2 Kant on Morality

7/30/2019 2 Kant on Morality

1/48

Kant on Morality1


2/48

Issues in moral theory2

1) phenomenology of moral duty

Separating duty from desire (for happiness)

2) How do we know what is our duty?

Formulations of the Categorical Imperative 3) relation of duty and happiness: the Highest Good

4) realizability of the Highest Good: antinomy ofpractical reason

Leads to discussion of the postulates of morality

5) what is the source of the power of moralconsciousness?


3/48

Background: Kants Mind Bows

Fontenelle says, I bow to a great man, but my minddoes not bow. I can add: to a humble plain man, in

whom I perceive righteousness in a degree higher

than I am conscious of in myself, my mind bowswhether I choose or not, however high I carry myhead that he may not forget my superior position.

Rationalist moral theories (Descartes and Leibniz):

based on science Utilitarian ethics of calculating consequences of actions: elitist

But what about an illiterate peasant?

Kant learns humility from Rousseau

3


4/48

Technical imperatives

there is a necessity or objectivity in any complexaction: I want to make tea, and so I mustboil the

water.

The goal is arbitrary: based on my desire But the means are necessary

Our choices give rise to all kinds of technicalnecessities or imperatives

4


5/48

Pragmatic imperatives

But making tea is not all that arbitrary: I like tea; mytea breaks are restful and help be get through theday; drinking tea makes me happy

In technical imperatives the goal appears arbitrarybut the means necessary

Here the goal appears necessary and universal: we allwant to be happy

Eudaimonistic philosophy (Aristotle, Mill, etc.)attempt to base moral laws on the desire forhappiness

5


6/48

Relativity of pragmatic imperatives

But if the goal is necessary and universal, the meansare relative, changing, fluid

Should everyone drink tea?

Eudaimonistic theories fail to find necessity in themeans

Utilitarian solution: If universal good is impossible,seek the greatest amount of goodgreatest good of

the greatest number =Democracy in morality

6


7/48

Two kinds of imperatives

1) Hypothetical: arbitrariness in either the end or themeans

Two forms: technical and pragmatic

2) Categorical: necessity (objectivity) in both the endand the means

I want to have tea, but I promised Martha I would take hershopping

I have a duty to keep my promise here that overrides my desirefor tea

7


8/48

Hierarchy of imperatives

Qualification of pragmatic imperatives:

We may do what makes us happy

as long as our doing so does not violate a higher duty tohumanity

Imperatives are nested in a hierarchy:

Tech imperatives refer to pragmatic ones

Pragmatic imperatives refer to categorical ones

8


9/48

1st person necessity

The necessity of the ought:

Not physical but moral necessity

Not 3rd person but 1st person

Not for a he or a she: he will tend to keep his promise because of his nature, up-

bringing, interests, etc

But a necessity/law that I ought to uphold because

I am its source I made the promise, so I ought to keep it: my own will should

be a law for me

General rule: Be able to will the maxim of ones action as a law

9


10/48

Paradox of duty

The ought or duty implies an objectivity thatcontradicts ordinary subjectivity

I want this (sensuous)

But I ought to do that

Compare to objectivity in experience of a house

10


11/48


12/48

Betraying an innocent person

2nd part of example: Suppose a powerful rulermakes you an offer you cant refuse. Could yourefuse it?

Whether he would or not he perhaps will notventure to say; but that it would be possible for himhe would certainly admit without hesitation. He

judges, therefore, that he can do something because

he knows that he ought, and he recognizes that he isfreea fact which, without the moral law, wouldhave remained unknown to him.

12


13/48

Real freedom

Without the moral law we would not know realfreedom:

Choice between two kinds of necessity

1) Our ordinary desires and interests 2) Our duty not to use an innocent person as a means for

satisfying our desires

= Experience of an inner power that is greater than

all our ordinary desires and interests

13


14/48

Phenomenology of morality14

1st issue: the experience of morality as a certain innerintention

People at bedside of a dying man

Are the morally motivated, or looking for a share of themoney?

Need to distinguish the moral motive from all othermotives

Especially desire for happiness

Deontology versus eudaimonism


15/48

2) How do we know what our duty is?15

Central formulation of the Categorical Imperative:Act only on that maxim through which you can atthe same time willthat it should become a universallaw.

1) consider the action you intend to perform

2) formulate the maxim implicit in that action

3) ask yourself whether you can willthat maxim as a

universal law

Not ask yourself (only) whether it could as auniversal law. exist


16/48

Why maxims?16

Rational persons implicitly formulate their goals interms of general rules:

I want this here and now = a person wants a certain kind ofthing

So there are maxims or general ideas implicit in allour actions

I.e., when we act we implicitly intend to realize a

general idea (rule or law) Can we do so without contradiction?


17/48

Permits the egotism of the scoundrel?17

Rawls/Sedgwick: permits the egotism of thescoundrel

I.e., there can be egotists who will the rule of their

own egos as a universal law = let everyone act for their own interests as separate

individuals

This is the law of laissez-faire economics (Adam

Smith)


18/48

Maxim of the egotist18

Kants formulation of the maxim of the egotist:

Let everyone be as happy as Heaven wills or as hecan make himself; I wont deprive him of anything; I

wont even envy him; only I have no wish tocontribute anything to his well-being or to hissupport in distress!


