Chapter 6

Deontological Ethics and Immanuel

Kant
Think about this from Utilitarian Perspective

Between 1932 and 1972, experiments were conducted in

Tuskegee, Alabama, in which 390 poor and illiterate African
American men who had syphilis were followed in order to
determine the progress of the disease, whether it was always
fatal, and how it was spread. The researchers even failed to give
the men penicillin treatment for syphilis, when it became
available in the early 1940s.
According to utilitarian thinking, the Tuskegee experiments could
perhaps be justifiable.

IF

The harm done to the participants was minimal and the study had
no other negative effects.

The knowledge gained was valuable in reducing overall

suffering.
Since the post–World War II trials of Nazi war criminals held in
Nuremberg, Germany, standards for treatment of human research
subjects have become widely accepted. One of the most basic
principles of the Nuremberg Code is this, “The voluntary consent
of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

Implied in this principle is the belief that persons are

autonomous, and this autonomy ought to be respected and
protected even if this means that we cannot do certain types of
research and cannot thereby discover valuable information
Tenets of Kantian Ethics

This emphasis on personal autonomy and the idea that people

ought not to be used as they were in the Tuskegee experiments
are central tenets in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

Kant also maintains that there are certain things we ought not do,
even if these things would produce the greatest happiness for the
greatest number
Kant’s theory of ethics is best described as a deontological
theory. The word deontology means “theory of duty” (the Greek
word deon means “duty”). Instead of focusing on consequences,
deontological ethics focuses on duties and obligations: things we
ought to do regardless of the consequences.
While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest
happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses
on what makes us worthy of happiness.

There is often a tension between duty and happiness. According

to Kant, morality or ethics has to do with duty, not with
Happiness. Would you call an act or a principle ethical if it leads
to happiness, but goes against your strongest moral convictions?

According to Utilitarianism, this tension would be explained

through cultural and emotional biases. For Kant however, the
moral conviction is real and rational.
Kant also objected to basing morality on the consequences of our
actions for another reason. To make morality a matter of
producing certain states of affairs, such as happy experiences,
puts matters backward. On such a view, actions and even human
beings could be thought of as merely having use value.

Persons have intrinsic or inherent value, according to Kant, not

mere instrumental value. The belief that people ought not to be
used, but ought to be regarded as having the highest intrinsic
value, is central to Kant’s ethics, as is having a motive to do what
is right
While it is easy enough to state in general that there are duties
and obligations that we ought to fulfill, it is more difficult to
establish exactly what those duties and obligations are.

Is patriotism an obligation?
Is the duty to our parents and ancestors primary, as it is in the
morality of Confucius?
Do we have obligations of compassion and concern for all
sentient beings, as many Buddhists argue?
Do we have a moral duty to obey the law, even when it may be
unethical?
Deontological ethics needs to be supplemented with a broader
theory of “the good,” which tells us how the theory of duty
should apply to personal, social, and political affairs.
What gives an act moral worth?

Suppose I give money to an acquaintance in need of some help.

My intention was to help him financially, so that his family may
be taken care of. However, he instead uses the money on alcohol
and drugs, leaving nothing for the family. Although my motive
was good, the consequences turned out to be less than desirable.
I intended and tried to do what I thought was right, I ought not to
be blamed for things having turned out badly. The idea is that we
generally ought not to be blamed or praised for what is not in our
control.

Kant believed that our motives are in our control. We are

responsible for our intention to do good or bad, and thus it is for
this that we are held morally accountable.
If motive is central to morality, what makes a moral motive?
Kant believed that an act has moral worth only if it is done with a
right intention or motive. He referred to this as having a “good
will.”

Having a right intention means doing what is right (or what one
believes to be right) just because it is right.

In Kant’s words, it is to act “out of duty,” not merely “in

accordance with duty”

To do something “out of duty” is to follow the categorical

imperative

A categorical imperative is determined by whether it follows the

moral law
Kant provides the example of a shopkeeper who does the right
thing, who charges her customers a fair price and charges the
same to all. But what is her motive? Kant discusses three possible
motives:

Because it is a good business practice to charge the same to all. It

is in her own best interest that she do this.

The shopkeeper might charge a fair and equal price because she
is sympathetic toward her customers and is naturally inclined to
do them good.

