Kant Report Part2 Final Presentation

7/29/2019 Kant Report Part2 Final Presentation

1/11

Immanuel Kant:

Immanuel Kant ( 22 April 1724 12 February 1804) was a German philosopher fromKnigsberg in Prussia (today Kaliningrad, Russia) who researched, lectured and wrote onphilosophy and anthropology during the Enlightenment at the end of the 18th century.1Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) is one of the most important philosophers in history, and is best

known for his Critique of Pure Reason, the ambitious project in which he attempted to define thelimits of reason itself. His ethical theory was written mainly in the Groundwork for theMetaphysics of Morals, where he tried to derive moral principles from logic itself. The mainengine of his ethical theory is the Categorical Imperative.2

Immanuel Kants Philosophy:

Autonomous Decisions- The capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision, free ofexternal authority. This is very important, because Kant regarded every individual as equal.You must understand that Kant was a firm believer in autonomy. Kants ethical theory reflectedthe optimistic confidence in the objectivity of human reason and the value of individualautonomy, which was characteristic of the term Enlightenment.

Deontology (Deon = Duty)- Kantian ethics begins with a basic principle and derives rulesfrom that principle and it guides ones actions. He is considered a deontologist because heemphasizes what we are supposed to do, deon from the greek word, meaning duty.

Actions in themselves are right or wrong- Kant strictly believed that actions are inthemselves right or wrong and not simply because of their consequences.

Ethical rules should never be broken- Kant took the extreme view that some ethical rulesshould never be broken regardless of the consequences.

Human value - Human value is obviously important because we hold the value of life high,typically higher than material things. Kant believed that ethical rules are intended to protect andbenefit human beings, even the most basic ethical rules may need to be broken in unusualcircumstances to avert major human catastrophes. In all but very extreme cases, however,deontologists regard respect for individual human beings as taking priority over maximizinghappiness. This piggy-backs with the first point that Kant encourages individuals to make gooddecisions because each person is important. The message for this one is: universal respect forall persons.

Duties used to derive reason and moral decision- an action is morally good and praiseworthyonly if it is done from a sense of duty, or what Kant calls a good will. Duty and good will gohand in hand. Remember one word Motive. In Kantianism, motive is everything. It is notenough to do the right thing; it must be done because the one who acts believes that this actionis morally right, which is his/her duty. For Kant, consequences are irrelevant to morality. Oneshould do one's duty for the sake of duty itself, even if it causes you or other people harm. Your

intentions are the important thing.

Example: There are two presidents:

1) The first is honest because he is scared of being caught if he tries to cheat his people.2) The second is honest because it is his duty to be honest.

1en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel Kant

2suite101.com/article/the-categorical-imperative-of-immanuel-kant-a64742


2/11

ANS: According to Kant, only the second president is behaving morally.

In his writing, Kant did not spend a great deal of time explaining what he thought was rightor wrong, only that we should develop an internal voice which would tell us what we should doin any given situation. When faced with a moral problem we should apply reason and come upwith what we ought to do in that situation. To Kant, everyone has a duty to take part in this type

of moral-decision making: which he called the categorical imperative.

Kants View of the Law

To understand the Categorical Imperative, we must first understand the concept of lawfor Kant. According to H. J. Patton, in his study to Kants Categorical Imperative 3, one of themost fundamental characteristic of law is its universality. It must be affected to all without anyexceptions. If the principle that every event must have a cause is a law of nature, then therecan be no exceptions to it.4 Kant called it the law of freedomwhich is loosely inclined to whatwe suppose as acting through our own discretion. For Kant it is the law in accordance withwhich a rational agent [of how he] would act if reason had full control over his inclinations. 5 The

law of freedom, or the moral law, should have no exceptions without it ceasing as a law. Therecannot be one moral law for me and another for you. The law must be the same for all. 6

Universality of law is the form of law for unless it is universal, it is not a law whatevermay be the subject of it. Therefore, we should have an objective moral standard, so much sothat it should be treated as a universal guide to everyones actions.

