[7.] Deontology and Kant.

 

[7.1.] Are Moral Rules Absolute?

 

In other words, are there any moral guidelines or principles that must be followed, no matter what?

 

More specifically: is there anything that you should never do, no matter what good effects you could bring about by doing it?

 

A utilitarian will answer: NO! Utilitarians (because they are consequentialists) believe that whether an action is moral always depends on its consequences and on nothing else. On their view, there is no such thing as an action that is immoral independent of its effects.  

 

Today we will begin considering a very different view. It is a view that rejects consequentialism (and therefore rejects utilitarianism).

 

G. E. M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe (1919-2001; British philosopher) believed that there are some actions that are always immoral, no matter what the consequences.

 

One example given in EMP 9.1: boiling a live baby.  Anscombe maintained that even if you could save one million lives by doing this, it would still be immoral to do so.

 

In taking this view, Anscombe was rejecting…

 

consequentialism (df.): whether an action is moral or immoral depends only on its consequences or effects, and not on anything else

 

Anscombe believed that the United States’ bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII was immoral. She was not basing this assessment on the claim that the bombings resulted in more harm than benefit—she may well have believed that the bombings actually did result in lives being saved (because they resulted in the war ending earlier than it otherwise would have).

 

Her point was that those good consequences are irrelevant for morality. Killing innocent people is always wrong, no matter what consequences might result.

 

[Anscombe herself defended a form of normative ethics that we will cover later: virtue ethics. This is discussed in EMP ch.12.]

 

 

[7.2.] Kant and the Categorical Imperative.

 

There is a second approach to normative ethics, in addition to consequentialism:

 

deontology (df.): a normative theory that focuses on duty, holding that there are some actions that you have a duty to perform and some you have a duty not to perform, regardless of the consequences (from Greek “deon”, meaning duty) [Anscombe also rejected deontology!]

 

The most influential deontological theory of normative ethics is that of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804; Prussian).

 

Kant believed that moral rules are absolute, i.e., they have no exceptions.

 

 

[7.2.1.] Two Types of “Ought” Statement.

 

As a first approach to explaining this principle, Kant first pointed out that there are two different types of “ought” statement:

 

(i) Some “ought”s depend on our desires: if you want x, then you ought to do a (where “a” stands for some action).  For example:

·         if you want to gain physical strength, you ought to lift weights regularly

·         if you want to be a good racquetball player, then you ought to play racquetball regularly

·         if you want to make a good grade in this class, you ought to study hard

 

Here you have an obligation to do something as a result of a relevant desire; it is only because you want x that you ought to do a. In order to escape the obligation to do a, you need only stop desiring x.

 

Such “ought”s are:

 

hypothetical imperatives (df.): principles or rules that you are obligated to follow because you have some relevant desire; e.g., if you want to improve your racquetball game, then you ought to play the game regularly.

 

(ii)  Other “ought”s do not have this hypothetical character. They don’t depend on what a person desires. This second sort of ought expresses things that you just plain ought to do, period. For example,

·         you ought not kill innocent people.

 

You cannot get out from under the obligation not to kill innocent people simply by changing your desires—in fact, you cannot escape this sort of obligation at all. You ought not to kill innocent people, period.

 

Such “ought”s are:

 

categorical imperatives (df.): principles or rules that everyone is obligated to follow, no matter what; e.g., you ought not kill innocent people.

 

Kant believes that “ought” statements that express moral obligation are all categorical imperatives. In other words, he believes that all moral rules are categorical: they tell you that you ought to do something, and whether you want to attain some goal is irrelevant.

 

 

[7.2.2.] The Categorical Imperative.

 

Hypothetical “ought”s are relatively easy to understand: they are possible because we have desires.

 

But how are categorical imperatives possible? I.e., how can we be obligated to do something, period?

 

Kant’s answer: categorical “ought”s are possible because we have reason.

 

This is because all categorical imperatives (and therefore all moral rules) are implied by a principle that all rational beings must accept. On Kant’s view, if you are rational, then you will accept this one central principle of behavior. All categorical imperatives follow from this central principle; so once you accept the central principle, you will come to see what other rules you should obey. 

 

The one rule or principle that all rational beings must accept is:

 

The Categorical Imperative:  “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), RTD 63; quoted at EMP 128)

 

 

[7.2.3.] A Procedure Suggested by the Categorical Imperative.

 

The CI suggests a procedure for deciding whether it is morally permissible to perform an action:

·         Ask what “maxim” (a rule or principle of behavior) you would be following were you to perform that action

·         Ask whether you can rationally will for that maxim to “become a universal law,” i.e., whether you can rationally will for everyone to follow that maxim, all the time.

·         If you can, then the maxim is “universalizable” and the action is morally permissible

·         If you cannot, then the maxim is not “universalizable” and the action is immoral

 

This procedure rules out a number of different possible behavior-guiding principles or rules:

 

A.     “For love of myself, I make it my principle to shorten my life when by a longer duration it threatens more evil than satisfaction.” (RTD 63) I.e., I will end my life in order to improve it, i.e., in order to make things better for myself.

·         On Kant’s view, this is contradictory: “One immediately sees a contradiction in a system of nature, whose law would be to destroy life by the feeling whose special office [namely, self-love] is to impel the improvement of life.” (RTD 63)

·         So committing suicide in order to improve your life (including by way of physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted dying) violates the Categorical Imperative and is immoral.

 

B.     “When I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know I shall never do so.” (RTD 64)

·         You cannot will that this become a universal law, because such a law would be self-defeating: if everyone followed this rule, then eventually no one would have any reason to believe anyone else was making such a promise in good faith – so people would stop lending money: “no one would believe what was promised to him but would only laugh at any such assertion as vain pretense.” (RTD 64)

·         So promising to repay a loan when you have no intention of repaying violates the Categorical Imperative, and is immoral.

 

C.     “Let each one [i.e., each person] be as happy as heaven wills, or as he can make himself; I will not take anything from him or even envy him; but to his welfare or to his assistance in time of need I have no desire to contribute.” (RTD 64) In other words, ignore the well-being and needs of others.

·         You cannot will that this become a universal law, because you would not want others to ignore your well-being when you are in need: “instances can often arise in which he would need the love and sympathy of others, and in which he would have robbed himself, by such a law of nature springing from his own will, of all hope of the aid he desires.” (RTD 85)

 

So, The Categorical Imperative implies that you should follow these rules:

·         You should never commit suicide in order to improve your life.

·         You should never promise to repay a loan when you know you won’t be able to.

·         You should attend to the well-being and needs of others.

These principles are all absolute moral rules, and categorical imperatives.

 

These rules do not allow for any exceptions whatsoever.  No matter what the circumstances or the consequences, it is (on Kant’s view) never permissible to violate them. If you ever do any of these things, then you are behaving irrationally, since you cannot will that everyone else do the same.

 

Kant says, not simply that you must accept The CI in order to be moral, but that you must accept The CI in order to be rational.  If you do not accept The CI, then you are behaving, not just immorally, but irrationally.

 

Stopping point for Wednesday November 4.  For next time finish reading EMP ch.9 (pp.129-35) and study today’s lecture notes.