123philosophy.files.wordpress.com



Kant and Absolute Moral RulesHow do we justify our moral conduct?Suppose I say, “Instead of paying taxes, I will keep my money and spend it on a vacation, which I greatly deserve.” Perhaps there is no way that I will get caught, and the IRS can survive with or without my stinking two thousand bucks! So I decide to do just that, to keep the money and go on vacation.Most people, perhaps not all, would say that I have done something wrong, or something immoral. So has the person who cheated on her exam and got away with it. So has the politician who deliberately lied to be elected. Now suppose that as a result of my going on vacation I am a better father, worker, and citizen. Suppose the person who cheated on her exam graduated and went on to being a great elementary school teacher known for helping hundreds of underprivileged children get into good schools. And suppose the politician who lied to be elected made great contributions to his fellow citizens. Do these positive outcomes make up for what these individuals have done?Most people will probably say that regardless of the benefits that followed from these people’s actions, their actions are still wrong. They have cheated the system, after all. They have done unjust things, and therefore their actions are morally wrong.Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) thought so! Kant was one of the most brilliant philosophers in history. He developed a theory of morality that can answer the hard question of how to determine right from wrong. That’s quite an achievement!Consistency and FairnessWe might have an intuition about what is wrong with the actions in the examples just given; in each case, the person makes exceptions to some rules that everybody else has to follow. This behavior is inconsistent.The way to appreciate the importance of Kant’s ethics is to survey some of the moral approaches that people usually take. What if everyone did that?How would you like if I did that to you?The end justifies the means.I would never do that because God prohibits it.Consider 1: What if everyone did that? This is taken to mean that if everyone did X, disastrous results would occur. So X is immoral. Imagine the results if everyone cheated on their exams or if every politician lied to be elected or everyone failed to pay taxes. What is everyone did that? Many people believe that this is a sound moral principle and a good way to test the morality of our actions, or is it?Consider a common argument against homosexuality: If everyone did that, the human race would die out since homosexual couples cannot procreate (of course, this does not follow). But that does not show that homosexuality is immoral. Consider priests or heterosexual couples who decide not to have children or men who have decided to remain celibate. You could ask them same question: What if everyone did that? What if everyone decided not to have sex or not to procreate? It would follow that celibacy, priests, and couples that do not want to have children are immoral! But that can’t be right.So asking “What if everyone did that?” is not a reliable way to test the morality of our actions.Let’s consider 2, then: How would you like if I did that to you? This is essentially the golden rule, which states that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. If you wouldn’t want to be lied to, cheated on, etc. then don’t do that to others. In a way, the golden rule asks us to put ourselves into other people’s shoes. Great, right? Kant regarded the golden rule as defective. For example, the rule does not require benevolence to others—it merely says, “Treat others the same as you would like to be treated.” But what if one would like to be maltreated? Consider those people enjoy being humiliated or being hit (masochists). Since they want to be treated that way, the golden rule would permit them to hit others and inflict pain on others. Also, facing the prospect of a severe punishment, a criminal might cry to the judge, “Treat me as you would like to be treated.” Furthermore, consider the problem of the fanatic. Fanatics are individuals who have very strong principles—so strong that they would do anything to accomplish their goals. For example, terrorists often believe so strongly in their cause that they are willing to blow themselves up! So the problem with the golden rule is that it would justify this type of extremism: Imagine you reminded him of the golden rule: “Treat me as you would like to be treated” you would say to him. And he would respond that if the roles were reversed, he would expect you to treat him just as he is treating you. For these reasons, Kant argued that the Golden Rule is incapable of serving as a reliable moral principle. The reason is that the golden rule depends on a person’s desires. And the morality of hitting people