Apart from its universality, Kant introduces to us the concept of pure reason. For thereason that a law should be universal, it cannot, then be subjected to any desires or anyempirical factors in it. Subjecting a law to our experiences, for instance, will make in inviolable tobeing universal since not everyone has the same experience. Therefore, it must be based onpure reason alone or subject to a priori. This is evident to the first, and what Kant considered as

the only formula but presented five formulas nonetheless, formula in his categorical imperativewhich is Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it shouldbecome a universal law.

Another characteristic that was presented by Kant is the concept ofmoral duty. Duty, aswhat have been stated before, is that which we are suppose to do and for him a good action isone that complies with the moral duty which is law-abidingness. Respect for the laws guidingus is qualified, in the sense that the thought that the law gives us a duty is compelling only ifthere is no law we respect more that conflicts with it. 7 This is the pursuance of a duty enactedby the good will. Good will is the idea that a person is good if he has a will that is determined oris guided by the moral law8. A good will is a will whose decisions are wholly determined by

3Categorical Imperative: A study in Kants Moral Philosophy by H. J. Paton.http://ia700302.us.archive.org/11/items/categoricalimper033512mbp/categoricalimper033512mbp.pdf4

Ibid. P. 695

Ibid6

Ibid7

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/. Last viewed on February 2,

2013

8Ibid.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/


3/11

moral demands or as he often refers to this, by the Moral Law.9 There are two things that couldbe extracted from this: first, that there should be nothing that would make us lose our moralgoodness to obtain a desirable thing and second, that good will should be good in itself and notdependent on another thing such as the happiness of the person. The first idea revolves aroundthe desires of men. Although there are desirable qualities, such as courage, one cannot desire itif it would mean the destruction of the moral goodness in us. If courage then requires inequality,

it is much better to not acquire it than losing the moral goodness of oneself. The second idearevolves around the concept of having a will that is good in itself without the involvement of acondition. Thus, if a person decides to eat because he wants to be full, such action has nogenuine moral worth because if the motivation to be full was not achieved, the person will not dohis duty, which is to eat. On the other hand, if we change the persons motivation into one that iswith respect to duty, or the concept of Moral law, the person shall eat regardless of thecircumstances.

Thus for Kant, a law should be universal that which is base on pure reason alone andshould be obeyed, free from of all desires, for the end of himself. This will be elaborated furtheron the context of categorical imperative.

The Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

Kant seemed to claim only one formula but he presented five formulas which can beinfused into three:

1. Formula of the Universal Law:Act only on that maxim through which you can at thesame time will that it should become a universal law.

1.a. Formula of the Law of Nature:Act as the maxim of your action were to becomethrough our will an universal law of nature.

2. Formula of the End in Itself:Act as to use humanity, both in your own person and inthe person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a

means.

3. Formula of Autonomy:Act that your will can regard itself at the same time as makinguniversal law through its maxim

3. a. Formula of the Kingdom of Ends:Act as if you were always through your maxims alaw-making member in a universal kingdom of ends.

The main purpose of having the formulas is to formulate precisely the supreme principleof morality.10

The Categorical Imperative is how one determines one's duty, how one determines whatprinciples are proper and which are not11.

It is a command which expresses a general, unavoidable requirement of the moral law. Itsthree forms express the requirements of universaliszability, respect and autonomy. Together

9 Ibid.10

Categorical Imperative: A study in Kants Moral Philosophy by H. J. Paton.

http://ia700302.us.archive.org/11/items/categoricalimper033512mbp/categoricalimper033512mbp.pdf

. pg. 13111

suite101.com/article/the-categorical-imperative-of-immanuel-kant-a64742
http://ia700302.us.archive.org/11/items/categoricalimper033512mbp/categoricalimper033512mbp.pdfhttp://ia700302.us.archive.org/11/items/categoricalimper033512mbp/categoricalimper033512mbp.pdf


4/11

they establish that an action is properly called 'morally good' only if (1) we can will all persons todo it, (2) it enables us to treat other persons as ends and not merely as the means to our ownselfish ends, and (3) it allows us to see other persons as mutual law-makers in an ideal 'realm ofends12'. It is the virtue in applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possess rationalwills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have.13