If the shopkeeper did the right thing just because she believed it
was right, however, then this act would be based on the highest
motive.
We do have a special respect, or even a moral reverence, for
people who act out of a will to do the right thing, especially when
this comes at great cost to themselves. An act has moral worth
only when it is motivated by concern for the moral law.

We are more certain that the motive is pure, however, when we

do what is right even when it is not in our best interest (when it
costs us dearly) and when we do not feel like doing the right
thing. In these cases, we can know that we are motivated by
concern to do the right thing because the other two motives are
missing.
To understand Kant’s reasoning on this matter, we need to
examine the difference between what he calls a hypothetical
imperative and a categorical imperative.

For example, the statement “If I want to get there on time, I

ought to leave early” does not embody a moral “ought” or a
moral imperative. It is a hypothetical imperative It implies an
instrumental imperative.

Examples
If you want to be comfortable, you must sit down
If you want to get into a good postgrad university, then you must
get good grades
If you want to get there on time, you ought to leave early
Utilitarianism is based on a Hypothetical Imperative,
“If you want to maximize happiness, you must chose action X”

Problems with basing ethics on Hypothetical Imperatives:

Based merely on what I want, even if that contradicts my duty

Can avoid obligation by changing my goals
They are easily changeable because they depend on one’s whim
They are highly individualized
Form of a Hypothetical Imperative

“If (or because) I want X, then I ought to do Y.”

Whether I ought to do Y is totally contingent or dependent on my

wanting X.
Kant calls moral “oughts” categorical imperatives because they
tell us what we ought to do no matter what, under all conditions,
or categorically.

We experience categorical imperatives as demands

They are not contingent or dependent on my aims or goals
They are unconditional and necessary
Moral oughts are seen as shared by us as human beings
To be rational is to understand categorical imperatives
Examples of Categorical Imperatives?

One ought to help those in dire need

One ought not to harm another person for no reason
One ought not to take advantage of another human being for
one’s own gain
One ought not to threaten the life of another for personal gain
Form of a Categorical Imperative

“I ought to do X”
Characteristics Hypothetical Imperative Categorical Imperative

Changeable Yes No

Individualized Yes No

Conditional Yes No

Necessary No Yes

Universal No Yes
How are we to decide which principle is a categorical
imperative?
Kant’s basic moral principle, is comparable in importance for his
moral philosophy to the principle of utility for utilitarians. It is
Kant’s test for right and wrong

The First Form

Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law

The Second Form

Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of
another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as
an end
The First Form
Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law

whatever I consider doing, it must be something that I can

consistently will or accept that all others do

To will something universally is similar to willing it as a law

As a rational being, I can only will what is non-contradictory.

Using the first form, test the following maxim and application

Is it morally permissible for me to “make a lying or false promise

in order to extricate myself from some difficulty.”?

Now consider the example at the beginning: the Tuskegee

syphilis experiments, in which people were used as medical test
subjects without their full knowing consent.
The Second Form
Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of
another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as
an end.

According to Kant, one key characteristic of persons is their

ability to set their own goals. Persons are autonomous.

We should treat persons as having value in themselves and not

just as having instrumental value. People are valuable, regardless
of whether they are useful or valued by others.
We can also use this second form of the categorical imperative to
evaluate the examples we considered for the first form.

Kant believes that in lying to another person — for example,

saying that we will pay back money when we have no intention
of doing so—we would be attempting to manipulate another
person against his will. This would violate the requirement not to
use persons.

Similarly, in the Tuskegee experiments, the deceptive researchers

used the subjects as means to an end rather than as ends in
themselves.
Evaluating Kant’s Moral Theory

The obvious positive

Focus on motives
Emphasis on fairness
Aim of consistency
Treating persons as autonomous
Treating all persons as equal
Moral Equality and Impartiality

Emphasis on the moral equality of all persons, which is implied

in his view that the nature of moral obligation is universally
binding.

Another feature of Kant’s moral philosophy is its spirit of

impartiality. For an action to be morally permissible, we should
be able to will it for all
Nature of Moral Obligation

Moral obligation is unlike that which flows from what we ought

to do because of the particular goals that we each have as
individuals.

To evaluate this aspect of Kant’s moral philosophy, you must ask

yourself whether this is also what you think about the nature of
moral obligation
Application of the first formulation of the Moral Law

When using the first form of the categorical imperative, there are
many things that I could will as universal practices that would
hardly seem to be moral obligations.

Is the test of form 1 and 2 only a negative test?