or punishing criminals, or any other act, should not depend on a person’s desires. So the golden rule cannot be the ultimate test of morality. What about 3? The end justifies the means. This is, roughly, the principle of utilitarianism: An act is right if and only if its consequences produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Thus, cheating on an exam, lying, stealing, and more, are not wrong acts as such. As long as our actions lead to the best consequences, they are justified. Well, Kant disagreed with this approach, as well. Surely, if I intend to harm you, but by accident I end up benefiting you, it cannot be said that my action was right. But according to the principle “the end justifies the means” my action was morally right! But how can that be right? What kind of a moral principle is that, anyway? A principle that gives importance to the end results rather than the motive. Perhaps 4 can help: I would never do that because God prohibits it. This is a moral view known as the divine right command or simply religious morality. While most religions, typically, teach such principles as love, compassion, friendship, and peace, they often disagree on how to apply these very principles. For one religion doing X might be moral, but for another religion X might be immoral. And considering that there are thousands of religions in the world, which one gives the correct account of right and wrong? Also religious people believe that God is their moral lawgiver and they must obey his laws. But many people do not believe in a god, and therefore do not feel bound by such rules.But there is an even bigger problem lurking: many religious people feel compelled to act in accordance with God’s moral rules because they fear punishment. Suppose your religion requires abstaining from eating your favorite dish. Eating that dish would be ground for punishment. Since you don’t want to be punished, you feel compelled to obey that rule. You would be acting out of fear. In other words, you would be doing the right thing for the wrong reason! What kind of morality is that? A morality based on people obeying rules out of fear? I am not suggesting that religious morality is built upon fear or that religious people obey God’s rules out of fear. Most religious people do not feel compelled to follow rules—but many do. The four moral principles just discussed represent four different approaches to morality, but are by no means the only ones. There are many others, but these four give us a good idea of the difficulties we face in ethics.Kant understood these difficulties and proposed a solution. He believed that his moral approach avoids the issues outlined above. He proposed a principle to test the morality of our actions, which is known as the universalizability principle. And it goes like this:UP: An act is morally permissible only if its maxim can be universalizable. What is a maxim, though? A maxim is the principle that you follow when you choose do act the way you do. For example, if you decided to cheat on your ethics exam (the ultimate unethical thing, some might say), your maxim might be, “I will cheat on my ethics exam so that I will be able to graduate this year.” Notice that a maxim has two components, a statement of what you are about to do and the reason why you want to do it. According to Kant we all act on maxims. These are the rules we live by. Vey important: We all have maxims. Sometimes I ask people why they act the way they act and they say, “I don’t know!” But that’s impossible. At some level, we all follow certain principles. If we don’t, then our actions are random. Moral decisions are not random. Kant believed that the only consistent way to say that an act is right or wrong is to determine whether or not that act conform with or diverge from a maxim. For Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to do with the end results or obeying God’s rules or living by the golden rule. Rather, it has to do with our intentions, i.e., the motive behind our actions—the motive is guided by maxims.You can imagine two people doing the same thing but for different reasons. You dive in a river to rescue one from drowning because they gave you money. You do it because you believe it is the correct thing to do. The utilitarian would say that it does not really matter why you do what you do. What’s really important is, in this case, saving the person. But Kant did not think that’s enough. In order to do the right thing, one must do what is right but for the right reason.If you agree with the utilitarian, you have to say that those who intend to do evil, but by accident end up doing good, do the right thing, which seems inconsistent. But if you agree with Kant, you can consistently say that those who intend to do evil are acting immorally, regardless of the outcome. Also, Kant’s view supports