It is different from the other imperative which is the hypothetical imperativesin which one willsome end14. Kant described it as an action is good for some purpose that one could have(problematic) or that one actually does have (assertoric).15 Problematic is that which end wemight or might not will depending on the end of the will.16 The other one gives us a real end thatwe want and for Kant, the only non-moral end that we must will is happiness as happiness initself depends on the persons interest as ones interest may be different from others. However,it is apparent that happiness is also one of humanities end of himself, or his goal so it involvesthe second formula of Categorical Imperative.

The First Formula: Formula of the Universal Law

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a

universal law.

The categorical imperative should be based on an unconditioned objective principle.Anunconditioned objective principle is on which every rational agent, irrespective of his particulardesires for particular ends would necessarily obey if reason had complete control over hispassions, and one which he ought to obey if he is irrational enough to be tempted to dootherwise.17

Universalization- The categorical imperative requires that any moral decision you makemust be acceptable for everyone else to do too.

Example: You would not be complying with universalization if you thought it ok to lie, but expecteveryone else not to lie.

Rule for testing rules:

Before you act, generalize the maxim or principle on which you are acting. if you are able to imagine such a world and you would want to live there, then it is

moral to act on that principle. If it will not be okay for everyone everywhere then it would be wrong

First test: contradiction in conception or self-contradiction

12http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html

13Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/. Last viewed February 1,

2013

14 Ibid.15 Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. 2010-2015. Last Amended September

200816

Ibid.17

Categorical Imperative: A study in Kants Moral Philosophy by H. J. Paton.

http://ia700302.us.archive.org/11/items/categoricalimper033512mbp/categoricalimper033512mbp.pdf

. pg. 133
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/http://ia700302.us.archive.org/11/items/categoricalimper033512mbp/categoricalimper033512mbp.pdfhttp://ia700302.us.archive.org/11/items/categoricalimper033512mbp/categoricalimper033512mbp.pdfhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/


5/11

o A maxim is wrong if the situation in which everyone acted on that maxim is somehowself-contradictory

Example: Stealing: if we could all just help ourselves to whatever we wanted, theidea of owning things would disappear. No one would be able to steal

Maxim: I may make a false promise in order to reap financial gain

This is self-contradictory because: If anyone may make a "false promise,"nobody would take a promise seriously; promising becomes meaningless.

Result: I may not act on that maxim. The maxim fails Test One

Second test: Contradiction in will (Reversibility)18

o If the maxim youre testing isnt self-contradictory, then ask whether you would choose tolive in a world where it was followed by everyone.

o If it will not be okay then it would be wrong

Example:

Maxim: I may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot pay me

even though I could do so at little cost to myself.

Generalized: Anyone may refuse to help another person in distress who cannot pay hereven though it would cost her little to help.

Can it be conceived? Yes.

Could you will this to be a universal law? Probably not, because you might findyourself in a situation of extreme need and nobody else would help you.

Result: You cannot act on the maxim19

What is the form of the maxim?

I will A in Cin order to realize or produce E where A is some act type, C is sometype of circumstance, and E is some type of end to be realized or achieved by A in C. Sincethis is a principle stating only what some agentwills, it is subjective. 20

The Formula of the Law of Nature

Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.

Kant presented this formula as introduction to the rules in which a maxim would beconsidered morally permissible. As of the first formula, we can therefore conclude that whateveris universally permissible affects rational beings so much so that it affects our duty which is one

of the central themes of categorical imperative. In this formula, Kant provided us with groundsfor what is morally permissible as derived from our duties21:

18 http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/kant.htm19

http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/kant.htm20

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/. Last viewed on

February 1, 201321

Ibid.


6/11

1. Formulate the maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose.2. React on that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so

as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act inthese circumstances.

3. Consider whether the maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of

nature.4. Ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such

a world.

