binding because it is beyond experience.
Kantian moral dictum is so sharp that it does not accept
relatively or subjectively as far as one’s moral existence is
concerned. Since morality for Kant is a priori, therefore, the
command to live a moral life by obeying the laws of reason
is a must.
Kant moral theory is, indeed,
idealistic in that it is not concerned
for the “what is” but of the “what
ought” in this light, to live a moral
life is a must and not just an
invitation.
BUT FOR THE SAKE OF SIMPLICITY, HOW
CAN ONE LIVE A MORAL LIFE ?
Reason for Kant is not the terminal point of life;
rather, it leads to the cultivation of the good will. This
means that, for Kant, in order to live in accordance
with the laws of reason, one must live in accordance
with the laws of nature. He says this because it is a
common understanding since the time of Plato that
by nature, man is a rational being. Therefore, it
follows that to live I reason is to live I nature.
BUT, WHAT IS THE CONNECTION
BETWEEN REASPON AND WILL ?
 Kant posits his claim that reason is capable of
influence the will. But, what is Kant’s understanding
of the will ? according to Kant, the Will is the
determining factor of the righteousness of human
conduct. Therefore, the will should be a good will.
Kant maintains that the “… practically good is that
which determines the will by concept of reason…a
perfectly good will would thus stand quite as much
under objectives laws….”
To Kant, this objectives principle necessitates for a
will to command – under the influence of reason.
Thus, a good will is one that acts for the sake of duty.
The philosopher did not deny that we have
intelligence, wit, judgmental, courage, and other
connatural mental talents. But all these can be used
to promote evil. The pundit says the same thing of
power, honor, wealth, and riches. Although this can
give man happiness, without a good will, however, all
these will lead ma to a bad and mischievous life. If
this happens, man is not living a moral life.
BUT, IS IT ENOUGH TO SPEAK ONLY
THE WILL IN ORDER THAT MAN CAN
LIVE A MORAL LIFE ?
Kant says that a discussion on the will does not suffice.
That is why he also investigates the motive behind the will.
For the celebrated German thinker, motive determines the
moral quality of an act and not the consequences of the
act. He contends that it is the intention behind our acts
that matters and not the consequences our acts bear. In
this thread of thought, Kant claims that the motive in moral
acts cannot be happiness, pleasure, god, or religion, but
the duty. The measure of the of the good motive or will or
intention is in the context of duty.
 From this regard, Kantian morality can be qualified
as an ethics and duty; and as such, it excludes
pleasure, happiness, and god. In this brand of ethical
dogma, it is maintained that man never acts morally
because man wants to be pleased, or to be happy
with his actions, nor should man act morally because
there is god who will reward his good actions
afterlife. In Kantian ethical school, man acts morally
because it is his duty to be moral.
 The moral duty, according to Kant, is a duty of man
because of his respect for the moral law. To Kant:
duty is the obligation to act from reverence, respect
for, and obedience to the moral laws. Since Kant
contends that the will to perform an act is not
governed by desire or inclination, duty, therefore, is
absolute and unconditional. Because duty is founded
on man’s reverence for the moral law, the moral law
should be revered. According to Kant, the moral law
on duty is a categorical or an absolute command.
 That is why he calls his brand of morality
categorical imperative. For Kant, this
categorical imperative is not derived from
experience because it is a priori. Aside from
being a priori, the categorical imperative is also
an apodictic practical principle, in the sense that
it affirms that an action is objectively necessary
without regard to the end.
Kant teaches that the categorical
imperative is founded on two principles,
viz..:
1.Principle of Universality
2. Principle of Humanity
 The principle of humanity is constructed by Kant in
this way;” act only on that maxim through which you
can at the same time, will that it should become a
universal law.”
The principle of humanity however, constructed by
Kant in this way: “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 the first principle rests Kant’s demand that man should
perform only those actions that have universal
repercussions. Therefore, one should not perform acts that
cannot be universalized. Kant contends that suicide (which
is nothing else but if done by all can lead to the extinction
of mankind) and not paying debts are actions that cannot
become universal. In the principle of universality, Kant
argues that one, before doing an act, should first of all ask
if the action per se is an action which one wants others to
likewise do. If not, then, it is not universally acceptable.
In the second principle rests Kant’s emphasis on the dignity of the human
person. He writes:
Now I can say: man, generally rational being, exist as a end in himself, not
merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will but all his
actions, wither they concern himself or other rational beings, must be
always regarded at the same times
As an end.
Kant therefor, stresses that man is not a means to an end; he is an end in
himself. This principles of humanity, however, is for Kant not derived from
experience. It is all a priori; it calls for man’s unconditional respect for his
fellowmen. Kant hates actions that lead to the depersonalization,
dehumanization, and the alienation of man.
IN SUM, KANT ESPOUSES A MORALITY WHICH IS FOUNDED ON THE AUITHONOMY OFMAN’S
RATIONAL NATURE AS SHOWN IN THE CONTEXT OF DUTY AS THE MORAL OUGHT, OR TO USE
HIS OWN TERM, CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. WITH THIS, REASON ACTS NATURALLY INFLUENCING
THE WILL TO BEOME