Notes on Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Ethics

What is right versus what is good

As we have been studying, ethical theories can be divided into those which understand ethical value in terms of the consequences of an act or policy (e.g. theories of happiness, utiliarianism) and those which define ethical value in terms of accordance with rules of right and wrong. Kant’s theory fits into latter category, defining ethical/moral value in terms of what is done from duty.

Deontological versus consequentialist theories

Kant’s approach is also known as deontological ethics, or a deontological theory (from the Greek deon which means ‘obligation’, or ‘duty.’) In contemporary language, this kind of theory is usually distinguished from consequentialist theories (e.g. Epicureanism) which look to the consequences of an action/policy to determine ethical value.

Self-interest versus duty

In Kant’s theory, the ethical worth of an action/policy is determined by its motive. A motive can be either (a) based on self-interest, or what you are inclined to want to do, or (b) based on duty, which is to say, motivated out of respect for moral law, done “for the sake of duty.” An action may be in accordance with duty, but not motivated by duty (e.g. not lying because of fear of getting caught), in which case it lacks ethical value according to Kant.

Reason versus personal desire/emotion

Similar to the natural law tradition (e.g. John Locke) which defines Christian ethics in the medieval/modern period, Kant believes that human beings are beings made of two distinctively separate and unmixable elements: (1) a physical-biological, self-interested and fundamentally selfish organism, and (2) a rational being capable of thinking and acting from a disinterested, impersonal, purely rational perspective (This is the perspective Thomas Nagel illustrates in his “Objective Basis of Morality,” the perspective which asks us to consider the objective reasons we have for not undermining the interests of other persons. For Kant, an action is motivated by respect for duty if it is the expression of a will which is determined purely by reason. On this view, to act ethically is to act out of respect for duty, which is to act in a purely rational manner unaffected by one’s own personal inclinations. This is what Kant understands to be the essence of freedom.

Categorical versus hypothetical imperatives

Reason usually determines human actions in a hypothetical manner. If you are thirsty, your reason tells you that you must drink water. Such commands of reason are hypothetical because they are conditioned by human needs and desires (i.e. if you are not thirsty, reason does not command you to drink). In contrast, the concept of duty carries with it the idea that duty must be done period, not simply because you wish it. This kind of rational command is what Kant calls a categorical imperative. An example of such an imperative is: “Don’t lie!”

The foundation of ethics in pure rationality

Whereas Christian thinkers ground duties in God’s Will (e.g. John Locke’s argument that human beings have rights because they are God’s property), Kant argues that pure reason supplies the fundamental principle upon which all ethical actions flow. He calls this principle the “Categorical Imperative” and offers several formulations of it:

(1) Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.

(2) 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.

(3) Act as though you were, through your maxims, a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

Each formulation serves to illustrate the idea that an immoral intention (a motive not done for the sake of duty) is fundamentally an irrational intention and wrong due to its irrationality – in the sense that it is a will that aims to do X and Not-X. The contradiction is revealed in an unethical motive when you attempt to generalize your action to all of society.