Kantian Ethics

Recall the distinction between consequentialist and anti-consequentialist theories:

• Consequentialist theories hold that the only thing that matters, ethically speaking, for an act, is its consequences.
• Anti-consequentialists hold that other things matter besides consequences (intentions, rights, etc.).

Kantian Ethics

We have discussed many problems with utilitarianism (consequentialist theory):

• No respect for individual rights.
• Anything can be justified if it has good enough consequences.

Examples:

• the atomic bomb (???)
• torture

The Categorical Imperative

Kant's central moral principle is known as the "Categorical Imperative."

Let's break that down

• Imperative = a command, instruction, rule of action, etc.

The Categorical Imperative

Two kinds of imperatives (rules):

• Hypothetical imperative: A rule which tells you what to do IF you want to achieve some end.
• Categorical imperative: A rule which tells you what is permitted/prohibited ABSOLUTELY.

The Categorical Imperative

Examples:

• If you want to be a doctor, you should study medicine. (hypothetical)
• If you want to steal some money, you should make sure you don't get caught. (hypothetical)
   
• You should not steal. (categorical)
• You should give money to charity. (categorical)

The Categorical Imperative

Morality is about categorical imperatives.

• Think of the Ten Commandments

"Thou shalt not kill"
vs
"Thou shalt not kill (if thou wishes not to go to jail)."

The Categorical Imperative

Kant's Categorical Imperative

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

The Categorical Imperative

How to apply the Categorical Imperative

Suppose I want to do X. Is X right or wrong?

The Categorical Imperative

1. Come up with a maxim (rule) governing X.
2. Try to universalize the rule (imagine if everyone followed that rule).
3. Is it possible for the rule to be universalized?​

          NO                                            

The action is IMMORAL

4. Can you WILL that the rule be a universal rule?

YES

NO                               YES

IMMORAL

MORAL

The Categorical Imperative

There two ways that an action can violate the Categorical Imperative:

1. It is impossible/contradictory to universalize the action. (I.e., trying to make the rule universal results in a "breakdown" in the act itself.)
2. The action is a possible universal rule, but I cannot will that it be so, because doing so conflicts with other things that I will

Thus, violating the Categorical Imperative results in a self-contradictory will (irrational).

The Categorical Imperative

First kind of case: Lying

• Kant claims that lying violates the Categorical Imperative because it is impossible for lying to be universal.
• This is what I mean by a "breakdown" in the rule.
• This is an important argument which has application outside of philosophy (e.g. evolutionary biology - animal signaling).

The Categorical Imperative

First kind of case: Lying

1. Lying requires a general mutual presumption of truth-telling. (I cannot really lie to you if we both know that I'm not going to tell the truth anyway.)
2. If everyone is regularly lying, then this presumption will disappear.
3. In that case, it won't even be possible to lie.

• Think about the "boy who cried wolf."

The Categorical Imperative

Second kind of case: Not giving to charity

1. If nobody gave to charity, would that result in a breakdown/contradiction in the act itself? No.
2. Can I will that not giving to charity be a universal law? No.
   "For at some time in the future, I myself will need the help of others, and I will not want them to turn away." (Rachels)

The Categorical Imperative

PROBLEMS

Kant's moral rules are really absolute.

• If lying violates the Categorical Imperative, then it is never morally justified.
• This simply does not seem right. Is it ever acceptable to lie?

The Categorical Imperative

PROBLEMS

Rules are "ambiguous"

• Every action can be thought of as conforming to a number of different rules.
• These rules might not have the same status with respect to the Categorical Imperative.

The Categorical Imperative

PROBLEMS

Rules may conflict in the same situation

• What if two moral rules conflict?
  (ex. Lying vs. protecting an innocent person's life)

• Perhaps God would not allow this to happen. (Geach)

The Practical Imperative

Kant offered another principle complementary to the Categorical Imperative

Treat other human beings always as an end, and never as a means only.

• The defining feature of human beings is their rational agency.
• So, it is wrong to violate another person's autonomy.

The Practical Imperative

• An end is something that has "intrinsic value" or value for its own sake.
• A means is something which is only valuable because it enables you to do/get something else.

• Notice that it is acceptable to treat other humans as means to an end (e.g. store clerks), as long as you always respect their humanity/autonomy/agency.

The Practical Imperative

• The Categorical Imperative and Practical Imperative are supposed to be roughly equivalent, but one may be more relevant to a particular situation than the other.

The Justice System

Two Conceptions of Justice

• Retributive Justice: The point of justice is to give criminals "what they deserve," i.e., if someone commits a crime, then justice/fairness dictates that they must be punished through suffering.
• Restorative/Rehabilitative Justice: The point of justice is reduce criminality, and rehabilitate criminals to pro-social members of society.

The Justice System

Two Conceptions of Justice

• Utilitarianism clearly prefers a restorative system of justice - punishing people who have done wrong has no intrinsic value.
• However, Kant preferred a retributive system.
• He claimed that restorative justice does not respect other people's autonomy.

The Justice System

Two Conceptions of Justice

• Which of these systems of justice do you think is best?
• Which of these systems does the United States actually practice?