Kant’s Ethical Theory: Kantian Ethics, Categorical Imperatives, Morality

German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is one of the most important philosophers although he is not very easy to understand. Kant was not a consequentialist, but attempted to base his moral theory on human reason rather than on feeling, as the utilitarians do.

Kant starts off with the basic question, “What is a moral belief?” Kant makes a distinction between the “hypothetical imperative” and the “categorical imperative”. A hypothetical imperative is an instruction that is to be followed if one wants a specific result.

For example, if I were to say “You ought to order cappuccino,” I do not mean that everyone should order it in a restaurant, but rather that someone should do so on this particular occasion. My imperative is only hypothetically binding. If you do not want a nice beverage, or do not like cappuccino, you need not accept my recommendation, and you are immune from criticism.

By contrast, the categorical imperative is universally binding. If I say, “When asked to fill in an expenses form, you ought to be truthful,” I am making a moral judgement, and do not accept that there is any let-out. If you are not naturally a truthful person, or if you think you need some extra cash, that is no excuse, and if you inflate your expenses form, you can justly be criticised for dishonesty. Moral beliefs are obligatory at all times, to everyone on every occasion.

Kant formulates three versions of the categorical imperative, based on the principles of consistency, human dignity, and universality. In doing so he makes use of the concept of a “maxim”, which needs some explanation.

A maxim is a principle on which one acts, and takes the form, “In such circumstances, do that.” The maxim may or may not be a moral principle. I may adopt a maxim like, “fiddle your expenses if you are unlikely to be detected,” or “lie if one is in a tight spot”. A maxim recommending a model course of action, on the other hand, might be, “If asked for my expenses, I ought to be truthful.”

Since moral beliefs are universally binding, one key characteristic of holding a moral belief is consistency. Kant wrote:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

By this, Kant is acknowledging the universal nature of morality. In acknowledging that I should be honest in my business transactions, I am implying that I ought to be consistent, and that others ought to do likewise in similar circumstances. In saying that I ought to be truthful, I am implying that I should do this whenever the same circumstances arise (making an expenses claim in the previous example), and that everyone should do so also.

Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative is:

Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another always as an end and never as a means only.

This formulation is often referred to as the principle of “respect for persons”. By this, Kant is acknowledging that moral judgements are not hypothetical, and that human beings are ends in themselves. If I treat someone as a means to an end, my action is not a moral one. This does not mean it is immoral, however. If I say, “Our firm needs to attract more customers,” I am suggesting that other people may be used as a means to maximising my own profits. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that: note that Kant says “never as a means only”. Whether or not I am acting morally depends on how I treat them: a loan company that charges high interest rates on pay-day loans is probably using people to maximise their returns, exploiting their vulnerability when they need ready cash urgently. On the other hand, if a firm values customer satisfaction, it is not merely using customers as a means to maximising profits, but treating them with due respect also.

Kant’s third formulation of the categorical imperative is:

Act only so that the will through its maxims could regard itself at the same time as universally lawgiving.

This is the principle of universality, or universalisability. Kant is acknowledging here that it is not just me who makes moral judgements, but everyone else. Everyone is a lawgiver in this sense, and hence I should reflect on whether it would be acceptable if everyone acted on the same maxim as mine.

For example, if I am a second-hand dealer of machines, and my maxim is, “If I want to make a sale, it’s all right to lie about the defects of a product.” This third formulation calls upon me to ask whether I would be willing for my action to be universalisable. I prepared for everyone to lie when they want to conclude a business deal in their favour? If not, we need to act on a different maxim, such as, “If asked about the defects of a product I am selling, I ought to tell the truth.” We would be much more amenable, surely, to having this principle universalisable, rather than the previous one.

In sum, Kant endeavours to base his moral theory on the principle of reason, in contrast to the utilitarians, who emphasised feeling. Kant uses reason to determine the nature of morality, and by doing so holds that we can also ascertain the content of moral judgements, namely that one should only do what is universalisable, that one should respect persons, and that one should recognise that everyone is subject to the moral law.

Criticisms of Kant:

• Kant insists that he is not a consequentialist. However, does not his universalisability principle invite us to consider the consequences of everyone acting as we propose?
• George Bernard Shaw once said, “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.” Does the principle of universalisability offer a sound guide to making moral judgements?
• Is not the principle of “respect for persons” somewhat vague? When have we actually respected someone or treated them as ends in themselves rather than merely means to our ends? If I am selling my second-hand car, and I respecting you if I do not put pressure on you to buy, or if I do not lie to you when you ask for information, or if I do not fully disclose everything without your having to ask?
• Kant’s principle is “respect for persons”, but does not this leave out other stakeholders involved in our action, such as animals or the environment?

Further reading: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral