# Kantian Deontology ### "Do your duty"

**Kantianism: Do your duty** 1. Kantianism is the thesis that "The good will obeys the moral law for morality's sake." 2. Kantianism is sometimes known as "duty-based" ethics or "deontology." 3. It's named after Immanuel Kant. 4. It has ancient roots in the Stoics. 5. The only good thing is the good will. 6. The moral law is "the categorical imperative." 7. The categorical imperative can be formulated in several ways: 8. Do only what you can will to be a universal law. 9. Always treat humans as ends in themselves, not means to an end. 10. Many good wills together form the kingdom of ends.

### 1. "The good will obeys the moral law for morality's sake." - Unlike Mill, Kant argued that one should do the right thing regardless of consequences. - Example 1: If one could get a job kicking puppies, even though having money is great, it would still be wrong to kick puppies. - Example 2: Even if giving grandma a suicide pill would prevent pain and suffering and indignity, it is still wrong to kill grandma.

### 1. "The good will obeys the moral law for morality's sake." - Furthermore, one should do the right thing only because it is the right thing. - Example 3: Even if rescuing the puppy will get you a $50 reward, you should just rescue the puppy because it's the right thing to do. - Example 4: Even if being an honest businessman will earn your more clients and more money in the end, you should be honest becuase it's your duty.

### 2. Kantianism is sometimes known as "duty-based" ethics or "deontology." * Moral obligation is duty; duty is moral obligation * Greek for duty is "deon-", hence "deontology" * Duties are phrased in imperatives or commands: household duties ("Take out the trash"); social duties ("respect your elders"); and legal duties ("do not steal") * Deontology teaches that there is one ultimate moral duty * Duty = moral law = categorical imperative

**3. "Kantian deontology" is named after Immanuel Kant.**  - Prussian (German) philosopher, Immanual Kant (1724-1804) wrote *Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals* and *Critique of Practical Reason* in 1785.

**3. "Kantian deontology" is named after Immanuel Kant.** Kant was an advocate and early adopter of the Enlightenment: the radical commitment to think for oneself. His moral theory is rooted in the nature of rationality itself.

### 4. Kantian deontology has ancient roots in the Stoics. "From their determinism the Stoics deduced the consequences of our actions are out of our control, so they (the consequences) cannot be the grounds of moral value. We need not only recognize by reasoning that *what happens is for the best*, but also we have a "*duty*" to play our part in bringing it about as best we can. The nature of moral value thus lies in being motivated by a sense of *a duty to play your part as well as you can in the cosmic drama*." [(Link)](http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/stoicism.html#4.%20The%20Stoic%20position%20in%20ethics%20is%20a%20deontological)

### 5. The only good thing is the good will. >"The only thing good without qualification is a good will: Take anything you wish which is generally good or valuable (such as money, intelligence, happiness), and one can always think of an example where what is generally good is bad (e.g., one uses money to buy poison, the intelligence is used by the evil genius, one's happiness leads to a sense of superiority and complacency). The one exception to this, thinks Kant, is having a good will, or an intent to do one's duty. This is always good, intrinsically, even if a person fails in accomplishing their end, or brings about bad consequences."

### 6. The moral law is "the categorical imperative." - The moral law is a categorical imperative, such as: "Do your duty." - It is not indicative, but imperative: 1. **Indicative**: people who exercise are healthy. 2. **Imperative**: Keep your hands and arms inside the vehicle at all times.

### 6. The moral law is "the categorical imperative." - It is not hypothetical, but categorical. 1. **Hypothetical imperative**: If you want to live long, exercise daily. 2. **Categorical imperative**: Exercise daily!

### 6. The moral law is "the categorical imperative. - Example: "If you want to be nice, do not set the guests on fire." What if I don't want to be nice? It's still my moral duty not to crisp the guests. - So that is that the moral law tells you: *Do your duty.* The content of your duty does not depend on your prior wants, needs, preferences, or anything. So what exactly is your duty?

### 7. The categorical imperative can be formulated in several ways. 1. **Universal law:** Do only what you can will to be a universal law. 2. **Humanity as End:** Always treat humans as ends in themselves. What do these mean?

### 8. Do only what you can will to be a universal law. - Kant says: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (G 4:421) * What is a maxim? A "maxim" is a plan of action in a particular circumstance, such as "when you're on a bus, and there are no seats left for an old lady, stand up and give her your seat."

### 8. Do only what you can will to be a universal law. * What is a law? A law is a universal maxim: "always be generous." - This formulation, then, tells you to make your maxim of action something you could *also* will to be a universal law, without contradiction.

### 8. Do only what you can will to be a universal law. - How can a maxim contradict a law? - Example: take stealing. You intend to steal an iPhone. To steal is to take someone else's private property and claim it as your own. So you intend to eliminate private property. At the same time, you intend to keep the iPhone as your own private property. You intend to preserve private property. - To steal is to intend *both* that private property not exist and that it exist. That is irrational. What is wrong is irrational.

