“Do your duty though the heavens fall.” Immanuel Kant
WHO WAS KANT ?
- Kant was basically a really weird guy.
- He was born in a tiny village in Germany called Königsberg, and never travelled more than 10 miles outside of it during his entire life.
- He had a very strict routine – the story goes that local people in Königsberg used to set their watches by the time Kant went by on this daily walk!
- BUT he is perhaps the most influential philosopher of the past 300 years.
WHAT IS KANTIAN ETHICS ?
- Kant argued that most things we think of as good are not always good. Intelligence, wealth etc. could always be used for evil.
- For Kant, the only thing that is always good in itself is a good will. (This is a kind of drive to do the right thing, whatever it is.)
- We should want to act in a certain way because it is right, not because of the consequences.
- Our job as moral agents is to work out what our duties are, and then to follow them.
THE IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSALIZABILITY
- Kant believed in an objective moral law, which we can work out using reason (our capacity for thinking).
- All humans have the ability to reason, so we should all be able to work out the moral law.
- This means that, for Kant, moral laws must be universal – they must be the kind of laws that everyone could discover and follow.
- Kant thought that we can tell what our duties are by seeing whether our action can be universalized.
- We have to ask ourselves, “What if everybody did that?”
- E.g. murder cannot be universalized – if everybody murdered people who they did not like then there would be no people left!
- Lying cannot be universalized – if everybody lied then nobody would believe what anybody says, and lying would be pointless!
- Since moral laws must be universal, they cannot depend on a particular person’s circumstances or their desires.
- Kant called these laws “categorical imperatives” – they identify principles that we should all always follow.
- This is in contrast with “hypothetical imperatives” – principles that we should follow only if we have certain desires.
- The Categorical Imperative is Kant’s fundamental moral principle. He claims that it is absolutely (no exceptions). It is used to determine whether an action is morally permissible.
Maxim: The reason for one’s action. Every voluntary action has a maxim. All maxims have the following format: I will perform action A in circumstances C for motive M. A, C, and M in this sentence are “blanks” that would have to be filled with the details of the particular action being evaluated.
Universal Law: Everyone will perform action A in circumstances C for motive M. This is not intended as a prediction of how people will behave. Instead, it is a means for determining whether you could coherently will that everyone act on the same maxim that you have acted on.
3 Steps for Using CI1:
1. Find the maxim of the action being evaluated.
2. Change the maxim to a universal law. (Change the word “I” in the maxim to “Everyone.”)
3. Check to see whether one could coherently will a situation in which everyone behaved according to this universal law. If such a situation is coherent, then the action in question is permissible. If the imagined situation is incoherent, then the action in question is impermissible.
The 4 Examples:
1. Suicide Case: A man considers committing suicide for motives of self-love. Is this permissible?
a. The maxim of the action is, “I will commit suicide [action] in these unpleasant circumstances [circumstances] for the motive of self-love motive].”
b. The universal law is, “Everyone will commit suicide in these unpleasant circumstances for the motive of self-love.”
c. One cannot coherently will that everyone follow such a law. The motive of self-love simultaneously urges one to preserve and prolong one’s life, and to end it (to avoid suffering). This is contradictory. Thus, the action in question is impermissible.
2. Borrowing Money: A person considers borrowing money and promising to repay it, even though she knows she will be unable to repay it. Is this permissible?
a. The maxim of the action is: “I will promise to repay a loan [action] when I know that I will not be able to do so [circumstances] for the motive of convenience [motive].”
b. The universal law is: Everyone will promise to repay a loan when they know they will not be able to do so for the motive of convenience.
c. One cannot coherently will that everyone follow such a law. The motive of convenience both urges one to make a lying promise about repaying the loan, but would also result in a very inconvenient situation (in which no loans were possible). This is self-defeating, so the action is impermissible.
3. Developing Talents: I know that I have talents that have not been developed, but I am too lazy to work on developing them. Is this permissible?
a. The maxim of the action is: “I will leave my talents undeveloped [action] when I realize that I have certain abilities [circumstances] for the motive of remaining comfortable [motive].”
b. The universal law is: “Everyone will leave their talents undeveloped when they realize they have certain abilities for the motive of remaining comfortable.”
c. Although the motive of remaining comfortable pushes us to leave our talents undeveloped, everyone also has another motive: Wanting to get as much as possible out of life. This motive pushes us to develop our talents so we can benefit from them. Because these motives conflict, it is impermissible to leave all of one’s talents undeveloped.
