2/12/2020 https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?

print

Home

Moral Philosophy According to Immanuel

Kant
Kantian Ethics in a Nutshell

Table of Contents

By Emrys Westacott
Updated August 31, 2019

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is generally considered to be one of the most profound and original
philosophers who ever lived. He is equally well known for his metaphysics–the subject of his
"Critique of Pure Reason"—and for the moral philosophy set out in his "Groundwork to the
Metaphysics of Morals" and "Critique of Practical Reason" (although "Groundwork" is the far
easier of the two to understand).

A Problem for the Enlightenment

To understand Kant’s moral philosophy, it's crucial to be familiar with the issues that he, and
other thinkers of his time, were dealing with. From the earliest recorded history, people’s moral
beliefs and practices were grounded in religion. Scriptures, such as the bible and the Quran, laid
out moral rules that believers thought to be handed down from God: Don’t kill. Don’t steal. Don’t
commit adultery, and so on. The fact that these rules supposedly came from a divine source of
wisdom gave them their authority. They were not simply somebody’s arbitrary opinion, they were
God's opinion, and as such, they offered humankind an objectively valid code of conduct.

Moreover, everyone had an incentive to obey these codes. If you “walked in the ways of the
Lord,” you would be rewarded, either in this life or the next. If you violated the commandments,
you'd be punished. As a result, any sensible person brought up in such a faith would abide by
the moral rules their religion taught.

With the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries that led to the great cultural
movement known as the Enlightenment, these previously accepted religious doctrines were
increasingly challenged as faith in God, scripture, and organized religion began to decline

https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print 1/5
2/12/2020 https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print

among the intelligentsia—that is, the educated elite. Nietzsche famously described this shift
away from organized religion as “the death of God.”

This new way of thinking created a problem for moral philosophers: If religion wasn’t the
foundation that gave moral beliefs their validity, what other foundation could there be? If there is
no God—and therefore no guarantee of cosmic justice ensuring that the good guys will be
rewarded and the bad guys will be punished—why should anyone bother trying to be good?
Scottish moral philosopher Alisdair MacIntrye called this “the Enlightenment problem.” The
solution moral philosophers needed to come up with was a secular (non-religious) determination
of what morality was and why we should strive to be moral.

Three Responses to the Enlightenment Problem

Social Contract Theory—One answer to the Enlightenment Problem was pioneered
by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who argued that morality was
essentially a set of rules that human beings agreed upon amongst themselves in
order to make living with one another possible. If we didn’t have these rules—many
of which took the form of laws enforced by the government—life would be absolutely
horrific for everyone.
Utilitarianism—Utilitarianism, another attempt to give morality a non-religious
foundation, was pioneered by thinkers including David Hume (1711-1776) and
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1742). Utilitarianism holds that pleasure and happiness have
intrinsic value. They are what we all want and are the ultimate goals that all our
actions aim toward. Something is good if it promotes happiness, and it is bad if it
produces suffering. Our basic duty is to try to do things that add to the amount of
happiness and/or reduce the amount of misery in the world.
Kantian Ethics—Kant had no time for Utilitarianism. He believed in placing the
emphasis on happiness the theory completely misunderstood the true nature of
morality. In his view, the basis for our sense of what is good or bad, right or wrong, is
our awareness that human beings are free, rational agents who should be given the
respect appropriate to such beings—but what exactly does that entail?

The Problem With Utilitarianism

In Kant’s view, the basic problem with utilitarianism is that it judges actions by their
consequences. If your action makes people happy, it’s good; if it does the reverse, it’s bad. But is
this actually contrary to what we might call moral common sense? Consider this question: Who
is the better person, the millionaire who gives $1,000 to charity in order to score points with his
Twitter following or the minimum-wage worker who donates a day’s pay to charity because she
thinks it's her duty to help the needy?

https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print 2/5
2/12/2020 https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print

If consequences are all that matter, then the millionaire’s action is technically the "better" one.
But that’s not how the majority of people would see the situation. Most of us judge actions more
for their motivation than by their consequences. The reason is obvious: the consequences of our
actions are often out of our control, just as the ball is out of the pitcher’s control once it's left his
hand. I could save a life at the risk of my own, and the person I save could turn out to be a serial
killer. Or I could accidentally kill someone in the course of robbing them, and in doing so might
unwittingly save the world from a terrible tyrant.

The Good Will

Kant’s "Groundwork" opens with the line: “The only thing that is unconditionally good is a good
will.” Kant’s argument for this belief is quite plausible. Consider anything you think of in terms of
being "good"—health, wealth, beauty, intelligence, and so on. For each of these things, you can
also likely imagine a situation in which this so-called good thing is not good after all. For
instance, a person can be corrupted by their wealth. The robust health of a bully makes it easier
for him to abuse his victims. A person’s beauty may lead her to become vain and fail to develop
emotional maturity. Even happiness is not good if it is the happiness of a sadist torturing
unwilling victims.

