Kant's Foundation of Morality
...urn our attention briefly to Aristotle. This should help those of you who are adverse to logic understand this idea a bit better. According to Aristotle, any given thing is composed of a form and a matter. The matter is the material, the parts, from which it is made. The form of a thing is its functional arrangement. That is, it is the arrangement of the matter or of the parts that enables a thing to serve its purpose, to do whatever it does. For example—the purpose of an acorn is to create a tree. It’s matter is whatever it is made of. It’s form is the way in which its matter is arranged—an arrangement that enables it to turn into a tree. The purpose of a gamete is to turn into a person. It’s matter is whatever it is made of—the genes, etc. The form is the arrangement of the matter—an arrangement that enables it to fulfill its purpose. The purpose of an argument is to endorse a true conclusion. The matter, so to speak, of an argument is it’s premises and conclusion. The form is the arrangement of those premises—an arrangement that enables it to endorse some true claim. The purpose of a house is to be a shelter. The matter is the material, or parts, from which it is made. The form is the way the arrangement of the parts—the walls and roof—enables it to serve as a shelter. Join the walls at the corner and put the roof on top and that’s how we keep the weather out. That is the form of a house. So consider the maxim of an action. Since every human action is done for a purpose—a reason—an end—(like to fulfill a desire, for example), every maxim has two parts; the act and the end. The form of the maxim is the arrangement of its parts. Consider Plato’s famous example of three maxims: (a) I will keep my weapon because I want it for myself. (b) I will refuse to return your weapon, because I want it for myself. (c) I will refuse to return your weapon, because you have gone mad and may hurt someone. Maxims (a) and (c) are good and (b) is bad. What makes them so? Certainly not the actions, for (b) and (c) have the same actions and one is good and one is bad. It is not the purpose either, for maxims (a) and (b) have the same reason and one is good and one is bad. The goodness does not depend on the parts, but rather on the way in which the parts are related or combined. The goodness depends not on the matter, but on the form. But the form is not merely an arrangement of parts, it is an arrangement of parts so that it can fulfill some purpose. The walls and roof are joined in a certain way SO THAT the building can keep the weather out. Likewise, if the act and purpose (reason) are related to one another SO THAT the maxim can be willed to be a law, then the maxim is good. And Kant reasons that if the categorical imperative is valid at all, it is universally valid-- it admits of no exceptions. This is the mark of formal or a priori principles-- like mathematics-- 2 + 3 = 5 is true everywhere, every time, for everyone. So what is the formal feature our maxims must have in order to be willed as a law—a moral principle? This is where the categorical imperative fits in. The categorical imperative specifies the formal feature our maxims must have. Now I mentioned that there is only one categorical imperative— although Kant gives it to us in three different forms. What all these forms have in common is this: The CI, in any of its forms, specifies that moral imperatives or duties are laws of the Kingdom of Ends—the republic of all rational beings. We can only act on maxims that all rational beings could agree to act on together in a workable cooperative system. And we can test whether a maxim can become a moral law for the kingdom of ends by seeing whether there is any contradiction in willing it as a law which all rational beings could agree to act on together. Basically the idea is this. I mentioned last time that when you deliberate—sit and decide what to do—there is something over and above your desires which chooses which desire to act upon. Something which is you. This means that the principle or law by which you determine your actions is one that you regard as being expressive of yourself. Is this desire constitutive of the kind of person I want to be—or the kind of person I take myself to be—or of who I am? This is the basic idea behind the notion of autonomy—a notion which will play a very large role in this class. Remember my example of wanting to go home with a strange guy from a bar because I am horny. Part of determining whether or not this reason is a good reason depends upon who I think I am or upon who I want to be—the kind of person I take myself to be. And if I do this, I am acting autonomously. Autonomy is commanding yourself to do what you think it would be a good idea to do, but that depends on who you think you are. Of course, we might think of ourselves as someone’s friend or lover, as a member of a family or ethnic group, or a nation. We might think of ourselves as a slave of our passions, in which case we would be a wanton. This idea of autonomy is important because it is connected to the idea of integrity. If we fail to live up to our own standards—if we fail to do the things that we believe express who we are—we lose our identities, our integrity is at stake. Kant claims that in addition to all of these ways of thinking about our identities—which may differ from person to person and hence give us different reasons for acting (hypothetical reasons)— we also all have something in common. We are all rational beings. We realize that we would have none of these other kinds of reasons—reasons that reflect the person we want to be—without the capacity to reason. Reason is the source of our ability to value things. And because of this recognition, we can also think of ourselves as a member of the Kingdom of Ends; as a member of common humanity or as one human being among others who are equally real. The categorical imperative tells us what maxims we can or should act upon by helping us to determine whether our maxims have the right form. And the form is essentially whether a person who conceives of herself as a member of common humanity—the Kingdom of Ends—can will it to be a law. That is, for a maxim to become a moral law—for your particular reason to really be a reason—it must be a maxim that all rational beings could agree to act on together in a workable cooperative system. So the categorical imperative tells us that for our maxims to be moral imperatives—duties—they have to be applicable to all people-- in all worlds. This means that we must be able to will it to be a universal law. This is how Kant gets the first formulation of the categorical imperative-- it is often referred to as the principle of universality or universalizability. This must be unquestionably universal. All we do is ask-- can I will that this action or this choice become a universal law (or its opposite?)