Deontology

Kant's Deontology is based on a few fundamental ideas. As you read the rest of this lecture, be sure you are clear on how each of these ideas fits into Kant's overall theory.

Ethical rules are absolute. If something is morally wrong, it is always wrong – every time, for everyone, and in every circumstance. Ethics can never depend on a person's subjective opinions or desires.

Ethics is based on reason. For Kant, the ability to reason was the hallmark of humanity. That is, this ability to reason is what makes us human and gives us the ability to be ethical or unethical. Further, Kant thought that his ethical theory was based on reason. This being the case, he felt that every rational person would see the objective truth in his theory and accept it.

Ethics is not concerned with consequences. In this way, Kant's theory is the polar opposite of Utilitarianism. According to Kant, if something is morally good, then it is good no matter what the consequences. Conversely, if something is wrong, then it is wrong, even it produces good consequences.

Moral actions are always and only based on a motivation to do one’s moral duty. Again, this is very different from Utilitarianism, which was not concerned with one's motivations. For Kant, moral action is generated from a person’s Good Will. That is , the rational desire to do the right thing because it is one’s duty.

Part 2: Chapter 7 Live Links (set 1) for updated Live Links see the online text.

Deontology and It’s Discontents: A Brief Overview of Kant’s Ethics. This concise overview by Michael S. Russo from Molloy College is well worth reading. Ignore the "Evaluation" section however.

The Axe Murderer

Consider this thought experiment.

You are at home watching television when your roommate Mary rushes in the front door and goes directly into the bathroom. Moments later someone knocks at the door. When you answer it, you are shocked to see a man standing there holding an axe.

“Is Mary here?” The man asks as he tries to look past you into the apartment. All the while he is rubbing his thumb along the blade of the axe which you now realize is coated with blood. “I really NEED to find Mary.”

It is clear to you that this man wants to kill your roommate. What do you do? Should you lie and tell the man that your roommate is not at home or should you tell the truth?

Before considering how Kant would analyze this scenario, let’s review Utilitarianism. According to Utilitarianism what should you do?

Since Utilitarianism is concerned with consequences, you should try to do what will produce the best consequences. If you think that this man is really going to try to kill your roommate then you should lie to the man. Clearly, from a Utilitarian perspective lying is not only morally acceptable in this situation, it is morally required.

Based on the fact that Utilitarianism doesn’t see a distinction between positive and negative responsibility, if you choose to tell the truth and the man bursts into your bathroom and kills Mary, you would be responsible for Mary’s death. You COULD have stopped the killing by lying.

Lying is Always Wrong

Kant would disagree with this Utilitarian analysis. Kant argued that lying was morally wrong and so it was never permissible. The consequences of telling the truth may indeed be terrible; Mary's death is certainly morally bad. But, Kant did not think that acting morally required thinking about the consequences of an action.

Of course, lying wasn't the only thing that Kant felt was absolutely wrong. Another example of such an absolute moral prohibition was killing. Consider the overcrowded lifeboat dilemma from the beginning of the semester. As we've discussed, the decision of the captain to throw some people off the boat in an effort to save as many people possible was based on a clear utilitarian calculus. Killing a few people is morally acceptable if the consequences are that more people will be saved. Kant would argue that since killing innocent people is always wrong, that the captain should not have thrown anyone into the water. This decision may well have led to the deaths of all the people in the lifeboat, but again, Kant does not consider consequences to be especially important in making moral choices.

The Categorical Imperative

To understand Kant's ethical theory we need to understand the distinction he makes between two types of imperatives. The word "imperative" is just a fancy way of saying, "ought," as in.

You ought to study for exams

The first type of imperative is called a hypothetical imperative and is illustrated in the example above. This sort of imperative is hypothetical because it is not absolute. Think about the example "you ought to study for exams." Is this necessarily true? Or, does it depend on your own personal desires and wants? Kant argues that these sorts of imperatives are hypothetical because they do depend on your desires. If you desire to pass the exam, then you should study for it. But, if you don't want to pass the exam then you shouldn't study for it.

Kant realizes that most imperatives are hypothetical. That is, they are not absolute. These imperatives are not moral imperatives. That is, these sorts of imperatives don’t address moral issues or actions – they are not morally good or morally bad. However, Kant thinks that imperatives that involve moral issues are not hypothetical. He thinks that moral rules are absolute and so following them can't be dependent on one's desires. Kant postulates something called the Categorical Imperative to explain morality.

The Categorical Imperative

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

This is not really hard to understand. The word "maxim" just means "general rule." So, the Categorical Imperative tells us that we can only act according to general rules that can be made into universal laws. Or, stated another way, it is always morally wrong to act according to general rules that can't be made into universal laws.

Understanding the Categorical Imperative is the key to understanding Kantian ethics, so take the time you need to consider it.

