is an acceptable ad
was made universally required the
The categorical imperative
you
The core principle of Kant moral theory is the categorical imperative. This is used in
Kantian theory to determine what is morally right and wrong in a parallel manner
to the way that the principle of utility is used in utilitarianism. In the Groundwork
as a means by which to judge all actions. The categorical imperative states that
of the Metaphysics of Morals ([1785) 1997), Kant sets out the categorical imperative
that it should become a universal law. The categorical imperative is not as complex
should act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will
as it sounds. Quite simply, if you would be (reasonably) happy for everyone to have
to perform the same action in the same circumstances then an action is moral, if
Kant uses the example of promising to show how his argument works. He presents
- a principle of
you
would not then it is not.
a case of a person who is forced to borrow money. The person knows that they will
not be able to pay it back but they also know that they must promise to pay it back
or the money will not be lent. If you turn this act into a "maxim"
action - then you get the following maxim: "If one needs money one can borrow it
by promising to repay it, even if one knows this is impossible". If this maxim (which
Kant describes as the principle of self-love) is assessed according to the categorical
imperative, it is clear that the action is morally wrong or impermissible. As soon as
we consider whether this maxim could be universalized, become a universal moral
law" that applies to everyone in a similar situation, it is clear that it could not. As
Kant states, it would contradict itself: promises would cease to be believed because
promises to repay money would be worthless; they would be to use Kant's words,
"vain pretences"
In this example of the "lying promise" we can see how the universalizablity cri-
terion in the form of the categorical imperative functions in Kant's framework and
the importance of rationality in making sense of Kant's position. For Kant, even if
you are in desperate need of money you cannot believe that it is morally right to
lie in order to borrow money that you know you cannot repay. For as soon as you
consider what it would mean if this action were universalized and everyone acted the
same way, the unacceptability of the proposed lying promise becomes clear. The lying
promiser cannot respond that they are happy for there to be a rule that everyone in
a similar position should act in the same way, because this would not be rational (it
would destroy the practices and presumptions of promising and the system would
break down).
Nor can the lying promiser appeal to consequences - such as that the
54
money is needed to feed his children or for any other "good works" -- because these
are not relevant, but rather special pleading. The only thing of import in determining
whether an action is morally imperative is whether it passes or fails the test of the
categorical
imperative. In this sense, then, Kantianism can be said to be impartial.
Key to Kant's moral framework is the importance of rationality or, to put it more
simply, sound reasoning, Kant does not have much time for excuses for moral fail-
ures: nor does he accept that desires or wishes can be so overwhelming that the
person could not control themselves and make the reasonable choice. In the Critique
arguments. He uses an example of "irresistible lust" to show that in fact there is no
such thing. In his example he asks whether someone who claimed their lust was
"irresistible would still act on it if they knew that immediately after satiating their
lust they would be hanged: he suggests that the gallows be erected directly in front
of the house. Kant argues that in such an instance the lust would not be acted on,
and that as soon as we reflect on such cases we recognize that we are in fact free
to choose and to use reason to discover what is morally good. Clearly, for Kant,
claims such as it just happened" and "I couldn't help it" are not real excuses at all,
but merely forms of convenient self-deceit. In this instance the "luster" has a self-
interested reason that outweighs his desire, despite his lust he restrained himself in
order to avoid execution. If you can refrain for self-interested reasons then you can
also refrain for moral reasons.
Kantian theory puts acting according to moral duty above human feelings and
desires, and places no weight on justification by consequences. Instead it grounds
morality in determining conduct by considering what are (or could rationally be)
universal rules, from which absolute moral rules are derived. Once you know these
moral rules and what acts are right and wrong then they must be followed absolutely
and without exception. For Kant, one such absolute rule is that lying is always wrong
and morally prohibited. This remains true in all circumstances, and to illustrate Kant's
commitment to universalizability we shall consider one final example, Kant's famous
"Inquiring Murderer", taken from On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent
Motives (1797). In this example, Kant argues that a lie always harms another, if not
directly in the situation then indirectly in damaging "humanity in general". Just as
in the "lying promise" example, the action cannot be universalized because it would
damage all promises and all contracts. The absoluteness of the duty to truth, Kant
argues, even applies if a would-be murderer asks you to tell the whereabouts of the
intended victim. In addition to the general undermining of contracts he also argues
that you should not lie because if you do you will be responsible for any unforeseen
consequences (including accidentally leading the murderer to his victim).
The more serious worry for Kant is about breaking the universal criteria.
