Kantian Ethics is derived from the philosopher Immanuel Kant and is a form of Deontological ethics. Deontological ethics is a type of ethical theory that judges whether an action is morally permissible or impermissible by comparing the action to a series of rules and maxims, rather than judging the morality of an action based on consequences, which would fall under the branch of Teleological ethics such as utilitarianism in which an action ought to be done if it creates the best possible consequences.
Kant placed massive importance on the autonomy that each rational being has, therefore, stressing that everyone has the right to be treated with respect and not pure benevolence. Furthermore, as Kant believed that morality is ‘priori’ which means knowledge, which is true without the need for empirical evidence, this means that we need to look at pure practical reasoning to create a moral law.
So how do we create a supposed moral law or how do we define what is morally permissible or impermissible?
In Kant’s work, “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”, Kant highlights two categorical imperatives (‘Rules’ which bind us to do a certain action no matter what our desires are) to determine if an action ought to be done.
The first categorical imperative is, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant and Paton). This imperative essentially states that a maxim could be considered permissible if the maxim could be universalized. For instance, Bob had told Tom that he would take a loan of $1000 from Tom and would repay it but he never did. Could we universalize such an action? Would this action be fair or permissible if everyone never repaid what they borrowed? According to Kant, such an action could not be universalized and would create a contradiction in conception. This means that we cannot universalize the action of people not paying back what they borrowed as this would be self-contradictory as we would not be able to imagine a world in which no one paid back what they borrowed, therefore such an action could not be morally permissible according to the first Categorical Imperative.
Another example would be the popular case of compassion. Suppose a person has the option to donate to charity or to buy a new device and the person has no desire to donate to charity, therefore, a maxim under the premises such as, “I will not donate any sum of money to charity” could be formulated based off this scenario. Whilst this maxim does not create a contradiction in conception as we can all imagine a world without charity or altruistic actions. However, would this maxim be practical? Would we truly want this maxim to be set in stone? As a result, this action creates a contradiction in the will as despite being able to imagine a world without charity, it would certainly not be a desirable world to live in. As a result, this formulated maxim would go against our will and fail practical considerations.
The second Categorical Imperative created by Kant is, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” (Kant and Paton). Essentially, this Categorical Imperative involves treating others with dignity and not purely as a means for your gain. The previous case of not paying back a loan can be highlighted again. Suppose Bob never pays back the $1000 loan to Tom, Bob is merely using Tom for his financial gains as a result, is using Tom as a means whilst not respecting Tom as he is violating the agreement of paying back the loan. As a result, this action would fail this Categorical Imperative and would not be considered morally permissible according to Kant.
With every philosophical theory, comes critiques, and in the case of Kantian ethics, there are popular critiques against this form of Deontology. For instance, earlier I had mentioned that Kant placed heavy emphasis on using pure practical reasoning to figure out whether an action is moral. However, this would appear that Kant is neglecting emotions and fails to see the intrinsic value of such emotions as Kant focuses on reasoning over feelings. This makes Kantian ethics seem like a psychologically shrewd ethical theory if it neglects emotions such as love or compassion which are imperative to our daily lives. However, Kant does refute this by placing emotions in a subordinate role and not completely disregarding emotions. Kant does recognize that emotions are imperative to us, but he does state that emotions do have no moral worth which may sound strange and possibly oxymoronic at first, however, Kant regards emotions as unpredictable and fickle, meaning that emotions are often erratic which makes these emotions often cloud judgments and disregards the pull of reason and morality. As a result, emotions can not be a key factor in deciding what is moral as the unpredictable state of emotions often skews the lines to many about what may seem moral.
Kantian ethics has been hugely influential and has provided many valid pathways into how to approach whether an action is moral, whilst many have relevant critiques against the theory; it is crucial to remember that Kant has provided a heavily influential framework which despite having implications in some scenarios, still acts as a groundwork on how to base morality.
References:
Kant, Immanuel, and H J Paton. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. 1785. New York, Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009.
— Writer Ansh Narula can be reached at anshnarula700@gmail.com.
