Immanuel Kant
Famous dead German (not Hitler)
Immanuel Kant was a hugely
influential philosopher.
Kant thought it was possible to
develop a system of ethics and
morals based on reason.
Reason
• Kant, along with other philosophers of the
‘enlightenment’, attaches great importance to
man’s ability to reason
• A human being is essentially, a rational being,
and it is this that constitutes his intrinsic
dignity.
• Reason, says Kant, is an innate, intellectual
power existing more or less equally in all men,
it enables the individual to resolve problems
in a way, more or less acceptable to everyone.
• If reason is universal, the moral commands
generated by reason will be universal and
applicable to all men.
Kant’s Morality
• Morals have an absolute value
- absolutist, realist, objectivist
• They’re not ‘out there’
• Morality is inside of us,
we all have a sense of
moral duty
• Wanted a universal
moral law
I don’t agree with Bentham and Mills’ utilitarian
theories because I don’t think moral actions are
based on consequences. I think they are based on
motives and the actions themselves. Let me show you
an example!
My sister’s being
bullied. Some of
my friends are
really hard and
they have started
to bully her too. I
am worried about
her. I want my
friends to like me
though and if I
stand up to them
they will bully
both of us.
What would utilitarians say about this?
According to utilitarian theory, it would be
okay for the boy to do nothing about her
sister because that would result in the
greatest pleasure for the greatest number.
What do you think I would say about this?
According to Kantian ethics, this boy should
not even think about the consequences it
would have for him or his sister. He should
just follow his inbuilt moral code and do his
duty. He has this duty because he has
reason.
You see, all human beings have reason. This reason
allows them to access an objective moral law. In
order to act morally, therefore, everybody must
follow their duty. Their duty is to follow the moral
law.
We all have an in built awareness of what we should
do and we should follow that. We should not be lead
by our emotions or our experiences because we know
what to do from our duty.
Reason
The boy makes the right decision. He protects his
sister. This makes him good… why?
The boy is good not because he has saved his sister, or
because he has made himself feel pleased with himself.
He is good because he has made sure the ‘greatest
good’ (summun bonum) is done. This is an act of good
will. Someone of ‘goodwill’ is not good because of what
they achieve/accomplish (consequences) but because
he/she acts out of duty. A person performs an action
not for wealth, prestige etc because it is your duty.
“Good will shines forth like a precious jewell.
It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even
out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification,
except a good will” (Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals)
Kant’s formula for ethics…
• Kant argued that rational duty was
behind ethics and morals.
• In other words, the motive behind
an action is very important.
• He believed the only truly good
thing is goodwill.
• Every other characteristic, like
being helpful, cheerful, kind, loving,
etc., could all be used for evil
intentions except for goodwill.
The Good Will
• Write down 5 possible
reasons for the
younger person’s
actions in the picture.
• Consider whether the
action was good or bad
–what are you using to
formulate your
judgement?
A moral decision is not based on a
feeling of what is right, or the reward
that might be given for doing right, it
is based on duty.
Acting on
goodwill leads
us to do our
moral duty
purely because
it is our moral
duty.
• A shopkeeper who gives
the right change to his
customers because it is
good for returning
business is acting in a
morally wrong way because
he is not acting out of
duty.
If he had acted out of moral duty, giving customers the
right change because that it is the right thing to do,
then his action would be morally acceptable according to
Kant.
Or what if…
You help an old person carry their shopping across the
street. You may have done this because…
1. you felt pity and compassion for the old person
2. the people around you would think good things about
you for doing it
3. you would feel better if you helped and didn’t walk on
by
4. your parents would be disappointed in you if you
didn’t help.
According to Kant all of these reasons are not
acceptable and do not make the action a moral
act because you should help the old person across
the road because you have a sense of duty to
help the elderly in society.
Motive is very important
in Kantian ethics. It means
your action can have
negative consequences but
still be considered a moral
act.
For example, if you stop
to help someone who has
been knocked down by a
car in the street and by
helping them you
accidentally kill them,
your action would still be
considered a moral act
because you tried to help
because you felt it was
your duty to do so.
Motive
What is it our moral duty to
do?
• Kant argued that moral actions are not
dependant on circumstances.
• For example, we must always care for our
children. This is not dependant on
circumstances or particular situations, it
is always right and is what Kant called a
categorical imperative.
It is IMPERATIVE that you revise thoroughly for your exam!
What does imperative mean? And what does it mean with
reference to Kant’s ethical theory?
Imperative is something that you have to do. I have broken down the idea of
Imperative into two. One I agree with and one I really don’t.
1. The hypothetical Imperative – I disagree with this idea. This is when a
person makes a decision based on a hypothetical situation. i.e what might
happen. For example. I will tell the truth because it might make her happy.
2. The Categorical Imperative – This is the one I agree with. This is when a
person makes a decision based on their duty and reason. i.e the moral law.
For example. I will tell the truth.
Categorical/Hypothetical
Hypothetical: IF I want to lose
weight, I must stop eating cream
cakes.
Categorical: I must not tell lies
The Difference?
Hypothetical: IF I want to lose
weight, I must stop eating cream
cakes.
A hypothetical imperative is,
according to Kant, something
that I must do if I want a
certain thing to happen.
Categorical: I must not tell lies
A categorical imperative is,
according to Kant,
something that I must
always obey.
Categorical imperatives
• Catergorical here means applicable in all situations,
an absolute.