Protecting morality and upholding reason means respecting the absoluteness of
the moral law. Even in extreme circumstances, such as lying to prevent murder or
GLOBAL ETHICS
cannot be reasonably universalized If we were to make lying a universal law, which
to prevent starvation, Kant holds to his conviction that lying is wrong because it
we could rationally wish that all persons in similar situations would do, it would
be self-defeating. We would undermine the whole system of truth-telling. If lying
trust that they were being told the truth. Thus, a successful lie requires that
were universalized then it would very quickly become the case that people did not
people tell the truth and therefore relies on lying not being universalized. A purely
self-interested action cannot be made into a universal maxim (such that it would
be required of all) because it results in contradiction. Put most simply, in cases like
these you have an absolute or perfect" duty to yourself to obey - in Kant's memorable
most
phrase - The moral law within
To the first formulation of the categorical imperative Kant added a second: that
you should "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that
of another, always as an end and never only as a means" Some have argued that this
is not another formulation of the categorical imperative at all, but rather a second
injunction. However, for our purposes of simply understanding a Kantian approach
to ethics it does not matter too much if it is a restatement or a second criterion for
what is moral. What matters is that it provides a clear set of criteria by which to
evaluate moral action. The fends not only means criterion is important not only
because it provides a high standard for our treatment of others - which is different
from utilitarian thinking where it would be acceptable to use individuals as means
as long as the consequences were good - but also, importantly, because it insists
that this includes not treating oneself as a means. Thus you have duties to yourself
as well as to others, which, unlike utilitarianism, makes Kantianism a theory that
CASE STUDY 3.3 Kantianism and female genital cutting
For a Kantian, whether FGC is right or wrong is dependent on whether or not it is univer-
salizable. So for the action to be morally permitted, you would have to be able rationally to
will that this action became a universal law. So is it possible to argue that a rational person
would wish that practising FGC could be endorsed by, and would not violate, a universal
law? Again, as with utilitarianism, it is possible for different proponents of the same theory
to argue differently. But, given the negative health outcomes of FGC it is hard to imagine
how you could reasonably universalize such a practice. For example, if the argument was
about not FGC, but another practice that led to frequent infections and physical suffering,
could you argue that this practice should be universalized? A potential counter-argument
would be to argue that physical suffering is not intrinsic to the practice and that it could
personnel
be addressed by ensuring that the practice was carried out in hospital by qualified medical
MORAL THEORY FOR GLOBAL ETHICS
Box 3.9 Kantianism
Kantianism:
• is universalizable:
asserts moral right and wrong, determined by the categorical imperative:
• finds that moral agents are rational
• treats human beings as ends not only means,
• respects persons
is respectful of the "ends" of individuals and their own projects and concerns. So
Kantianism, for all its strictness about moral absolutes, is not over-demanding in
the way that utilitarianism is (Box 3.9). That is, a proper part of the moral life is the
respecting and giving time to one's own goals rather than simply spending all one's
time bringing about the greater good.
Kantianism for global ethics?
The notion that there are actions that are always right or wrong makes Kantianism
an important and attractive theory for global ethics.
There are many problems with Kantianism, perhaps most obviously the rigid-
ity of his absoluteness. While many want to say (in conflict with utilitarianism)
The Kantian, having determined, using the categorical imperative, whether FGC was
acceptable, would then need to check that it did not contravene the second formula-
tion: that people are always respected as "ends in themselves and never as means. This
criterion allows you to consider issues such as the potentially patriarchal and sexist nature
of the practice, as you can ask about whether the autonomy (or "ends") of the women
involved is respected. Again, you could come to different conclusions, depending on how
you weighted the facts. Yet clearly there are some issues that do appear on this framework
and not on the utilitarian framework and vice versa: for example, the Kantian framework
does not take account of the "happiness" of those involved but decides on whether the
act is right according to whether or not it conforms to the categorical imperative. The
Kantian must ask:
• Would it be reasonable for FGC to be a universal law?
• Does FGC respect persons and treat them as ends in themselves?
GLOBAL ETNICS
counter-example is that of people hiding Jews lying
a porte
that lying is generally wrong, and largely irrespective of consequences, they also
one that upholds the general duty to truthfulness. A common case presented
wish to argue that there are some exceptions where the morally good act is the
duty to refrain from lying? Many people would insist that, in fact, they had
seeking them. Surely the counter example suggests, those people did not have
to the Nazi soldiers who we
the Jews' lives. There are many more such counter-examples, and it is used when
considering current global dilemmas to ask what normally wrong acts are permis
tive moral duty to deceive the Nazis if doing so thwarted their evil ends and saved
sible in extreme circumstances. Such an exercise will help you plot your own moral
commitments and convictions. For instance, is it acceptable to steal to prevent star
vation? Alternatively, is it acceptable to indulge and have a luxurious Christmas
dinner while others are starving? Ar what point do you draw the line? And to
importantly for ethical reasoning, why? On what grounds? What reasons do you
both the complexity of moral problems and which type of moral theory is most in
think justify your moral solution? Working out where you stand will help you to see
There are further problems with Kantian theories, although we do not need to
go into them in detail. For example, what do you do when you have to choose
between two wrong acts! Think about the case of the "Inquiring Murderer, where
accord with your own moral intuitions.
it is both wrong to lie and wrong to assist in murder. Kant would seem to be clear
about which act was absolute
; but if you simply used the categorical imperative you
might conclude that not assisting in murder was equally absolute. A further criticism
worth mentioning is that, for some, the absoluteness regarding right and wrong is
thought to wrongly, make morality a system of rules that the moral agent simply
has to follow (Box 3.10).
Box 3.10 Summing up Kantianism
Advantages
• It fits with the moral intuition that some things are always wrong.
• It is universal
• It treats all similar cases similarly
• It respects persons
Disadvantages
• There are some conflicts with moral experience (8.9. the "Inquiring Murderer").
• It reduces morality to rules
• It is legalistic and mechanistic
• There are conflicts of rules and acts.
58
Purchase answer to see full
attachment