Download The Ethics of Duty

Practical Ethics Series
Kant & the Categorical Imperative:
The Ethics of Duty, Universalizability & Respect
Terry L Anderson
Jun 16, 2001
Primary Sources (Listed in order of extent of contribution):
 Lawrence M. Himnan. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. 1998. Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.
 Fred Feldman. Introductory Ethics. 1978. Prentice-Hall.
 James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 1999 McGraw-Hill.
Introduction
Immanuel Kant (1742-1804) emphasized duty, universal application and respect for humans as rational beings in his
theories of morality. Contrary to Utilitarianism, Kant believed that why you act can be as important as the
consequences. His Categorial Imperative argued that what is morally right is not arbitrary but derivable from
rationality and that it must be applied universally, consistently and without conditional considerations or exceptions.
He believed that as rational beings, humans deserved respect (although only physically and rationally but not
emotionally – to hurt feeling is not immoral), but that animals, having no rational capabilities deserved no special
respect. Let us look at the basis for these three principles.
The Ethics of Duty
An action has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty.
The moral value of an action depend on the motivation. It is not enough to do the right thing because it conforms to
duty but one must do it for the sake of duty. This is in contrast to Utilitarianism that says every act must be judged
only by its anticipated outcomes. Kant would argue that some things must be done for the sake of duty even if the
outcome is expected to be negative to everyone.
For example, Kant argues that being truthful is a duty and that it is never moral to lie even for a good result, e.g. to
save a life (lie about hiding a Jew from Nazis), smuggle Bibles into a restrictive country. However, duty is
something more fundamental than “following orders”. He argued that it was not a duty for a soldier to follow
immoral orders. The weakness of this principle, was that Kant never gave a satisfactory definition of duty or how to
determine ones duty.
The Categorial Imperative or Maxim as Universal Law
An action is morally correct if its maxim can be willed as a universal law.
This principle is essentially the Golden Rule. It says that one should determine a maxim obligating a given action
and then ask if we would be willing for that maxim to apply to everyone universally without exception, in every
circumstance. This is a sort of Utilitarianism combined with Universalism. One cannot find selfish actions as moral
because if everyone followed selfish interests consequences would be bad for everyone. He believed that this
-2-
principle allowed determining moral action by the rule of rationality, by a principle that every rational being should
accept, without appeal to religion or other absolute.
There are two flaws to this principle. One is that applying the maxim to universally to everyone has a rational basis,
but there is no rational basis for why it could not be conditional: the maxim applied to everyone universally in the
same circumstances. Second, there is no single maxim leading to a specific action. Formulating the maxim in a
different way may alter whether it is acceptable under this principle. For example, Kant argues that it is not
permissible to lie to save a life because the maxim is “it is permissible to lie” and this applied universally would be
detrimental to all. But if one formulates the maxim as “it is permissible to lie to save a life” many would accept this
universally. Kant disallows this since the maxim contains conditional language (a hypothetical imperative rather
than a categorical imperative). But if one forms the maxim: “it is a duty to save life” it becomes acceptable.
The Ethics of Respect for Rational Beings
We should always treat humanity, whether in ourselves or other people, as and end in itself and never
merely as a means to an end.
Kant values rationality above all. Because humans are rational creatures they (or at least their rationality) have
dignity and deserve respect. However, this respect applies to rationality not life – “so far as animals are concerned,
we have no direct duties. Animals…are there merely as means to an end. That end is man.” But certainly this
dignity of mankind is one of the positive aspects of Kant’s morality, where Utilitarianism and Absolutism can lead
to rather rigid logic and cold, inhuman conclusions. People must be “and end” never a “means to an end”. It is
never permissible to use others no matter how good the outcome.
Suicide
For example, Utilitarianism would argue that suicide (or euthanasia) is justified in some cases for the good of the
larger group or because the quality of life is not worth the pain. Kant argues that suicide is never acceptable morally
because it is our duty to live as well as the respect for rational beings that we will discuss below. On the other hand
he supported capital punishment as consistent with duty which we will discuss below.
Drug Testing
Utilitarianism argues that testing drugs on human can be justified because it will save more lives than the cost of the
tests. Utilitarianism can justify testing humans without even informing them if this can lead to a cure sooner. But
Kant argues that this is using one human as a means to an end and this is immoral no matter how good the end –
even with informed volunteers.
Retributivism: The Ethics of Punishment
Kant’s view on punishment make an interesting case. Kant argued for punishment of crime, even capital
punishment, but not because it was for the greater good of society (utilitarianism), that would be using the guilty as a
means, but because there is a duty to punish the guilty to establish justice and because it showed dignity and for the
victim. It is important to punish the criminal proportionately to the crime.
Discussion
1.
2.
How should we punish criminals and what is our motive?
Can we justify capital punishment?