4. Saving a Drowning Person: I am the only one who could save a drowning person, but doing so would be uncomfortable. Is it permissible for me to let this person drown?
a. The maxim of the action is: “I will let this person drown [action] when I am the only one who could perform the rescue [circumstances] for the motive of remaining comfortable [motive].”
b. The universal law is: “Everyone will allow others to drown when they are the only ones who could perform the rescue for the motive of remaining comfortable.”
c. One cannot coherently will that everyone follow such a law. Our motive of remaining comfortable is in conflict with another motive: Wanting to be assisted when we are in need of rescue. These motives are in conflict, so it is not permissible to allow others to go without assistance.
STRENGTHS: EASY TO APPLY, ENCOURAGE AUTONOMY, PROMOTE EQUALITY
- We do not have to know all of the consequences of an action to know whether it is wrong.
- We just have to know what kind of action it is. Presumably we do know that, as we are thinking about doing it !
- Kant thought it was important for people to work out for themselves what is right and wrong, using their reason. This is better than blind reliance on authority, law, parents, sacred texts…
- Promote Equality:
- Kant’s principle of treating everyone as an end in themselves encourages respect for all persons.
- Kant would not allow biases or prejudice to affect our moral thinking.
- Since we have to do our duty out of good will alone for our action to be good, we cannot allow our feelings toward people to affect our moral thinking.
WEAKNESSES
- Are any acts really always wrong ?
- Kant claims that the moral laws identify actions that are always wrong, no matter what the circumstances. žThis is very implausible. ž
- Even his most famous examples are not very convincing: in some circumstances, breaking a promise might save hundreds of lives. žEven killing someone might save more lives! žIt looks like consequences do matter.
- Too vague and general:
- Kantian ethics can be difficult to apply to particular cases because it is not clear which “principle” lies behind each particular action.
- E.g., is my action lying? Is it lying to make someone feel better? Is it lying to make someone feel better because I need them to do something for me?
- Cold and impersonal:
- When we are actually making moral decisions, love and compassion matter. The requirement to be motivated only by a sense of duty makes morality too cold and impersonal.
- If my child is drowning and I save her because I love her, how can my action be morally wrong?
- We should help people because we care about them, not because of a sense of duty!!
- What if duties conflict ?
- Kantian ethics gives us no guidance as to what to do when duties conflict – this seems not to have occurred to him! žE.g. Promise-keeping is a duty, but what if I have promised to two different people to be in two places at the same time?
- What if I have promised to lie to someone?
- What if I three people are drowning and I only have time to save one of them?
- Moral dilemmas are real – there are times when we violate a duty no matter what we do.
DECEPTION AND SECRECY
What is a lie ? A statement, believed by the liar to e false, made to another person with the intent to deceive. The key ethical question: Did you intend your statement to mislead another person ?
DECEPTION AND PUBLIC LIFE: SISSELA BOK
- Lying by rulers undermines accountability and trust in government in a democracy.
- Two forms of deliberate assault on human beings: deceit and violence. Both coerce people into acting against their will.
- Kantian notion that respect for humans requires not denying them relevant information and allowing them freedom of choice.
DECEIVER OR DECEIVED ?
- Perspective of Deceived:
- Manipulated, coerced, denied informed freedom of choice.
- Lying requires a reason – truth telling does not!
- Perspective of Deceiver:
- Lying inevitable in public life, depends upon “wise use.” Utilitarian calculation of deceiver often weighs only immediate harms to self versus “good” achieved.
- Overlooks harm to liar/society:
- Lies accumulate -- “thatching of lies” -- become harder to reverse; affects political credibility (cf. Nixon/Clinton). Harm to general level of trust essential in a democratic society:
– Lies only useful in circumstances where most people tell the truth.
– Deceptive public officials “free ride” on system of trust. Want others to do their part, but refuse to accept their democratic obligation.
Sissela Bok: A philosopher and ethicist, she was born in Sweden and is the daughter of two Nobel Prize winners: Gunnar Myrdal who won the Economics prize in 1974 and her mother, Alva Myrdal, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1982. She is married to Derek Bok, former president of Harvard. Her daughter, Hilary Bok, is also a philosopher.