? Kant believes that he is just making explicit here what we normally believe. We often say to kids-- how would you like it if everyone did that-- or if your friends did that to you? The mark of immorality is treating yourself as an exception. To say that others must be honest on their tax forms, but not me is to be immoral. There are a few steps to the CI in this formulation. (1) identify your maxim (2) universalize that maxim (3) determine if universalizing it results in a contradiction either in nature or in the will I’ll give you some simple examples of this, and then we will turn to the examples Kant gives and this will give us a greater understanding of what this formulation of the CI is supposed to be about. It is important to keep in mind that this is not about consequences. It is about contradiction. Contradiction-- Principle of noncontradiction-- this principle is claimed to be one of the three basic principles of thought. It states that it is not the case that something both is and is not A at the same time (where A is any identity or characteristic): it is not the case that Fido is brown all over and not brown all over. A and not A. Kant thinks that any maxim that when universalized results in a contradiction cannot be a moral imperative. Suppose that you owe a friend some money and, to your annoyance, he pressures you to repay. So you say to yourself, “you know, if I kill him, I won’t have to repay the debt.” If you are a Kantian, you would universalize your maxim or principle governing the proposed action. What if everyone accomplished her goals by killing someone? Could there be a universal law “everyone ought to kill someone?” This would be an impossible law because if everyone complied with it, there would be no one left to comply with it. It results in a contradiction. In order for there to be such a law (in order for it to have meaning), we must have people to comply with it. But if people do comply with it, people would eventually become extinct. So if we have this as a universal law, we would both need people and not have people-- clearly a contradiction. And since it results in a contradiction, you cannot have this as a universal law. So killing the annoying friend is immoral. You must do something else. What if you repay the five dollars and then steal it back? Imagine a general law stating that “everyone ought always to steal.” This law results in a contradiction, too. In order to steal, people have to have property-- they have to have things that belong to them. But everyone always steals, there can be no property-- only temporary possession (stuff passing from person to person). So in order to have this as a universal law, we would both need to have property, but at the same time there could be no property-- again a contradiction. If you are a Kantian, then, it is beginning to look like you must repay your debt. Now let’s look at Kant’s own examples. As we will see, Kant’s examples are not as general as the ones I just gave. And there is a reason for that which will become evident as we discuss them. Kant gives four examples-- two that describe duties to oneself and two that describe duties to others. Duties to oneself: (a) suicide-- deals with an imperative of duty. This is not the imperative that one ought not to commit suicide under any circumstances-- it is more specific than that. In fact Kant wrote (in another work) that Fredrick the Great, who carried around poison in case he got caught and did take it at one point, may not have done anything immoral. Kant is not being an extremist-- he is not saying in all cases no matter what suicide is wrong. The maxim, if you look, is much more specific than that. (1) identify maxim-- For love of myself, I will make it my principle to shorten my life, if its continuance threatens more evil than it promises pleasure.” (32) (2) universalize that maxim-- out of self-love, everyone should make it their principle to shorten their lives, if its continuance threatens more evil than it promises pleasure. (3) can we will this to become a universal law? Certainly not. Kant thinks that this universal maxim contains an implicit contradiction-- in a world in which self-love leads one to stay alive, it will also lead us to kill ourselves. Our world happens to be such that self-love naturally leads us to do things to prolong and enhance our lives. If this maxim becomes a universal law, then self-love would lead us to kill ourselves. This is contradictory-- due to the nature of our world. Self-love cannot both lead us to prolong and sustain our lives and at the same time lead us to kill ourselves (end our lives). Furthermore, if we do universalize this maxim we would be basically asserting something that would result in the extinction of the human race. Almost every human being has had the experience of believing that their life has more bad than good-- look at the average teenager. This is not a sufficient reason for ending our lives. Duties to others-- (a) deceitful promises-- (32)-- what is crucial is the case this maxim applies to. (1) identify the maxim-- Whenever I believe myself short of money, I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, even though I know that this will never be done. (2) universalize the maxim-- whenever anyone believes . . . (3) can we will this to be universal? Does it result in a contradiction? Yes-- If everyone who believes she needs money-- which we all do at one time or another-- borrowed it knowing that she won’t pay it back, we get a contradiction. No one would lend money-- the whole institution would collapse. This is contradictory due to the nature of our world-- the way that trust is sustained in