In His Own Words:

From Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

Accordingly the hypothetical imperative only says that the action is good for some purpose, possible or actual. In the first case it is a Problematical, in the second an Assertorial practical principle. The categorical imperative
which declares an action to be objectively necessary in itself without reference to any purpose, i.e., without any other end, is valid as an Apodictic (practical) principle.

Now all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former represent the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed (or at least which one might possibly will). The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end, i.e., as objectively necessary.

Since every practical law represents a possible action as good, and on this account, for a subject who is practically determinable by reason, necessary, all imperatives are formulae determining an action which is
necessary according to the principle of a will good in some respects. If now the action is good only as means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being
necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical....

Now all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former represent the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed (or at least which one might possibly will). The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end, i.e., as objectively necessary.

Since every practical law represents a possible action as good, and on this account, for a subject who is practically determinable by reason, necessary, all imperatives are formulae determining an action which is necessary according to the principle of a will good in some respects. If now the action is good only as means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical.

Everything in nature works according to laws. Rational beings alone have the faculty of acting according to the conception of laws that is according to principles, i.e., have a will. Since the deduction of actions from
principles requires reason, the will is nothing but practical reason.

Applying the Categorical Imperative: Lying?

Suppose you borrowed $5 from Jill a few days ago and she has just asked for the money back. You don't want to give the money back and are working through possible solutions to your problem.

What if you lie to Jill and tell her that you don't have the money? Is this morally acceptable? Let's see how Kant's Categorical Imperative analyzes this choice.

Step 1. Determine the Maxim involved. What general rule are you thinking about following? Kant thinks you should formulate the maxim in a very general way...

"Everyone should always lie."

Step 2. The Categorical Imperative tells you that you can only act according to rules that can be made into a universal law. So, think about the general rule you are considering. Can this be a universal law?

Certainly if everyone always lied, the consequences would be bad. Imagine what it would be like to live in a society where everyone always lied. But, remember, Kant is not really concerned with consequences. So, Kant doesn’t reject this rule because making it universal would produce bad results, he rejects it because it is, literally, impossible to make it a universal rule. Kant argues that universalizing the rule for lying would be logically impossible and rationally inconsistent. Think about it.

A lie is an untruth. So, the concept "lie" depends on the concept "truth." Take a minute to think about this because it is a critical point. After all, the only reason a lie is effective is that the person being lied to expects you to tell them the truth. A lie works when the person hearing it accepts it as the truth. Lies and truths are like two sides of a coin.

Now think about the universal rule "Everyone Should Always Lie." It is not just that implementing this universal rule would lead to bad consequences, Kant thinks that such a universal rule is logically impossible. After all, if everyone always lied then there would be no expectation that people would tell the truth. And without this concept of truth-telling, lies become impotent. Lies wouldn't work anymore.

So, Lying breaks the Categorical Imperative. As a general maxim it simply can't be universalized. And, since Kant thinks that moral rules are absolute, he concludes that it is always wrong to lie. Period.

Stealing?

So, you can't lie to Jill. But you still want to keep the $5 so you consider giving the money back to her and then, when she turns around to leave, stealing the $5 from her back pocket. Is this morally acceptable?

Step 1. Determine the Maxim involved. What general rule are you thinking about following? Kant thinks you should formulate the maxim in a very general way...

"Everyone should always steal"

Step 2. The Categorical Imperative tell you that you can only act according to rules that can be made into a universal law. So, think about the general rule you are considering. Can this be a universal law?

The analysis of stealing is similar to that for lying. What does stealing mean? To steal something is to take something that you don't rightfully own. Stealing is taking someone else's property. So, the concept "steal" depends on the concept "rightful ownership." If something is not owned by anyone, then it is impossible to steal it.

What happens if we universalize stealing? Is this logically possible? Kant thinks it isn't. If everyone always steals then nobody would ever acquire things legitimately. Thus, there would be no rightful ownership and if there isn't, then stealing is impossible.

Again, the consequences of universalizing stealing are clearly terrible. But Kant is concerned not with these negative consequences but with the fact that stealing is irrational.

So, Stealing also breaks the Categorical Imperative. As a general maxim it simply can't be universalized. And, since Kant thinks that moral rules are absolute, he concludes that it is always wrong to steal. Period.

In His Own Words:

From Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

[A man] finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that nothing will be lent to him, unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a definite time. He desires to make this promise, but he has still so much conscience as to ask himself: Is it not unlawful and inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty in this way? Suppose, however, that he resolves to do so, then the maxim of his action would be expressed thus: When I think myself in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I never can do so. Now this principle of self - love or of one's own advantage may perhaps be consistent with my whole future welfare; but the question now is, Is it right? I change then the suggestion of self - love into a universal law, and state the question thus: How would it be if my maxim were a universal law? Then I see at once that it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but would necessarily contradict itself. For supposing it to be a universal law that everyone when he thinks himself in a difficulty should be able to promise whatever he pleases, with the purpose of not keeping his promise, the promise itself would become impossible, as well as the end that one might have in view in it, since no one would consider that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all such statements as vain pretences.

