Kant's Categorical Imperative (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes

Kant's Categorical Imperative

Introduction to Kant's ethical theory

Kant is best known for his 'Copernican Revolution' in philosophy. He argued that space, time, and causality are not features of reality 'out there' to be discovered, but are the ways in which our minds organise experience. We cannot know the world as it is in itself, only the world as it appears to us. This idea is central to understanding Kant's ethics – if we understand how our minds work, we can understand morality.

Kant's ethical theory shifts focus to the personal experience of the moral will, similar to how Utilitarianism focuses on individual happiness. His ideas were developed in two key works:

• Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
• Critique of Practical Reason (1788)

His aim was ambitious: to seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality.

The foundation: good will and duty

The good will

Kant insists that there is only one thing that can be regarded as good without qualification: a good will.

Key characteristics of the good will:

• It is autonomous (self-governing)
• It is good without reservation
• It is not a natural gift but a chosen act
• It is the only thing that makes a person worthy of happiness

There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.

This means that external goods (wealth, power, intelligence, even happiness) can be used for evil purposes. Only a good will is intrinsically good.

Autonomy – the state of being self-governed, self-ruled, and free from external control or influences.

Moral obligation and duty

Alongside the good will, we all possess a sense of moral obligation. This is the awareness that there is something we ought to do, regardless of the consequences for ourselves.

Key points about duty:

• Duty is always a matter of conscious choice
• It is an internal sense of what one ought to do
• We develop moral rules because rules bind us to our duty
• An action is only moral if it is done from duty, not from inclination or personal benefit

Kant argues that you are not acting morally if you:

• Do what you enjoy
• Do what gives you personal benefit
• Act from natural kindness

To be moral, an action must be based on pure practical reason – reason that chooses actions because they are good in themselves. Personal enjoyment or benefit is irrelevant to the morality of an action.

The aim is not to be happy, but to be worthy of being happy.

Categorical vs hypothetical imperatives

To understand the Categorical Imperative, Kant first contrasted it with hypothetical imperatives.

Hypothetical imperatives

Form: "If A, then B"

Characteristics:

• Conditional (they use the word 'if')
• Based on self-interest
• Good is instrumental (done to get something)
• Cannot lead to universal moral commands

Examples:

• If you want to be a fighter pilot, then you need to learn engineering
• If you want to be happy, then go bungee jumping

Categorical imperatives

Form: "Do A"

Characteristics:

• Unconditional commands that cannot be disobeyed
• Good is intrinsic and deontological
• Apply universally to all rational beings
• Based on duty, not consequences

Examples:

• Do not murder
• Do not steal
• Do not lie

The three formulations of the Categorical Imperative

Kant provided three linked formulations to establish the rational basis of moral duty. Each formulation expresses the same underlying principle in different ways.

First formulation: universalisability

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

This is Kant's principle of universalisability. If what you propose to do is to be considered right, you should be prepared for everyone else to work on the same principle.

Maxim – a general guideline or principle of action. It can be expressed as: 'Whenever X happens, I consider it right to do Y.' It is your maxim that should be universalised, not the actual thing you are planning to do.

How to apply this formulation:

1. Identify your maxim (your principle of action)
2. Ask: "What would happen if my maxim became a universal law?"
3. If universalising the maxim creates a contradiction or an undesirable world, then the action is immoral

Second formulation: the practical imperative

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

This principle excludes using other people simply as a means of achieving your own ends.

Why this follows from the first formulation:

• If you will that your principle should become universal law, you must be prepared for everyone else to make that same moral choice
• This means you must allow that all others are free moral agents, just as you are
• To treat people only as 'means' is to dehumanise them
• If you respect yourself as an autonomous moral individual, you must allow everyone else to be their own 'end' as well

Third formulation: the kingdom of ends

Act as though a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.

This formulation, less well known than the first two but logically following from them, requires that you should always act as though you were responsible for making rules in a kingdom where everyone is to be treated as an 'end' and not as a means. In other words, a society of free and autonomous human individuals.

Important concepts in Kant's ethics

Moral seriousness and duty

Kant demands moral seriousness. Key points:

• Morality does not depend on results or inclinations
• After you have reasoned out what you ought to do, you should do your duty regardless of consequences
• Morality is a positive act by which we shape our world
• Being kind or helpful may be a natural gift, but having a 'good will' is a chosen act

Teleological aspects

Kant's ethic is not 'absolutely' deontological. He does not ignore consequences completely. The consequences must be worked through before you can tell whether the principle you want to act on conforms to the Categorical Imperative.

According to philosopher Keith Ward, the content of ethics includes the wants and desires that people actually have. There must be an organic link between people's duties and their natural desires. For example, there is a natural link between a person's duty to tell the truth and their natural desire not to be lied to.

Radical evil

Despite the rationality of the Categorical Imperative, Kant was forced to acknowledge that human existence contains a great deal of moral evil.

The summum bonum and postulates of practical reason

The summum bonum

Kant's theory of ethics culminates in his idea of the summum bonum – the highest good.

Summum bonum – the highest or supreme good: the culmination of Kant's ethics where virtue meets its appropriate reward of perfect happiness.

Key points:

• One should not strive to be happy, but to be worthy of happiness
• The highest good is the joining of virtue and happiness
• Virtue must be the starting point (because it involves the good will)
• Happiness is an optional bonus, not guaranteed and not our aim
• Morality is internal (it concerns the good will)
• You don't need to believe in a 'highest good' before you can act morally; you simply have to will the highest good

'Ought implies can'

If you do seek the summum bonum, you must assume that its achievement is at least possible. If the good will tells us that we ought to do our moral duty, then that sense of 'ought' implies that we can in fact do our moral duty.

