Lecture 7: DeontologyImmanuel Kant – Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Onora O’Neill – “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics”

1

Agenda

1. Immanuel Kant

2. Deontology

3. Maxims and Intentions

4. Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

5. Formula of Universal Law

6. Formula of the End in Itself

7. Comparison of the Two Formulations

8. Comparisons with Utilitarianism

2

Immanuel Kant

• German Enlightenment philosopher

• Wrote three critiques:• Critique of Pure Reason

• Critique of Practical Reason

• Critique of Judgment

• Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the first mature work by Kant on moral philosophy.

1724-1804

3

Deontology

• Deontology: a kind of moral theory that evaluates which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. Deontological theories are often elaborated in a system of rules for determining right and wrong actions.

• Deon = duty

• Deontological theories are generally non-consequentialist. They do not think consequences are the only morally relevant features of an action.

4

Maxims and Intentions

• The only thing good without qualification is the Good Will.

• Will = uniquely human capacity to act according to a principle.

• Maxims = principles underlying actions. In practice, maxims = intentions.

• Doesn’t mean Kantian ethics does not care about consequences at all. Intentions take into account at least the immediate consequences of one’s actions.

5

Maxims and Intentions

Act from duty vs. act in accordance with duty

• Only when we act from a sense of duty does our action have moral worth.

• Actions may just coincide with what duty requires but have no moral worth.

• Shopkeeper’s motivation to charge fair prices to everyone.

• Compare this view to Mill’s: “It is the business of ethics to tell us what are our duties, or by what test we can know them; but no system of ethics requires that our only motive in everything we do shall be a feeling of duty; on the contrary, ninety-nine hundredths of all our actions are done from other motives, and rightly so if the •rule of duty doesn’t condemn them” (4).

6

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives apply to you if you have certain desires or goals.

• “You should floss your teeth.”

• Only applies to you if you want healthy gums.

7

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

Categorical imperatives apply to you independently of your particular desires and goals. They are necessarily binding.

• What sort of imperative is morality? Why?

• You should be honest. You shouldn’t steal. You shouldn’t harm others.

8

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

• Kant thought there was one supreme principle of morality. It is The Categorical Imperative.

• He thought we can come to know The Categorical Imperative through a priori reason, meaning independently of experience.

• He gave different formulations of The Categorical Imperatives. He thought all of these formulations were ultimately equivalent.• Formula of Universal Law

• Formula of the End in Itself

• Formula of the Kingdom of Ends

9

Formula of Universal Law

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (5).

10

Formula of Universal Law

How do we determine if a maxim could be willed into a universal law?

1. Suppose everyone acted on the maxim or principle underlying my action.

2. Would my action still be logically possible or would it generate a logical contradiction?

3. If the action is possible, then it is morally permissible.

If the action generates a contradiction, then it is forbidden.

11

Formula of Universal Law

Example: Is it okay to make false promises to get what you want?

1. Suppose everyone made false promises to get what they wanted.

2. Does this generate a contradiction? • Yes, if everyone made false promises, no one would be able to make

promises in the first place because no one would believe anyone else. No one would be able to deceive others into getting what they wanted.

3. Therefore, making false promises is immoral.

12

Formula of Universal Law

• The moral law is self-imposed.

•All rational agents both legislate the moral law through their will and should follow it themselves.

•We are all the source of morality and the subjects of morality.

13

Formula of the End in Itself

“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 meansbut always at the same time as an end” (2).

14

Formula of the End in Itself

What does it mean to use someone merely as a means?

• O’Neill: “To use someone as a mere means is to involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent” (2).

• The point is to respect persons who are rational agents with their own maxims and therefore ends in themselves.

15

Formula of the End in Itself

• It is not wrong to use someone as a means. • For example, bank teller and customer use

each other as means but both consent to it so it’s okay.

• It is not even necessarily wrong to use someone to benefit oneself. • For example, children benefit a lot from their

parents but this is okay because parents consent to it.

• Deception, coercion, and manipulation are paradigmatic cases of using someone as a mere means.

16

Formula of the End in Itself

•Duties of Justice: Never use someone as a mere means to an end.• Perfect duties, not selective

•Duties of Beneficence or Charity: Sometimes help others to achieve their own maxims and be happy.• Imperfect duties, selective

17

Comparison of the Two Formulations

• The Formula of Universal Law is a negative test. For any action, you can run it through the test to see if it passes and is morally permissible.

• The Formula of the End in Itself gives positive guidance on how you should act. Never treat people as merely means and sometimes help them achieve their goals and be happy.

18

Comparison of the Two Formulations

Problems with the Formula of Universal Law

1. What if your action falls under two different maxims, one of which is permissible and the other forbidden?

• Suppose I tell a lie to save a friend.

• The principle, “Tell lies when convenient,” violates the categorical imperative and is wrong.

• The principle, “Help others in need,” is consistent with the categorical imperative and is right.

2. Why can’t we build exceptions into principles and still be able to universalize them?

• “Never steal except when starving.” “Never commit suicide except when in incredible pain and are about to die anyway.” “Never lie except when an immense benefit will result from it.”

3. Not always clear what it means to generate a logical contradiction.

Formula of the End in Itself seems to give clearer guidance on what we ought to do.

19

Comparisons with Utilitarianism

1. Kantian ethics has less scope than utilitarianism.

2. Kantian ethics is more precise than utilitarianism.

3. Kantian ethics and utilitarianism value life differently.

20

Comparisons with Utilitarianism

Less Scope:

• Kantian ethics can’t judge actions with maxims that are not fully known.

• Kantian ethics can’t judge actions that cannot be regarded as the maxims of any person or institution (e.g. political movements).

• Kantian ethics cannot rank acts in terms of their merit.

• Utilitarianism allows all actions to be judged and compared against each other in terms of which better maximize utility.

21

Comparisons with Utilitarianism

More Precise:

• It is easier to evaluate intentions and determine when an act uses others as mere means.

• It is harder to know when an act maximizes happiness, especially when one lacks data about the consequences.

22

Comparisons with Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics and utilitarianism value life differently.

• For utilitarianism, life is only valuable in terms of maximizing happiness. People can be used as mere means and lives can sacrificed for the greater good.

• For Kant, life is valuable because people are rational agents and thus ends in themselves.

23