Application of the second formulation of the Moral Law

It is not always easy to determine whether one is using a person

—for example, what is coercion and what is simply influence, or
what is deception and what is not.

When I try to talk a friend into doing something for me, how do I
know whether I am simply providing input for my friend’s own
decision-making or whether I am crossing the line and becoming
coercive?
Duty

Some of the language and terminology found in Kant’s moral

theory can sound harsh to modern ears. Duty, obligation, law, and
universality may not be the moral terms most commonly heard
today.

Kant was not advocating any particular moral code or set of

duties held by any society or group. Rather, duty is whatever
reason tells us is the right thing to do.

However, Kant might acknowledge that there is a streak of

absolutism in his philosophy.
Duty

Even with the two tests in hand, it is not always clear just how
they apply. Furthermore, they may not give adequate help in
deciding what to do when they seem to produce contradictory
duties, as in the conflict between telling the truth and preserving
a life.
Perfect and Imperfect Duties

As the term suggests, perfect duties are absolute.

From the perspective of the first form of the categorical

imperative, we have a perfect duty not to do those things that
could not even exist and are inconceivable as universal practices.

Using the second form of the categorical imperative, we have a

perfect duty not to do what violates the requirement to treat
persons as ends in themselves
Perfect and Imperfect Duties

Some duties are more flexible. Kant calls these duties imperfect
duties

We have an imperfect duty not to be egoists but to help people

for their own good and not just for ours.

However, just when to help others and how much to help them is
a matter of some choice. There is a certain flexibility here.
Perfect and Imperfect Duties

Some duties are more flexible. Kant calls these duties imperfect
duties

We have an imperfect duty not to be egoists but to help people

for their own good and not just for ours.

However, just when to help others and how much to help them is
a matter of some choice. There is a certain flexibility here.
Perfect and Imperfect Duties

The distinction between perfect and imperfect duties will have

implications for handling conflicts among different duties.
Perfect duties will take precedence over imperfect ones.
A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels wearied
of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can
ask himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to
himself to take his own life. Now he inquires whether the maxim
of his action could become a universal law of nature.

His maxim is: From self-love I adopt it as a principle to shorten

my life when its longer duration is likely to bring more evil than
satisfaction. It is asked then simply whether this principle of self-
love can become a universal law of nature.

Now we see at once that a system of nature of which it should be

a law to destroy life by the very feeling which is designed to
impel to the maintenance of life would contradict itself, and
therefore could not exist as a system of nature;
Another finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He
knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that
nothing will be lent to him, unless he promises stoutly to repay it
in a definite time

Suppose however that he resolves to do so: then the maxim of his

action would be expressed thus: When I think myself in want of
money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I
know that I never can do so.

How would it be if my maxim were a universal law? Then I see

at once that it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but
would necessarily contradict itself.
A third finds in himself a talent which with the help of some
culture might make him a useful man in many respects. But he
finds himself in comfortable circumstances, and prefers to
indulge in pleasure rather than to take pains in enlarging and
improving his happy natural capacities

He sees then that a system of nature could indeed subsist with

such a universal law, though men should let their talents rust, and
resolve to devote their lives merely to idleness, amusement, and
propagation of their species, in a word to enjoyment; but he
cannot possibly will that this should be a universal law of nature

For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills that his faculties be

developed, since they serve him for all sorts of possible purposes,
and have been given him for this.
A third finds in himself a talent which with the help of some
culture might make him a useful man in many respects. But he
finds himself in comfortable circumstances, and prefers to
indulge in pleasure rather than to take pains in enlarging and
improving his happy natural capacities

He sees then that a system of nature could indeed subsist with

such a universal law, though men should let their talents rust, and
resolve to devote their lives merely to idleness, amusement, and
propagation of their species, in a word to enjoyment; but he
cannot possibly will that this should be a universal law of nature

For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills that his faculties be

developed, since they serve him for all sorts of possible purposes,
and have been given him for this.
A fourth, who is in prosperity, while he sees that others have to
contend with great wretchedness and that he could help them,
thinks: What concern is it of mine? Let every one be as happy as
heaven pleases or as he can make himself; I will take nothing
from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish to contribute
anything either to his welfare or to his assistance in distress!

But although it is possible that a universal law of nature might

exist in accordance with that maxim, it is impossible to will that
such a principle should have the universal validity of a law of
nature. For a will which resolved this would contradict itself,
inasmuch as many cases might occur in which one would have
need of the love and sympathy of others