'Ought implies can' – Kant's view that the force of the moral 'ought' (the Categorical Imperative that we ought to do our moral duty) implies that we can do our moral duty.

The three postulates of practical reason

To make sense of the conviction that we can achieve the summum bonum, our practical reason tells us that we must make three important assumptions. These are Kant's three 'postulates of practical reason'.

Postulate – a presupposition or assumption which you must have accepted in order to make sense of your moral choices.

1. God and immortality

The reasoning:

• God does not command the moral laws (they arise from reason and the good will)
• Nevertheless, we feel the compulsion of the moral 'ought'
• 'Ought implies can' – if I ought to do my duty, then I can do it
• If this is the case, then the universe must be fair
• If I do my duty and become morally worthy, there must be a reward of happiness proportional to my obedience to the moral law
• The reward for the highest obedience is the summum bonum (the perfect match between morality and happiness)
• Perfect happiness cannot be achieved in this life
• Therefore, there must be immortality in which the summum bonum can be achieved
• Only God can provide immortality, so God exists to guarantee the summum bonum

2. Freedom

• Freedom of the will is the core of morality
• We cannot show from experience that we are free
• Nevertheless, we know a priori (independently of experience) that we are free
• If we are not free, morality makes no sense
• Freedom is therefore an a priori (necessary) assumption
• By taking the decision to act in line with duty, we presuppose that we are free

Advanced concepts (for deeper understanding)

The noumenal and phenomenal realms

For Kant, reality has two aspects:

Phenomenal realm – the world as experienced through the senses, governed by the laws of cause and effect. This is what reality appears to be like according to our senses.

Noumenal realm – reality as it 'really' is, independent of our sense experience. This is experienced through the synthetic a priori.

Our knowledge of the phenomena is a posteriori (through sense experience), so is empirical. Knowledge of the noumena would have to be a priori – knowledge that is independent of sense experience.

Synthetic a priori

Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative is a synthetic a priori proposition, and all our moral duties derive from it.

Synthetic a priori – propositions that provide new information that is necessarily true.

Moral judgements are:

• A priori because we do not know them by sense experience (experience tells us how things are, not how they ought to be)
• Necessary because the force of the moral 'ought' tells us what we must do
• Synthetic because we cannot establish what we ought to do by arguing about definitions (they relate to the world of wants and desires)

Meta-ethical position

Meta-ethically, Kant is an ethical non-naturalist:

• The command to obey the Categorical Imperative is a rational choice of the will
• The will belongs to the noumenal realm (outside space and time)
• The noumenal realm is outside the realm of scientific enquiry
• Knowledge of the noumena must therefore be non-natural
• Morality exists in the noumenal realm, not the world of facts
• Morality is known non-naturally

Evaluation of Kant's Categorical Imperative

Strengths

1. Simple and effective principle

The principle of universalisability provides a straightforward tool for determining moral duties. It can be understood even by children: if you want to murder, rob, or steal, then you need to be happy that others do these things to you whenever they feel like it.

2. Highlights problems with consequentialism

Bentham's emphasis on consequences means that a utilitarian might justify doing a bad act to bring about good consequences (for example, killing one person to save seven). For Kant, this can never be justified.

3. Removes emotion in favour of reason

If we are swayed by emotion, we show favouritism, which can be immoral. Kant's rational approach promotes impartiality.

4. Foundation for modern human rights

Kant's theory is influential today because the modern emphasis on human rights, equality, and justice stems from his ideas. Humans have intrinsic value, so they cannot be enslaved or treated merely as means.

Weaknesses and responses

1. Believability of universal moral rules

Criticism: The Categorical Imperative is no more believable than Divine Command Theory. Both theories amount to non-natural guesswork. If we look at the state of the world, there are clearly no agreed universal moral rules, so the idea of a Categorical Imperative is wishful thinking. Morality is in this world, not in some imagined noumenal realm.

2. Consequences matter

Criticism: If killing one person saves seven lives, there is an excess of good over bad. How many people would Kant let die to avoid killing one innocent person – the whole population?

3. Unrealistic about emotions

Criticism: As Hume shows, it is impossible for humans to ignore their emotions, because emotions are part of what it means to be human. For Hume, moral sentiment combined with utility motivates us to act.

4. Anthropocentric approach

Criticism: Kant's emphasis is completely human-centred. Animals are non-rational and therefore cannot be seen as members of the moral community. This justifies cruelty to animals and is environmentally problematic.

Additionally, many humans are incapable of the intellectual effort required to universalise maxims.

5. Religious elements problematic for non-believers

Criticism: Kant's three postulates include God and immortality, which makes little sense for those who are not religious. This compromises the autonomy of reason and the moral agent.

6. Conflicting moral duties

Criticism: Kant's theory does not make it clear what to do when there are conflicting moral duties. The classic example is the mad axe murderer: if a murderer asks where your friend is hiding, you face a conflict between the duty not to lie and the duty to preserve innocent life.

Responses:

Universalising a white lie: There seems to be no reason why someone could not universalise a rule to allow a white lie: 'Put your respect for life above the rule to tell the truth.' This would allow the agent to lie to the axe murderer to save the innocent victim.