our belief that those who have good intentions, even if their actions lead to undesirable consequences, act morally and should be praised for their actions.When we approach morality this way, morality depends on our maxims, which we can control. If we do something right for the right reason we are acting morally. But if we do something right for the wrong reason, or by accident, then our action won’t count as morally good. So the morality of an action depends on its maxim. But how does it work, exactly?Kant proposes this procedure:STEP 1: Formulate your maxim clearly: State what you intend to do and why.STEP 2: Imagine a world in which everyone lived by that maxim.STEP 3: Then ask, “Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?”If the answer to the question in STEP 3 is “yes” then the maxim is universalizable, and the action is morally permissible. If the answer is “no” then the maxim is not universalizable, and thus the action is not morally permissible.Kant points out that only the maxims that can be universalized are morally acceptable, but he is not concerned about whether or not acting on a maxim is conducive to the greatest good for the greatest number or if God approves of it. He asks whether we could achieve our goals in a world where people uphold our maxims as universal moral laws. Kant argued that this procedure enables us to reliably determine whether or not our actions are morally consistent and fair.Don’t believe me? Try!Supposed you question your civic duties. Your maxim might be, “I will pay my taxes to support the police and firefighters.” Can I universalize this maxim? Let’s test it. Imagine a world in which all citizens acted on my maxim. Would I be able to accomplish my goal? Yes. In fact, if all citizens pay taxes, the police and firefighters will be supported. Thus, using the universalizability test, we can determine that we have a moral obligation to pay taxes.Suppose after a picnic in the park, I say, “I will pick up my trash to keep the park clean.” If all park visitors picked up their trash, then the park would be always clean; that is, if everyone acted on this maxim, I would be able to accomplish my goal to keep the park clean. Since this maxim is universalizable, we know that we have a moral obligation to keep the park clean.Suppose you owe money to Joe and if you don’t pay him back he will break your arms and legs. No one will lend it to you because you have bad credit. I’m your last resort. You come to me, get down on your knees and beg me to lend you the money or else Joe will mess you up. You promise me on the soul of your dead cat Fluffy that you will pay me back; you don’t actually intend to pay me back, though. You have just made what Kant calls a lying promise. Now, the question is, are you justified in making a false promise to save your life? Let’s test it: your maxim might be something like this: “Whenever I need a loan, I will promise to repay it even if I don’t intend to do so to save my life.” Is this maxim universalizable? Imagine a world in which everyone lived by your maxim. Could you achieve your goal in such a world? Obviously not. Your maxim would be self-defeating. Namely, your goal is to save your life, but you would not be able to do it! In fact, in a world in which your maxim becomes a universal law, no one would believe such promises, and so no one would be so crazy as to lend you money—and Joe would mess you up!Another example: Suppose you refuse to help others because you don’t think you have a moral obligation to do so. Your maxim might be “Just like I worry about myself, let each person worry about himself or herself.” But once again, if this were a universal law, you would not be able to accomplish your goals because at some point in your life you will need the help of others, but because they follow your maxim, they will turn away from you. So according to the universalizability principle, we can test any maxim. If the maxim turns out to be self-defeating then we have a moral obligation to avoid that. By self-defeating it is meant that acting on your maxim would not enable you to accomplish your goal. So in the cases just considered, Kant’s principle tells us that we have a moral duty to help others, and a moral duty to keep our promises.What follows from this is that acting morally is equivalent to acting rationally. And acting immorally is acting irrationally. Our moral duties are actions according to reason.But is Kant right about this? What about those people who are perfectly rational but just refuse to comply with the right maxims? Imagine a person who understands that what he’s about to do is immoral but does not care. Is he irrational?Suppose this person reasons as follows: People have a reason to do something only if doing it will get them what they want.Acting according to one’s moral duties often fails to