### 8. Do only what you can will to be a universal law. - Rationality cannot contradict itself. You cannot believe dinosaurs never existed and believe dinosaurs once existed. - Practical rationality cannot contradict itself, either.

### 2 minutes left * Questions? * Write a short response: is Kantian deontology clear? plausible? * Review remaining

# Week 04: Kantian Deontology, cont'd

### 9. Always treat humans as ends in themselves, not means to an end. - Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative or moral law is this: “We should never act in such a way that we treat Humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself” [ p.36] - In other words, treat other people as *ends in themselves*. Don't use people as means. Is he arguing that you can't use other people, like the grocery store clerk or mechanic? No. You can treat someone as a means, but not *merely* as a means. When you "use" the mechanic, you also pay them. Paying them for their service is a way of treating them as an end in them selves.

### 9. Humans as Ends But how could it be that there are categorical imperatives, or rules that we must follow regardless of the ends? Kant’s answer—the basis of the categorical imperative is that there are entities with absolute value—namely, persons. Things that do not have absolute value have conditional value, and are a means to a further end, not ends-in-themselves. Money, food, planets, hybrid cars: none of these are absolutely valuable. They have a price, and a worth, but this is determined by their usefulness or end. Persons do not have a price. They have absolute value.

### 10. Many good wills together form the kingdom of ends. The ‘Kingdom of Ends’ is a systematic union of all rational beings in a community who regard each other as they properly are—ends-in-themselves with absolute value.

### 10. Many good wills together form the kingdom of ends. In such a hypothetical community, every person regards every other person as of equal value as themselves. One way of looking at the fourth version of the CI based on this idea is that we ought to always act as if we are in this ideal community, even though, of course, we are not. We should not act morally only on the condition that other people do—we ought to act as if we are already in this ideal community.

### 10. Many good wills together form the kingdom of ends. Why? For starters, it’s more likely that it will come about. But, Kant does not think that we ought to be motivated by consequences, utopian or otherwise. We ought to act this way because we in fact are a systematic union of rational beings in a community which have equal and absolute value.

### How Kantianism works When you are in a context where you are wondering what to do, and want to know whether a certain action you are considering doing is right or wrong, you perform the following procedure:

### How Kantianism works 1. Clearly formulate which maxim or rule of action you are intending to follow. [for instance, “Whenever I need money, attempt to secure a loan and promise to pay it back, even when I know that I cannot.”] 2. Then reformulate your maxim to make it universal. [e.g., “Whenever anyone needs money, they should attempt to secure a loan and promise to pay it back, even when they know they cannot.”]

### How Kantianism works 3. Next—see if you can conceive of this maxim being a universal law of nature. [That is, see if it is possible that everyone in fact does act, and must act, this way]. If you can, go on to step (4.). If you cannot, STOP, the action is impermissible. 4. If you can conceive of such a world without contradiction or incoherence, then see if you can rationally will that you live in such a world. If not, STOP, the action is impermissible.[Note - the 'miser-loner' case gets past 3, but stops at 4, since the miser realizes that, even though he happens to not require help, he may, and would expect to get it--hence he can't rationally desire that people act uncharitably]

### How Kantianism works 5. If a maxim passes all these steps, then an action done according to the maxim is permissible.

### How this works: suicide - Suppose one’s life seems miserable, and wonders whether it is permissible to kill oneself when one’s life threatens more misery than satisfaction.

### How this works: suicide - Step 1—‘Whenever my future life threatens more misery than satisfaction, I shall end it.’ - Step 2—‘Whenever anyone’s life threatens more misery than satisfaction, they shall end it.’ - Step 3—can it become a universal rational law of nature of humanity? Kant thinks not, since the principle motivating ending life is self-love. But, Kant thinks, self-love commands preserving and sustaining one’s life, and the very same principle cannot promote ending it. - This is contradictory. So, suicide does not pass step 3, and is impermissible.

### Why this works - What is the source of this absolute value? - The fact that persons, with their rationality, are autonomous, or, free. They are morally self-regulating. - Rocks, trees, and dogs, all act according to laws of nature. - People, however, are the only beings which can act according to rules or laws that they are the authors of. - Rocks, trees, and dogs can all be used for goals, but only persons have goals.

### Why this works - This is what it means to be morally self-regulating. - To be free or autonomous, according to Kant, is not to be free from all rules, but rather to obey universal rules that are of one’s own making, or at least accepted freely by one’s rational deliberation. - This fact about persons is what gives them dignity and ultimate worth, according to Kant.

## Your thoughts?

## Objections 1. Self-legislation is incoherent. (Anscombe) 2. Too formal -- morality needs material context. (Hegel)

* Questions? * Write a short response * Prepare for discussion * Read "Aristotle" Handout