Kantianism
...ll other rational beings as well, regardless of their desires. Kant illustrates the significance of reason’s priority over our desires and inclinations in Section I of the Groundwork. There he compares four cases of action: 1) Action done contrary to duty. 2) Actions done in accordance with duty, but out of secondary inclination. 3) Actions done in accordance with duty, but out of immediate inclination. 4) Actions done in accordance with duty and out of respect for the moral law, either in the absence of inclination or in overcoming contrary inclination. To make these cases more concrete, consider: 1) The nurse who lies to her patient about his terminal condition. 2) The nurse who tells her patient the truth, but does so because she doesn’t want to face legal challenges regarding violation of informed consent. 3) The nurse who tells her patient the truth, but does so because she cares about her patient. 4) The nurse who tells the patient the truth because she recognizes it is her moral duty to do so, even though she is strongly inclined to lie to him. Kant claims that only case 4 is representative of a person with a truly good will. Any action done from inclination, even in accordance with duty, lacks moral worth. Where do these categorical imperatives come from such that they are universally binding on all rational beings? How do we get these special reasons? For Kant, these imperatives stem from an objective moral law. But this law is to be found neither by looking around at the world, nor by divine revelation (i.e., Kant is neither a naturalist nor a divine command theorist). There is no external source of authority regarding right action on the Kantian view. Rather, and this is a profound move in the history of ethics, each person’s faculty of reason legislates universally binding moral law for itself (and, at the same time, everyone else). Kant discusses the Categorical Imperative in a number of different ways. I will focus on two of them. 1) Formula of universal law: Act only on that maxim whereby one can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. The formula of universal law places a formal condition on what counts as a good intention. It must be the case that one’s intention is universalizable. This means that everyone else must be able to formulate and act on the same intention without inconsistency or absurdity. The universalizability criterion restricts us from making exemptions for ourselves. 2) Formula of the end in itself: Act so as to treat humanity, whether in one’s own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end, never as a means only. Behind the formula of the end in itself are a number of important ideas. First, the inherent dignity of human beings regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, sexual persuasion, hair color, socioeconomic position, etc. What gives human beings this inherent dignity? Rational autonomy = The ability to deliberate and choose on the basis of reasons and in conformity with the moral law, without being interfered with by “outside” influences, such as the actions of others, or our own non-rational desires and inclinations. Human beings have no exchange value, no market price, because they are bearers of rational autonomy. 1) Rational, autonomous (RA) beings are ends in themselves and have intrinsic value or dignity. 2) Treating others simply as means (i.e., tools, instruments, things to be used) makes it impossible for others to make RA decisions. 3) Hence, treating others simply as means violates the dignity of RA beings. This formula rules out (primarily, a least) force, threat, manipulation, deception, and coercion. When we deceive or coerce others we treat them as if they were less than fully autonomous, rational beings. Let’s consider a few cases: 1) You are in private medical practice and have many longstanding patients. Mr. M. is one of them. He is 39; he is fit and healthy. He is also a hypochondriac. Normally, when he asks you very well researched questions about his condition and your prognosis of it, you are tolerant and cooperative, spending more than average time with him. Though you are sometimes tempted to give in to his desire to medicate, you have not done so. At his next visit, you decide to put the placebo effect to the test. He has been complaining about headaches on and off for a few months now, but visits to his acupuncturist and chiropractor have not helped and yet his neurological exams have shown nothing abnormal. As yo...