get people what they want. So people sometimes do not have a reason to do their moral duty. If people lack reasons to do their moral duties, then violating their duties is perfectly rational. Therefore, it is perfectly rational to violate one’s moral duty.But according to Kant if you have reasons to do something, then whether you like it or not, you must do it, even if you suffer as a result.Kant then makes an important distinction to explain why the argument just given above seems valid. He explains this by making a distinction between what he calls hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives.When we test our maxims, as you recall, we ask whether the goal of our action can be achieved; we ask if a certain maxim will get us what we care about. But not all maxims are of the same nature. Hypothetical imperatives tell us what we need to do in order to achieve our personal goals. For example, if I want a big job, I must get a college degree, and if I want to lose weight I must eat better, and so on. In order to accomplish such goals I have to do what is needed, and not doing so will be irrational. But what if I decide not to get a big job or not to lose weight? If my desires change, then it is no longer rational for me to follow certain maxims. These commands of reason depend entirely on what I want. But not all rational requirements are like these!There are, in addition to hypothetical imperatives of reason, what Kant calls categorical imperatives. These requirements do not depend on what I care about. They are categorical because they apply to everyone who possesses reason—everyone who is capable of reflecting on his or her actions and understanding the importance of certain universal principles. This is why Kant does not regard animals as moral agents—because animals, as intelligent as we might think they are, are ultimately driven by their wants and instincts and not by reason.Unlike hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives are not based on what I want. So one could never change her mind about the commands of categorical imperatives. Doing so would be always irrational. Consequently, we must obey these commands even if we don’t like it. The reason is simple. Remember what Kant says about the golden rule? That it is not reliable because it depends on our personal desires. So imagine you feel compassionate today and you desire to help a homeless person by giving him a meal, clean clothes, and some money. Kant would argue that despite doing something nice, your action cannot be considered right because you acted from your personal feelings. What’s wrong with that? Suppose instead that you wake up?on the?wrong?side of bed this morning; and you don’t feel very happy and compassionate. In this case you might not feel inclined to help the homeless. But what kind of morality is one that depends on how we feel? If we relied upon our personal feelings to determine the morality of our actions, we would not be consistent in our moral decisions because our feelings are subject to change. A morality that relies upon our personal feelings is unreliable and inconsistent. Therefore, right moral duties must categorical imperatives.Three FormulationsSo far, we have discussed the Universalizability Principle. To be complete, Kant’s system requires additional components. The maxims that are universalizable must be considered with respect to all rational beings. Rational beings are “the basis of all maxims of action” and must be treated never as a mere means but always as ends. In other words, all rational beings must never be exploited for personal gain.What makes a being rational? Freedom and his capacity to freely understand the importance of the moral law. A rational being can do the universalizability test and enforcing duty. A Martian who is capable of freely reflecting and acting on maxims is rational. Animals cannot do that. Also small children, the senile, people with severe mental disabilities (the so-called “marginal cases”) are not rational!

Also, Kant’s proposes the idea of moral autonomy: All rational beings have authority over their actions. Rather than political leaders, priests, or society, Kant argues that it is the will that determine its guiding principles for itself. Rational beings, thus, are self-governed. Kant calls this autonomy. Furthermore, all maxims must harmonize with a hypothetical Kingdom of Ends. This means that we should act in such a way that we may think of ourselves as “members in the universal realm of ends”. So our maxims (the ways we live by, the rules we act on) must harmonize with all individuals who are included in the Kingdom of Ends, all rational beings.And consequently, we have a direct moral duty to the citizens of the kingdom of ends.This also means, for example, we do not have direct moral obligations to treat animals nicely.