By contrast, goodwill, says Kant, is always good—in all circumstances. What, exactly, does Kant
mean by goodwill? The answer is fairly simple. A person acts out of goodwill when they do what
they do because they think it is their duty—when they act from a sense of moral obligation.

Duty vs. Inclination

Obviously, we don’t perform every little action from a sense of obligation. Much of the time, we're
simply following our inclinations—or acting out of self-interest. There's nothing intrinsically wrong
with that, however, no one deserves credit for pursuing their own interests. It comes naturally to
us, just as it comes naturally to every animal.

What is remarkable about human beings, though, is that we can, and sometimes do, perform an
action from purely moral motives—for example, when a soldier throws himself on a grenade,
sacrificing his own life to save the lives of others. Or less dramatically, I pay back a friendly loan
as promised even though payday isn't for another week and doing so will leave me temporarily
short of cash.

In Kant’s view, when a person freely chooses to do the right thing simply because it is the right
thing to do, their action adds value to the world and lights it up, so to speak, with a brief glow of
moral goodness.

Knowing Your Duty

https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print 3/5
2/12/2020 https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print

Saying that people should do their duty from a sense of duty is easy—but how are we supposed
to know what our duty is? Sometimes we may find ourselves facing moral dilemmas in which it's
not obvious which course of action is morally correct.

According to Kant, however, in most situations are duty is obvious. If we're uncertain, we can
work out the answer by reflecting on a general principle that Kant calls the “Categorical
Imperative.” This, he claims, is the fundamental principle of morality and all other rules and
precepts can be deduced from it.

Kant offers several different versions of this categorical imperative. One runs as follows: “Act
only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law.”

What this means, basically, is that we should only ask ourselves, How would it be if everyone
acted the way I’m acting? Could I sincerely and consistently wish for a world in which everyone
behaved this way? According to Kant, if our action is morally wrong, the answers to those
questions would be no. For instance, suppose I’m thinking of breaking a promise. Could I wish
for a world in which everyone broke their promises when keeping them was inconvenient? Kant
argues that I could not want this, not least because in such a world no one would make promises
since everyone would know that a promise meant nothing.

The Ends Principle

Another version of the Categorical Imperative that Kant offers states that one should “always
treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as a means to one’s own ends." This is
commonly referred to as the “ends principle.” While similar in a way to the Golden Rule: "Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you," it puts the onus for following the rule on
humankind rather than accepting the strictures of divine influence.

The key to Kant’s belief regarding what makes humans moral beings is the fact that we are free
and rational creatures. To treat someone as a means to your own ends or purposes is to not
respect this fact about them. For instance, if I get you to agree to do something by making a
false promise, I am manipulating you. Your decision to help me is based on false information
(the idea that I’m going to keep my promise). In this way, I have undermined your rationality. This
is even more obvious if I steal from you or kidnap you in order to claim a ransom.

Treating someone as an end, by contrast, involves always respecting the fact that they are
capable of free rational choices which may be different from the choices you wish them to make.
So if I want you to do something, the only moral course of action is to explain the situation,
explain what I want, and let you make your own decision.

Kant’s Concept of Enlightenment

In his famous essay “What is Enlightenment?” Kant defines the principle as “man’s emancipation
from his self-imposed immaturity.” What does this mean, and what does it have to do with his
https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print 4/5
2/12/2020 https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print

ethics?

The answers go back to the problem of religion no longer providing a satisfactory foundation for
morality. What Kant calls humanity’s “immaturity” is the period when people did not truly think for
themselves, and instead, typically accepted moral rules handed down to them by religion,
tradition, or by authorities such as the church, overlord, or king. This loss of faith in previously
recognized authority was viewed by many as a spiritual crisis for Western civilization. If “God is
dead, how do we know what is true and what is right?"

Kant’s answer was that people simply had to work those things out for themselves. It wasn't
something to lament, but ultimately, something to celebrate. For Kant, morality was not a matter
of subjective whim set forth in the name of god or religion or law based on the principles
ordained by the earthly spokespeople of those gods. Kant believed that “the moral law”—the
categorical imperative and everything it implies—was something that could only be discovered
through reason. It was not something imposed on us from without. Instead, it's a law that we, as
rational beings, must impose on ourselves. This is why some of our deepest feelings are
reflected in our reverence for the moral law, and why, when we act as we do out of respect for it
—in other words, from a sense of duty—we fulfill ourselves as rational beings.

https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398?print 5/5