our world. In order to get people to lend out money, there must be trust. But in order to universalize this maxim, there would be no trust. So to make this work, you would need trust but at the same time undermine trust by deceitful behavior. And if you borrow money anyway, you are treating yourself as an exception and this is immoral. These first two examples are called perfect duties. There are also imperfect duties. The difference between the two is that with imperfect duties there is a choice on how to fulfill them-- the others there is no choice. Not that there is a choice on whether to fulfill the duties-- just a choice on how to fulfill them. The duty not to commit suicide-- either you do it or you don’t-- no choice. Unlike the perfect duties where the contradiction was based on the nature of the world, with imperfect duties, the contradiction will be found within the will. Duty to self-- imperfect duty-- (b) develop talents-- This is an imperfect duty because we can choose which talents to develop. We often have many talents and cannot develop them all. (1) identify maxim-- I want to let my talents rust and devote my life solely to idleness, indulgence, procreation and enjoyment. In other words, I will let my talents rust just to get pleasures. Here, Kant is referring to people who are too lazy to do something worthwhile. (2) universalize it-- every person should let his talents rust and should be bent on devoting his life . . . (32) (3) can we will it to be a universal law? No-- no law of nature prevents us from doing so-- like the cases above-- but we still cannot will it to become a universal law. If we did, we would be willing that humans live at a level inferior to what they are capable of or to what they are designed to be. We would be wasting our lives. This is willing a particular kind of suicide-- not biological, but a mass suicide that consists in letting what is distinctive of humans just rot away. It is a contradiction within ourselves. We are naturally designed to develop our talents-- we are given the characteristics, the ability, etc. and this maxim tells us not to do so. Fourth example-- Duty to others-- imperfect-- (b) helping others-- beneficence-- imperfect because it doesn’t specify who to help-- (1) identify maxim-- I am not going to help anyone who is in need of help and whom I could help if I wanted to. (2) universalize it-- no one should help anyone who is in need . . . (3) does the universalization work? No-- While there is nothing in the laws of nature that would make this contradictory, we still cannot will it. This is because no one would help you when you need it and clearly you cannot will that. It is a contradiction of the will. We all will to be happy and successful. If we will this and no one gets help, then we will something that would be detrimental to the pursuit of happiness. The Second Formulation of the CI-- principle of humanity-- all rational beings including oneself should be treated as ends and not merely as means. Remember what all forms of the CI have in common—that they reflect our awareness that whatever else we take ourselves to be, we take ourselves to be members of a kingdom of ends. That is, we recognize that rationality is indispensable for us to be autonomous, free beings. And as such, Kant claims that we must respect that capacity—the capacity that enables us to choose who we want to be—in all people. What does it mean to treat someone as a means and what does it mean to treat them as an end? Suppose that I need a book returned to the library. I could ask you to please drop it off when you leave. Or I could tell you-- you will drop off this book. The first is using the person as a means and as an end. The second option is using you only as a means. The difference is a matter of respect, of respecting one’s humanity-- an awareness of her intrinsic dignity or integrity. It is respecting her ability to choose what kind of person she wants to be—to choose whether she wants to partake in something. This formulation of the CI tells us not to use another or ourselves merely as a means, but it also has a positive part-- to treat others and ourselves as ends. Kant is simply arguing against using other people as a means to our own ends. He thought that morality entailed the recognition of the dignity of each person as a person. This side of his ethics has widespread practical implications for such issues as sexual relationships, discrimination, informed consent, and death with dignity. People have reason, they have the ability to make choices and to follow through with those choices-- we need to keep this in mind when we make decisions that will affect other people. We need to recognize that people have this ability-- and we need to respect that fact. It is this idea that lies behind our intuitions that people have the right to choose whether they want to have an operation-- even if we believe it is in their best interest. Kant uses the same four examples to illustrate this formulation of the CI. Suicide-- this represents an extreme case of using a human being (one’s self) as a means and not as an end. This is especially evident when we look at the reason for killing oneself as stated in the maxim-- because we expect more dissatisfaction than satisfaction. If we follow this maxim, we are regarding ourselves as a mere means to the end state of satisfaction. We are thinking of avoidance of satisfaction as the ultimate end. We are thinking of ourselves as existing solely to gain pleasure and we are not conscious of our own dignity. As human beings, we are more than mere centers for desire satisfaction, pleasure, and pain. And our dignity depends on recognition of this fact. Frederick the Great-- considering suicide to help country-- this is different because he is sacrificing himself for other beings. (Beneficence-- helping others-- what do we do when two principle conflict?) Third example-- not developing talents-- like the first example, this is done for the sake of pleasure. If we sacrifice our talents, we sacrifice our humanity. Developing talents belongs to the end of human nature. We have an obligation to further our ends. We are not recognizing what we really are-- Second example-- keeping promises-- using a person to get our self out of a tough s...