Kant distinguished the four steps as the four duties: the first one is perfect duties to us,the second one is perfect duties to others, the third one is perfect duties, and the last one isimperfect duties. The third and the fourth steps have been explained with examples earlier: thecontradiction in conception text and the contradiction in the will test, respectively. For the firststep or duty, Kant explained it through the example of a man attempting to commit suicide.Suppose that a man, with his maxim:

For love of myself, I make it my principle to cut my life short when prolonging it

threatens to bring more troubles than satisfaction.22

Although the maxim is grounded on the love of oneself, it is in contradiction to the law ofnature itself since it leads to the destruction of life23 as the maxim should be universallyconsidered. To refrain from suicide is the perfect duty toward oneself.24

On the other hand, for duties toward others, Kant provided us with a maxim:

When I think I need money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although Iknow that the repayment wont ever happen.25

Again, this is a not permissible as it is immoral. There is the preservation of self-love, of

having money for the future, but does it constitute what is right? If it would be a universal law-everyone would lie on their promise of payment- it would become impossible since no onewould believe such promise. Therefore, there is no necessity for the law. Thus, it is invalid.

The Second Formula: Formula of the End in Itself

Act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at thesame time as an end, never simply as a means.

In Kants Groundwork, the formula is Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether inyour own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means26.The simplest explanation for this formula is to not act in a way that humans, as humanity is

directly expressed, would be used only as a means to our personal ends but to act in a way that

22 Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. 2010-201523 Ibid.24

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/. Last viewed on

February 1, 201325

Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. 2010-201526

Ibid.


7/11

humans would be used as an end of himself. It is only an end that serves as an objectiveprinciple for the self determination of the will, and only an end in itself that serves as a universalprinciple holding for all rational beings.27 It is that men should be regarded in all his actions asan end in himself.28

To understand it better, the concept of humanity should be understood not only of the

physical persons themselves but of humanity in humans. Our Humanity is that collection offeatures that make us distinctively human and these include capacities to engage in self-directed rational behavior and to adopt and pursue our own ends, and any other capacitiesnecessarily connected with these.29 This introduces us to his idea of respect that which wemust respect persons for they are essential to humanity.

The end of himself refers to the end of the person, the purpose or goal for its own sake.Thus, every human, by human nature, want their own happiness. However for Kant, and it wasexplained in his Groundwork30, in accordance with the duty for others, as a maxim should beproposed, ones happiness could only lead to a negative harmony. No one contributed to thehappiness of others, but also no one intentionally took anything away from the happiness ofothers31 This leads to a limitation of happiness that could be experienced by humanity. To

achieve the positive harmony, one must positively try to further the ends of others as he can32An example of the latter is an imperfect duty of charity. It follows all the three tests to be morallyaccepted but it cannot be willed all the time although it should be done as often as possible.Perfect duties are the ones that we are obliged to do all the time such as abhorrence to killing 33.In this sense, the universality comes in when through a maxi, if the end would be the end ofhumanity itself, then it is immoral. Take for example lying, if it would be made into a maxim thatwould allow all people to lie, then it would be the end of communication by people with eachother34 or the loose of trust that would affect how people deal with each other.

The Third Formula: The Law of Autonomy

Act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the

same time as an end, never simply as a means

In Kants Groundwork it is phrased as the idea of the will of every rational being as a willlaying down universal law35. For him, any maxim is rejected if it is not consistent with the willsrole as a giver of universal law.36 Thus, the will should be subject to the law as well as subjectof the law. This gives the agent or the rational beings the status as being universal law giversrather than law followers.37 In this formula the desires or interests should be absolves since

27New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03432a.htm. Last viewed February 4, 2013

28Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. 2010-2015

29 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.30

Immanuel Kany. Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. 2010-201531 Ibid.32 Ibid.33 Pecorino, P. Medical Ethics.http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/

MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/ Categorical_Imperative.htm. 200234

Ibid35

Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. 2010-201536

Ibid.37

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03432a.htm.%20Last%20viewed%20February%204http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03432a.htm.%20Last%20viewed%20February%204


8/11

having them would produce another law to justify these interests as universally valid. In makinga universal law, one must take away all empirical factors and focus only on a priori principles tobe unconditional and to be without exemptions. For the reason that it is universal, it must thenstill conform with the Moral Law and have his desires be constrained, have him follow the rule ofhaving humanity as an end in himself, thus, affirming to the other formulas cited before.

