Kant Study Guide - SolanoPhilosophy



Solano Community College

Critical Thinking & Reasoning

Spring 2017

Kant Study Guide

In his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant famously says, “there is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.” To understand this concept of a good will, why it is called good in itself, and why it can provide a universal foundation for ethics, we have to piece together some of the basic ideas behind his moral philosophy.

Autonomy is the idea of self-legislation. An autonomous person gives laws to himself, or is subject to his own rules. Autonomy does not imply that I can do whatever I want and expect it to be morally good (this would be subjective relativism). An autonomous person is simply someone who chooses their actions of their own accord. Whether or not these actions are good is another question.

According to Kant, an action is good if it is universally accepted. When I act, it is up to me to conform my own personal action with what is good. In his own terms, Kant says that in order for my maxim (my choice of moral actions) to be good, it must accord with the moral law. Because the moral law is to be universal, in order for my maxim to be good, it must be universal as well. So, we get two forms of what Kant calls the categorical imperative:

1) “I should never act except in a such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” I.e., if I can imagine a world such that my action can be undertaken by everyone (universally), then it is good.

2) “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.” I.e., people are not merely means to my ends in life (instruments), but also ends in themselves. This formulation insures the autonomy of every person.

This formulation is called deontological because it is concerned with duty. Duty means that my action is said to be good in itself (in accordance with these two principles) and not as a means to some further end. So, whereas utilitarianism is concerned with the instrumentality of the action (a means to an end, namely, the greatest good for the greatest number), deontological acts are good regardless of the consequences.

Compare the two ideas in this way: a fireman acts out of duty to save a child from a burning building. If he had acted out of desire for fame, the act can be said to be good only in the utilitarian sense (the baby suffered no harm). On Kant’s view, the fame-seeker is using his actions as a means to some end other than respect for the moral law (duty). The act out of duty is categorical because it derives the principle of good from the moral law itself. The act out of fame seeking is hypothetical, because it looks for a means to a specific end.

We can think of the difference between what is hypothetical and what is categorical in this sense: the categorical is concerned with universals. These are things like mathematical truths, which hold true for all time: 2+3=5 (which is true here, on the moon, ten centuries ago, etc.). The hypothetical is concerned with more arbitrary things: events arising from ‘circumstance’. These are things we do out of habit, custom, or on a whim.

The Importance of Respecting Autonomy

In philosophy, it is imperative that we understand ethics first and foremost as a way of dealing with issues relevant to people. The utilitarian view is extremely functional, but disregards the humanity of the people involved. In fact, theoretical utilitarianism does not have to deal exclusively with people. Rather, any ‘material’ or ‘resource’ could be substituted to find the most efficient means of attaining some end (just like in economics). In turn, this means that when people are involved, they are being viewed merely as quantities, and their basic humanity is ignored.

Consider the following scenario:

During the great recession, U.S. taxpayers spent $700 billion dollars in a bailout relief effort to banks. Some executives decided that it was a good idea to use some of this money to give themselves bonuses. It is important for us to see for which reasons each theory sees this as morally wrong.

1) Utilitarians would consider the relative pain and pleasure involved. A handful of people benefited from the bonuses (pleasure) and at least 300 million Americans were directly harmed by them (in the form of having to pay for these bonuses in tax dollars). Indirectly, of course, many more were harmed as a result. Therefore, the action is wrong, because more harm was done than good.

2) Deontologists would consider the act itself. In this case, we can take the first version of the categorical imperative and imagine a world in which everyone took taxpayer money to give themselves bonuses in a time of financial crisis. Obviously, this world would not function, therefore the maxim of action is wrong.

Now consider why these theories differ. The utilitarian views the actions as wrong because they create more harm than good. However, the deontologists recognize that the executives failed to act out of duty. That is, their maxims of action (I ought to give myself taxpayer money) do not accord with the moral law which of necessity must be universal. We could say that they disrespected the autonomy of every single person on whom they had a negative effect. Their actions were not universal, but selfish.

Hence, an autonomous act must conform to universal principles; otherwise it is left in the chaotic realm of relativism, in which everyone does as they see fit. The obvious damage done to society as a whole is the result of a few people deciding that their maxims do not need to conform to the universal moral law. Autonomy as self-legislation must clearly be understood as ‘self-legislation to act in accordance with universal principles’.

“If we change them at our convenience, they aren't principles, they're hobbies.”

-Jon Stewart

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download