• Imperative means something that must be done, an
obligation.
• In other words, a moral decision that you make
must be made because you think it would be good
for everyone to do. Are there some things that are
absolute rights? Can you think of some examples?
Care for the elderly
Protect children
Absolute
rights?
Consider others
Kant said …
‘Act as if the maxim from which you were to
act were to become through your will a
general law’
This has become known as
universalisation,
which means a rule should apply to
everyone.
‘Principle of Universalisability’
• The right rules to follow are those which
can be applied to all people. That is, can
a rule be universalised or not? Would it
make sense for others to act in this way?
All immoral actions are contradictory!
• Living by universalisation would prevent
anyone wanting to do anything that
they would not want everyone else to
do.
• Does this sound familiar? It’s a bit
like…
Treat others as you would like
to be treated
Treat People as ends in themselves
• In other words treat others with the
respect that as thinking beings, they
deserve. Do not use people!
I am only
your friend
because I
fancy your
sister!
“You’re my best friend –
you can come for tea!”
Respect for people
• As well as this, Kant wrote that
people should be respected and
‘ends’ in themselves, never used as
‘means to ends’.
• Kant believed there was something
that separates human and nonhuman beings: the ability to
understand and use the concepts of
duty and reason.
• To Kant, ‘animals’ are dominated by
instinct and desire, their behaviour
shaped by these compulsions. For
example…
They eat
They fight
They have sex
• They sleep
Kant, of course, accepted
that human beings are no
different to animals in that
we share their instincts and
desires.
We eat
Fight
Have sex
And when its all over we sleep
However to Kant, what separates
humans from non-humans is our
ability to REASON.
According to Kant it is this faculty
that enables us to act freely
against our instincts and desires if
we so choose.
Problems with Duty and Reason
• Can there be such a thing as pure reason, and
if there is, can we apply it to moral-decision
making?
• How do we agree on what ‘ought’ to be done in
a given situation?
• Do we share the same concept of ‘duty’
universally? If not how can we agree on what
‘ought’ to be done?
Problems with Duty and
Reason
• Can we really apply clear reason in the
real world?
• Surely consequences do matter…
• Can we really apply a moral rule like not
killing others to every situation?
Suppose one evening you hear
a knock on the door. You
answer and a woman is
standing there looking scared.
She tells you she is on the run
from a man who is trying to
kill her and asks for you to
help hide her.
What is the correct decision
according to Kant? Why?
What problems does this
raise?
In this case the fundamental
principle is whether you should
help someone who is in need.
Kant would have felt that this
was a right thing to do.
Using reason you could argue
that helping someone who is in
need is something everyone
ought to do (a duty).
It is also universalisable as
everyone should do it.
A few minutes later you hear
a knock on the door. A man is
standing there with an axe in
his hand. He appears to be
very angry, shows you a
picture of the woman you
have just hidden and asks you
if you have seen her.
What is the correct decision
according to Kant? Why?
What problems does this raise?
In this case the
fundamental principle is
whether you should lie.
Kant would have felt that
this was the wrong thing
to do.
Using reason you could
argue that lying should not
be allowed.
If I lie I am saying the
everyone else has a duty to
lie also. This is not
universalisable.
Is morality really as simple as
Kant makes out?
• Is making moral decisions really this simple? Does
Kant’s straightforward formula work in our
complicated world?
• For example, if it is right to always tell the truth and
always protect your friends, what do you do if a
murderer asks you to tell them where your best
friend is so they can murder them? Do you tell the
truth and lead the murderer to your friend or do you
tell a lie and protect your friend’s life?
• Can everyone really agree
on what is absolutely right
and wrong, what is our duty
as humans, all the time?
• What if someone believes it
is our duty to never get
involved in violence and
someone else believes it is
our duty to fight for our
human rights?
• How do we work out the
categorical imperative
here?
• Can we really not help someone because
we feel compassion for them?
• Is there really something wrong with
helping an old person carry their
shopping because we are compassionate?
• Can we really not take consequences
into account?
• What if someone really believes they
are doing the right thing while causing
harm to others?
• What if your little sister dried your
cat in the tumble dryer? Is it ok
because she meant well?
• Is motive really the only thing that is
important?
Moral scenarios
Would Kant
think this
was morally
acceptable?
YES
Tom gives 10% of his
earnings each year to
charity because his
religion says he should.
Gail was out shopping one day
and noticed a person
stuffing a bottle of
perfume into her bag.
She tells the security
guard.
Gareth’s granny is very old and
frail. He believes it is his
duty to care for her but his
wife says she will leave him
if his granny comes to live
with them. He invites his
granny to stay anyway.
NO
Do you agree with Kant?
Give two reasons for your answer
Quick recap
• Kant argued that rational duty was behind ethics and
morals.
• Good = goodwill = duty.
• Catergorical means applicable in all situations, an
absolute.
• Imperative means something that must be done, an
obligation.
• Universalisation according to Kant is that a rule
should apply to everyone.
Learning check…
1. Who is Immanuel Kant?
1KU
2. Explain Kant’s theory on ethics. Give two examples to
support your answer.
6KU
3. Explain in your own words Kant’s term ‘categorical
imperative’.
2KU
4. What does Kant mean when he says we should decide
our moral actions based on having the ability to
universalise moral law?
3KU
5. Outline two arguments against Kant’s theory of
rational.
4AE
6. What are your views on Kant’s theory for ethics?
3AE