Kant in Detail

Good Will

Kant stated that an action is only good if it is done out of 'good will'.  Kant did not believe that any outcome was intrinsically good. For example, pleasure or happiness can result from most evil actions. He also did not believe in any intrinsically good character traits (e.g. ingenuity, intelligence, courage), as they could all be used for evil. Kant instead used the world good to describe good will, which is the resolve to act in accordance with one's moral duty.  He believed that we had to use reason to find out what our individual duty was.

d1c3f186-c01b-49dc-8e63-8015dd0fa8c4 (image/jpg)

Caption: : Although this action may seem good, if this person is helping her cross the road with the intention of making himself look good, and not because of good will, the action is immoral, according to Kant.

Ends and Means

Because Kant argued that good is determined in terms of rationality, Kant argued that all moral beings are ends in themselves. This means people should never be treated as a means to an end. Kant claimed that humans cannot be used as means to a greater end, as there can be no greater end than themselves.

040187e5-162c-4f22-95a9-2d6e73e3994e (image/jpg)

Free Will

Kant argued that free will is necessary in order for morality to apply to us. If our actions were pre-determined and completely controlled by our surroundings, we would have no choice of whether to act morally or not. Kant could not prove that we were truly free, but instead, he assumed we must be because we have the ability to act morally, which is only possible if we are free. From this, Kant deduced that there must be a God and life after death, otherwise behaving morally would be pointless. We must have a reward for acting morally, otherwise, there would be no purpose behind it. God must exist, in order for there to be a suitable judge to decide who acted morally enough and who didn't.

93331ff8-f21b-45ae-9fb8-352df30af1d6 (image/jpg)

Synthetic A Priori

Humans do not follow predetermined laws, but we must follow some laws, otherwise our actions would be random and without purpose. As rational beings, we must determine for ourselves a set of laws by which we will act. These laws are not analytic (true by the virtue of their meaning), but they cannot be determined through experience (a posteriori).  Therefore, a rational being has to determine the synthetic a priori, a substantive set of rules that can be applied prior to experience. Hume pointed out that you cannot move from an is (a synthetic statement about the world) to an ought (a statement about how the world should be).

The proposition “Some bodies are heavy” is synthetic because the idea of heaviness is not necessarily contained in that of bodies.  On the other hand, the proposition “All husbands are male” is analytic because the idea of maleness is already contained in that of husband.  In general the truth or falsity of synthetic statements is proved only by whether or not they conform to the way the world is and not by virtue of the meaning of the words they contain. Read more

The Hypothetical Imperative 

An imperative is a statement of what should be done.  Experience can only give us hypothetical imperatives. (e.g. If you want to be healthy, you should exercise and watch what you eat). A description of how the world is cannot tell us how we should act. This works from the heteronymous will, where the person following the hypothetical imperative ignores their duty and acts for the sake of something else. The hypothetical imperative is not universal or absolute.

1e414721-df28-4c00-a845-a4eda6dc139c (image/jpg)

The Categorical Imperative

A categorical imperative is a 'should' statement, but it is not based on experience (a priori), and doesn't rely on a particular outcome. It is a universal moral law that helps us achieve our moral duty. (e.g. do not lie) It logically precedes (or helps us make sense of) experience. We must use reason to deduce these, as they only work from the autonomous will. Kant showed that we must presume that time moves forwards, as our mind imposes this on our experiences to make sense of them. (see notes on causality) Without this presumption, we could never demonstrate or prove this through experience. Similarly, if certain actions were logically inconsistent, they would make no sense as universal laws, such as lying. Therefore, 'do not lie' is a categorical imperative.

d289643e-7e2e-4c50-9803-12b54a087d50 (image/jpg)

Caption: : "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature."

Formulation of a CI

Universalisation - For an action to be morally valid, the person must believe that the action would be acceptable if it was carried out by everyone. Humans as ends - A moral code must treat humans with respect and not as a means to an end. Humans must be treated as ends in themselves. Although Kant did accept that we can treat people as a means, for example, going to the doctor to be cured, he claimed it would always be wrong to treat people only as a means. The kingdom of ends - The kingdom of ends is a society made of people that all deserve to be treated as ends. Kant argues we should all act as though everyone has the same rights as ourselves.

3a13faa3-968c-4e60-9081-1d89f46488b7 (image/jpg)

Summum Bonum

The words 'summum bonum' translates to 'supreme good', and Kant used them to mean 'highest happiness.' The summum bonum is a happy, fulfilled state of mind that is received in the afterlife, as a reward for acting out of one's duty. This is necessary, otherwise it would not be rational to act morally, as the reward's existence makes being morally good a rational decision. The categorical imperative has to be followed in order to have known what your duty is and then acted upon.  The reward is not available to those who performed 'good' actions for any other reason. To accept the truth of the summum bonum, means to also accept the truth of the three postulates of practical reason...

b4b8f047-c66c-4e5a-bf29-6c09e9f86cf7 (image/jpg)

The 3 Postulates

There is a God. Only a divine being can have the knowledge necessary (omniscience) to reward the dutiful justly. This reward of pure joy could only be given by a wholly good being (omnibenevolence), who has the power to do so (omnipotence). We have immortality. There must be an immortal soul in order to experience the summum bonum, because such joy cannot be experienced in a mortal, physical world. A reward would also only make sense when we have finished making moral decisions (when we die). For this reason, many have compared the summum bonum to heaven. We have free will. To obtain the summum bonum, we must have acted freely, or a reward wouldn't be appropriate. 

Is the summum bonum a goal? Some people argue that the summum bonum is a goal to achieve, which could make Kant's branch of ethics teleological (telos meaning 'goal' or 'end').  However, if someone acted morally in order to obtain the summum bonum, they wouldn't have acted out of duty, so therefore could not obtain the summum bonum anyway. Therefore, it would be irrational to work towards a goal if working towards a goal actually deprived you of the goal. As a result, Kant's branch of ethics is still deontological.