Why Can’t We Ignore the Categorical Imperative: Reason

For Kant, our ability to reason is very important. He thinks, along with many other philosophers, that the ability to reason is what sets humans apart from all other life. Remember St. Thomas Aquinas's idea of Natural Law Theory -- There is a certain order to the universe, certain objective truths that are embedded in the fabric of reality. Human reason can access these truths, thus giving us access to objective knowledge about the universe. It should be clear that Kant's position here would match up nicely with a religious understanding of morality. God created the universe and embedded certain truths into reality. He also gave humans the ability to reason and made sure that, properly applied, this ability to reason would lead humans to discover these important truths.

Kant thought that reason should be a very compelling force for people. After all, if our reasoning ability is what makes us human, then denying the force of our reasoning abilities would be denying our humanity. This is why Kant thought that the Categorical Imperative would be so persuasive. In choosing to ignore the Categorical Imperative, a person was rejecting her own humanity, denying her status as a moral entity. This can be a difficult concept to understand. Recall the hypothetical imperative “you ought to study for exams.” Kant argued that this rule, like all hypothetical imperatives, was contingent on a person’s subjective desires. If you don’t want to pass the exam, the rule to study doesn’t apply to you. The Categorical Imperative (which drives all moral choices) can only be rejected by denying one’s own rationality. In deciding to lie, a person chooses to perform an act which she understands to be logically impossible to universalize. She understands that it is logically impossible for everyone to choose to lie, and so in choosing to lie, she is stepping outside the set of rules which apply to all rational beings.

A Negative Process

The Categorical Imperative is a negative process. That is, it is a sort of test to tell us what is immoral, what we can't do. If something can't be universalized then we are forbidden from doing it.

The Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

Kant presents a second formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Be sure to realize that this is not a second Categorical Imperative, just an alternative way of stating the one Categorical Imperative.

Means and Ends

To understand this second formulation, it is important to understand the difference between means and ends. We've all heard of using something as a means to an end. For instance, someone might buy a treadmill as a means to attain the end they want, getting in shape. The means (the treadmill) is only important because it offers a way to get what we really want, the end (getting in shape). Clearly the end is more important than the means. No matter what the particulars are, the end is always more important than the means.

The Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

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

Think about what this means. You must always treat humans (yourself and other people) as ends and never only as means to an end. Why must we always treat people as ends? Kant thought that all humans had an innate dignity that demanded our attention. Since all humans have the ability to reason, we are all equal in the only way that really matters. Our ability to reason and the realization that all humans are equal, leads to our understanding that a human being is the most important, valuable thing on Earth.

Why is it wrong to treat a person as a means to an end? Consider this example.

Suppose I really want a job at Acme Inc. Luckily, I know that the CEO's administrative assistant hangs out a certain coffee house. So, I 'just happen' to be at the coffee house when the admin assistant is there. I strike up a few conversations with her and ask her out on a date even though I am not really attracted to her and don't even really like her. She finds out that I am looking for a job and happily talks me up to her boss. After I get the job I stop calling her.

I've used this person as a means to an end. What I really wanted was the job and I used a person as a stepping-stone to get what I wanted. I valued the job more than I valued the person. Kant would say this is immoral behavior.

Part 12: In His Own Words:

From Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)

Now I say: man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions, whether they concern himself or other rational beings,
must be always regarded at the same time as an end. All objects of the inclinations have only a conditional worth, for if the inclinations and the wants founded on them did not exist, then their object would be without value.

But the inclinations themselves being sources of want, are so are from having an absolute worth for which they should be desired, that on the contrary it must be the universal wish of every rational being to be wholly free from them. Thus the worth of any object which is to be acquired by our action is always conditional. Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature's, have nevertheless, if they are irrational beings, only a relative value as means, and are therefore called things; rational beings, on the contrary, are called persons, because their very nature points them out as ends in themselves, that is as something which must not be used merely as means, and so far therefore restricts freedom of action (and is an object of respect). These, therefore, are not merely subjective ends whose existence has a worth for us as an effect of our action but objective ends, that is things whose existence is an end in itself: an end moreover for which no other can be substituted, which they should subserve merely as means, for otherwise nothing whatever would possess absolute worth; but if all worth were conditioned and therefore contingent, then there would be no supreme practical principle of
reason whatever.

If then there is a supreme practical principle or, in respect of the human will, a categorical imperative, it must be one which, being drawn from the conception of that which is necessarily an end for every one because it is an end in itself, constitutes an objective principle of will, and can therefore serve as a universal practical law. The foundation of this principle is: rational nature exists as an end in itself. Man necessarily conceives his own existence as being so; so far then this is a subjective principle of human actions. But every other rational being regards its existence similarly, just on the same rational principle that holds for me: so that it is at the same time an objective principle, from which as a supreme practical law all laws of the will must be capable of being deduced. Accordingly the practical imperative will be as follows: So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only. We will now inquire whether this can be practically carried out.