Problems With the Universalizability PrincipleKant argues that if my maxim can be universalized, I have a guarantee that my action is right, and thus morally permissible.But it seems as though we can act on universalizable maxims and still do wrong.Consider this example:When a thief robs a bank to gain money, Kant can show that the thief is acting irrationally because in a world in which everyone robbed banks, banks would run out of money. And consequently, the goal of the thief could not be achieved. But what if the thief’s goal is to put the bank out of business? Well, strangely enough, if everyone acted on the thief’s maxim, the thief’s goal could be achieved. So Kant’s principle would permit bank robbery, but that’s wrong!Consider Hitler’s maxim: “I will destroy all non-Aryans to achieve an Aryan world.” Can Hitler’s maxim become a universal maxim? Let see: Imagine a word in which everyone lived by that maxim. Could Hitler accomplish his goal? Yes! If everyone destroyed all non-Aryans, only Aryans would populate the world; and thus Hitler’s goal could be accomplished. But it gets worse!Suppose you must lie to save someone’s life. Suppose, for example, that during the Holocaust, you are hiding some Jews in your basement. A group of Nazi soldiers knock on your door. You open the door and they ask, “Are you hiding any Jews in your house?” Should you lie to save the lives of those Jews or should you tell the truth? Kant would reason as follows:We should act only on those maxims that can be universalized.If you lied to the Nazis, you would be following the maxim, “It is permissible to lie.”But this maxim could not be universalized because a world in which everyone lived by that maxim, people would stop believing one another, and then it would be impossible to lie. So your goal could not be achieved.Therefore, you must not lie to the Nazis.Wait, what just happened? Kant told us that we must never lie, not even to protect the lives of innocent people! Well, if Kant is right, then whether we like it or not, we must never lie—even in such a situation. But is he right? Here is the problem: Why should you ask whether it is permissible to lie? Why should you phrase your maxim like that? Who decides? Perhaps you should phrase it this way: “I will lie when doing so would save someone’s life.” Or this way: “I will lie to prevent the death of innocent people.” Now these maxims would not be self-defeating. Imagine a world in which everyone lived by them. We all want that, don’t we? We hope that everyone would live by these maxims. Kant was confronted by this objection and responded in an essay with the title “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives” (1797). His argument can be stated as follows: We are tempted to make certain exceptions that would make lying permissible. But when we do it we are reasoning like the utilitarian—we assume that the end justifies the means. However, we cannot possibly know what the consequences of our actions will be. Suppose that as the Nazis are about to leave your house, they hear a noise coming from the basement. Now they go down to the basement and kill all the Jews who are hiding there—and when they come back upstairs they also kill you because you lied to them. So making exceptions to rules might be unexpectedly worse than following them. That’s why we should never try to determine the morality of our actions on the basis of their consequences. The problem with this argument, however, is quite evident. Sometimes we can know what the consequences will be. We do that all the time: We lock doors and shut windows to prevent burglars from entering our apartments; we don’t tell a friends that he is a terrible singer to avoid hurting his feelings; But at any rate, even if we don’t know what the consequences will be, it seems surprising that a philosopher of Kant’s caliber did not realize that lying with the intent to save people’s lives is worth the risk—and moreover, it is what any individual with moral integrity would do. After all, Kant was concerned about consistency and fairness, which might require that we act in such a way as to protect other people’s lives. That seems to be the point of Kant, that we do the right thing for the right reason. If I tell the truth because I fear punishment or I am under compulsion, surely I am doing the right thing but for the wrong reason. But if I lie to save people’s lives, it would seem that I do what is right for the right reason. For Kant, once we have identified the correct maxim, that tells us that we have an obligation to act on it—whether you like it or not.

Suppose you are in the hospital recovering from an illness. I come to visit you and you are delighted to have some company. You thank me for coming and I say to you I’m just doing my duty. I’m not visiting you because I love you or I feel compassionate, but rather because I have a moral duty to do it—a categorical one.You would be very disappointed. I am doing the right thing, but something’s missing. Furthermore, who’s going to motivate me? At one point my duty will be something that I don’t want or don’t enjoy doing. Well, Kant says you would be irrational. Okay, but who cares? What if I understand this but I just don’t want to do it. Kant’s ethics leaves us with a bunch of impersonal, objective, legalistic rules.

ConclusionKant believed that we must follow absolute moral rules dictated by reason, which he called categorical imperatives. These rules, according to Kant can never be broken—there can be no exceptions. Breaking rules = acting irrationally.But which rules are we to follow? Well, those that pass the test of universalizability. Unfortunately, the most telling problem is to decide how to formulate, how to phrase, our maxims. It is not entirely clear, for example, why my maxim should be “It is okay to lie” instead of “I will do whatever is in my power to save the life of other rational beings.” Kant certainly did not give us a clear way to determine this.Consequently, it is difficult to defend the idea of absolute moral rules. And so Kant’s theory seems fatally flawed. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download