Download Kant

Kantianism
What matters is the motive
Immanuel Kant


1724-1804
born and died in
Konigsberg, East Prussia
(Germany)
Key Ideas





All human beings are worthy of respect, no matter
who they are or where they live.
Our worth comes from our ability to be rational.
Being rational, (the ability to reason), gives us our
value.
Our rationality allows us to be free from other
constraints.
We are free to follow a law of our own (humanity’s
own), which is constructed by pure reason.
Morality


Moral value comes from doing what is right (no
matter the consequences), not doing what
brings us pleasure.
Kant argues that only when we are doing things
for their own sake (not as a means of achieving
something else), do our actions have moral
value.
The Baker


A child visits a bakery with plenty of money to
purchase bread. The child cannot read the
signs and therefore the baker is able to charge
the child whatever he wants for the bread.
The baker chooses to charge the child the
standard price for the bread. Is his action
moral? (according to Kant)
Is the baker’s actions moral?

It depends on his motivation:


if he charges the child the correct price because he
believes all people should be honest, then he is acting
in accordance with a principle, and therefore he is
being moral.
However, if he is charging the child the correct price
because he is afraid that others will find out he is
dishonest and avoid his bakery, then the action has no
moral value (even if it is the right thing to do) because
he is just doing something as a means of getting at
something else. (further riches)
Freedom


Kant connects morality with freedom
In order to be free, we must act autonomously:


Act in accordance with a law we have constructed
ourselves (out of reason) not a law given or imposed
on us.
Act in accordance with the law no matter the
consequences (not in order to get something else)
Categorical Imperative
“a moral law that is unconditional or absolute … the validity or
claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end”

If the action is good of itself, independent of its
outcome it is categorical

For example, “Thou shalt not steal,” is categorical
whereas “If you want a good business reputation,
then don’t shortchange your customers” is an
hypothetical imperative.

If you want x, do y – its means end reason
Hypothetical Imperative:
a means to an end
What laws? How do I know they
are right? What do I do?


Universalize your maxim ( the test to
determine if something is moral)
Treat a person as ends
Universalize your Maxim
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law”


Maxim meaning a rule that explains the reason
for doing what you are doing.
Basically, only act on ideas that can remain true
without exception.


What if everybody did that?
Will the action work for all?
Treat a Person as Ends




A person is not a means to an end, but an end in
and of themselves. A person has innate value and
is worthy of respect.
if we are using them as a way of achieving
something else, then your maxim doesn’t work.
This idea applies to yourself as well. You cannot
objectify yourself, because then you are not
recognizing the value in yourself.
If you cannot objectify yourself, what would Kant
find immoral?
Sample Maxim




Individual Maxim: Should I have sex with multiple partners?
Universal Maxim: What if everyone had sex with multiple
partners?
Result: There would be mass forms of STD’s, AIDS would
spread at an unbelievable rate, there would be a complete
breakdown of the family, all humans would become objects,
therefore you should not have sex with multiple partners
A person as ends: you and your chosen partner both
have value --sex with multiple partners implies that you
are using them as a way to satisfy a sexual desire,
which is therefore a means to something else, and not
moral.
Another Example
Problems…




Individual Maxim: Is it okay to be an Islamic
Fundamentalist?
Universal Maxim: What if everyone was an Islamic
Fundamentalist?
Result: This is fantastic because everyone is Islamic
and believes what I do.
But Wait – this is NOT the correct universal
maxim!
Continued…





New Universal Maxim: What if everyone was a Religious
Fundamentalist?
Result: Mass warfare on religion, no peace or dialogue
between other religions – thus should not be a religious
fundamentalist
Therefore, it seems as though if you have the correct
universal maxim then it could possibly work
love one another seems to work here
but we can’t even agree on what makes everyone happy and
thus can we ever agree on the correct universal maxims?