If you just skipped past the above quote from Kant, you should go back and read it. I’ve just offered you a hypothetical imperative. If you want to understand Kantian Deontology, then you should take the time to read and carefully consider this quote. So, this hypothetical imperative doesn’t apply if you don’t want to understand Kant.

Stealing and Lying Revisited

To get a better understanding of this formulation of the Categorical Imperative, let's review the scenario of the owing our friend $5.

The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative told us that lying was wrong because it could not be universalized. How does the second formulation deal with this case? Is lying to someone treating them as a means to and end? Clearly it is. The reason to lie to the person is that I value the $5 more than I value the person. If I valued the person (as a rational human being with free will) I would simply tell the person that I need to keep the $5 and let them use their own rationality and free will to decide if they wanted to let me keep the money.

A Little White Lie?

What about a case where we tell a 'little white lie?' You know, your significant other asks whether they look fat and you tell them "of course not" when, in fact, they do look a little chubby. What's wrong with this? Kant would say that telling a person a little white lie to protect their feelings is using them as a means to an end. Obviously you don't consider the person to be capable of handling the truth. You think that you can handle knowing that they look fat, but that you need to protect them by lying to them. This is certainly not a way to respect the person as a rational moral agent.

You might choose not to come right out and tell them that they look fat as long as they don't ask. But you can't lie to the person if they do ask.

Good Intention

So, according to Immanuel Kant, it is always morally wrong to break the Categorical Imperative. It is always wrong to do something that can't be rationally universalized. This negative aspect of Kant is quite clear, if you want to make sure to never do anything morally wrong, just never break the Categorical Imperative. How, then, does Kant analyze morally good acts?

I walk outside to get the paper and notice my neighbor about to fix a flat tire on her car. It is raining and my neighbor is dressed nicely, on her way to work. I decide to fix her tire for her. How would Kant analyze this scenario?

First, let's make sure such an act is morally permissible. How does the Categorical Imperative apply here? Well, the general rule I am about to apply is something like "Everyone should always help their neighbor when they can." Is this something that can be rationally universalized? Yes. It is not illogical and it doesn't lead to any rational inconsistencies. So, helping a neighbor fix a tire is not immoral.

But, be sure to note that the fact that the act can be universalized does not necessarily mean I am morally obligated to do it. The Categorical Imperative doesn't work this way. Again, it is very good at telling us what we can't do, but not quite as good at telling us what we should do.

So, am I a morally good person for helping my neighbor? From what we know at present, Kant would say we couldn’t decide. We must know what my reasons for helping are. What is motivating me to help?

Motivation

Morality

I feel sorry for my neighbor.

Helping her fix her tire is a morally neutral act, not a morally good act.

I know that if I help her she will bake me an apple pie.

Helping her fix her tire is a morally neutral act, not a morally good act.

I help simply from a sense of moral duty.

Helping her fix her time is a morally good act; I should be praised as a morally good person.

For Kant the only motivation that makes an action morally good is a motivation from duty. Kant calls this sort of motivation Good Will. Why does he think this? Consider the two morally neutral cases. Remember that Kant believes that morality is absolute and that moral actions can never be based on one's subjective desires. If my reason for helping is a feeling of pity, then Kant would argue that this is not a moral reason since, next time, I might not feel pity and, consequently I wouldn't help her. Similarly, if my neighbor wasn't such a good cook I might not desire to help her. Acting strictly from a sense of duty is not dependent on my desires, it is done simply because that is what morality (reason) dictates.

Again we can contrast Kant's theory with Utilitarianism. Based on the consequences, the utilitarian would say that each of the cases above results in a morally good outcome. The reason I help my neighbor is irrelevant.

Kant's focus on intention seems to square up well with our moral intuition in many cases. Consider another case.

A wealthy CEO donates $25 million dollars to the college she graduated from. The money will allow the college to build a state of the art computer engineering building, pay for two endowed professorships, and fund 10 full-ride scholarships for minority students interested in studying computer engineering. Should she be praised as a morally good person?

Again, how would a utilitarian analyze this? The consequences are clearly good so the action is good and the person doing it is good too. Kant would ask, "Why did she give the money?" Maybe she gave the $25 million for tax purposes. Maybe she wanted people to think well of her. Maybe she wanted her company to benefit from the good press and be remembered each time someone saw her company's name on the side of the building. Or maybe she did it purely from a sense of duty, from Good Will. In any case, giving the money is not morally wrong. However, to determine if it is a morally neutral act or a morally good act, we would need to know her motivation.