The Kingdom of Ends Formula

Act as if you were always through your maxims a law-making member in a universal kingdom ofends.

For Kant, having rational beings give a rational law through the maxims generated fromthe will leads to a realm of ends or the Kingdom of Ends. It is the systematic union of differentrational beings through shared laws38 and a whole composed of rational beings who are endsin themselves and of ends that they may individually set for themselves.39 As rational beings,then, we produce laws that are universal and treat ourselves and others not only as means butends of themselves. This community is the realm or Kingdom that we speak of.

The Unity and Equality of Formulas

Although Kant claimed that there is only one formula which he called the categoricalimperative, he presented five formulas, which could be infused to three, on his work. Kantclaimed that they are equivalent in a way that they share the same attributes: form, matter ofcontent, and complete fixing. For the form, all formulas are universal and they, then, can beconsidered as categorical. For the matter of content, all is relative to the end, specifically, theend in himself. For the last one, all maxims that came from your own law-giving must be inharmony with others to produce a realm of ends.

Difference with the Golden Rule

The Golden Rule can be phrased as Do unto others what you want others to do unto youor in its negative form Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.Categorical imperative is mistakenly regarded as similar to this rule in the sense that one mustformulate a maxim that would be taken as a universal law that affects not only you but others aswell or the third formula. However, the Golden Rule can justify an action which may becontradictory to humanity if taken universally. With the Golden Rule, a masochist or a sadistwould be justified in causing or receiving pain.40 Their action of causing pain or receiving painwould be justified since they also want to it to be done to them, but it cannot be universally donesince it would only make humans a mean to achieve pleasure.

Criticisms to Kants Categorical Imperative

1. The Inquiring Murderer

38Immanuel Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. 2010-2015

39Ibid.

40Pecorino, P. Medical Ethics.http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/

MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/ Categorical_Imperative.htm. 2002
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/


9/11


10/11

Schopenhauer question Kants Law of Autonomy in the sense that people have inthemselves a sufficient understanding of what is moral base on pure reason alone and withoutexperiences. For Schopenhauer there are different reasons in explaining a persons action andnot just from pure reason alone or what could be extracted from the person themselves. Inunderstanding human beings we must go beyond the limits of human understanding and heintroduced the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason.43 These are being,

becoming, acting, and knowing. Kant takes the fields of human understanding as hisstarting-point, and explores the basic concepts that structure them. Schopenhauer takes theworld as his starting-point, and explores how our different fields of human understanding allbelong together in illuminating that world.44

Conclusion

It is fascinating to subject ourselves to the reason inherent in us. Although we think thatuniversality has a great impact since everyone would follow the same maxims and rules and noexceptions would be counted therefore securing fairness and equality, we think that we mustnever rule out that equality does not mean being in the same position as others. This entails thatwe cannot take away the prerogative of man to learn from their experiences since it is also

inherent in every man. Experience, as we have heard most often, is the best teacher. Humanityhave developed in a vast way through trials and errors so much so that taking that away andform rules base only on what we could come up that would universally compatible would not bepresent at all times and should be constantly changes which is in contradiction of the Moral Lawitself because then, pure reason can change.

Second, there are actions which may be immoral but should be done for the greatergood and for a greater cause. We have passions and desires that are helpful to us as beingsand they formulate the goodness of our actions.

It is therefore better for us to make laws not only because they are inherently good butbecause through the lessons that we have learned from our experiences, we know that it must

be done.

43http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp17_samuel.pdf

44Ibid.


11/11

KANTIAN ETHICS

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

SUBMITTED BY:

LUBRIN, RODOLFO ANGELO

CONRAD E.

LOZADA, DENNISE ENDRI D.

SUBMITTED ON:

FEBRUARY 5, 2013

Documents

Kant Report Part2 Final Presentation