19/48

Moral hypocrisy19

This is a higher maxim than the one that normallyrules our world:

Now admittedly if such an attitude were a universallaw of nature, mankind could get on perfectly well

better no doubt than if everybody prates aboutsympathy and goodwill, and even takes pains, onoccasion, to practice them, but on the other handcheats where he can, traffics in human rights, or

violates them in other ways. = this is the maxim of a real world, but it cannot be

willedwithout producing a contradiction


20/48

Internal contradiction20

Maxim of a thief: I want to take someone elses property if I can get away with it.

= people should take each others property when they can do sowithout danger to themselves

But as a universal law, this makes property impossible I want there to be property (so I can have some)

I will destroy property as a means of getting property

Actual maxim: Other people should support property so Ican have it for myself I recognize the law of property in general But I make an exception for myself

=law of the parasite who does not take responsibility for the law thathe recognizes as valid


21/48

Two kinds of exceptions21

1) People should not steal from each other, exceptwhen a) there is dire need and b) the person fromwhom the property is stolen has more than he needs

2) People should not steal from each other, exceptfor me

1) is a general rule or law, like Do not kill innocentpersons: i.e., do not kill, except for criminals or

unjust attackers Kant is critical of this second kind of exception,

which cannot be formulated as a general law


22/48

Contradiction of the will22

The maxim of the egotist does not contradict itself inthis way

A world could and does existthat is based on self-

interest of separate egos: it is our world, though withthe addition of hypocritical moral sentiments thrownin

But such a law cannot be willedwithout

contradiction


23/48

Why egotism cannot be willed23

For a will which decided in this way would be inconflict with itself, since many a situation might arisein which the man needed love and sympathy fromothers, and in which, by such a law of nature sprungfrom his own will, he would rob himself of all hope ofthe help he wants for himself.


24/48

Two conflicting maxims24

All he needs is a little help: throw me a life-preserver; Im drowning

But the law of egotism which he first wills depriveshim of this help when he needs it.

Thus two contradictory laws are involved in his will 1) let each live his own life without contributing to others,

except when it serves their own interests

2) people should help one another in need, even if it does not

contribute to their own interests Thus the only consistent rule: help others when we

can


25/48

The order of explanation25

The categorical imperative is not the starting point ofKants ethics, but a secondary formulation

We start with the experience of duty in moralexperience: this rules out the scoundrel from the

start How explain that experience?

Duty implies that we go beyond the Ego to thePersonality or Self: in unity with humanity

With this hypothesized foundation in the IntelligibleWorld we can understand the formulations of theCategorical Imperative


26/48

Willing for humanity26

To say I want is to say A human being wants Egotism is ruled out by the general formulation

Hence each of us implicitly legislates for humanity ingeneral When I throw out garbage without thinking about it, I am legislating

a world of ecological irresponsibility This is a world I would not want to live in myself In each action we are sowing the seeds of a possible world Can we consciously will the world that we are implicitly creating?

Thus the 2nd formulation: Act in such a way that you

always treat humanity, whether in your own person orin the person of any other, never simply as a means, butalways at the same time as an end.


27/48

Holiness of humanity27

Man is certainly unholy enough, as aself-interested being, but humanity in his personmust be holy to him.

Need to respect the divine human in each person


28/48

Diversity of moral points of view28

Variety of food-moralities 1) meat-eating

2) vegetarianism

3) veganism

4) no root vegetables should be torn from the earth

2nd formulation: respect the humanity of each personwho is striving to do his or her best Each rule can be willed as a law

The individual should be consistent re her own laws, not try to

impose them on others = Beneath the particular moral rules of individuals is a

more fundamental moral truth


29/48

3rd formulation: Kingdom of Ends29

Economic values are relative Use value (utility)

Exchange value: a bible equals a bottle of whisky (because anequal amount of average labor is embodied in each)

Such values change with technological improvements (the value ofa high-powered computer keeps going down)

Human beings are priceless

Kingdom of Ends: consider the action as willed by a

legislature consisting of all humanity Economic values should be subordinate to the intrinsic dignity

or worth of the human being

3) Relation of morality and happiness


30/48

3) Relation of morality and happinessA stern, Stoical morality?

30

I serve my fellow gladly, more gladly if I like him

And so I worry, am I moral or not?

There is no other way, you must seek to despise him

And with repugnance do what duty gives to you as lot


31/48

(4th) Formulation of the Highest Good31

3rd: economic values should not contradict humanworth

(4th) Highest Good: goods should be distributed

according to the moral worth of the individual People who perform their duties to the best of their ability

should have their basic needs met

They should be happy


32/48

Two stages in moral analysis32

1st: isolate the moral motive from other kinds ofmotives

Stage of analysis

2

nd

: relate the different motives What is should the relation be between morality and happiness

Not: empirical relation but a priori syntheticrelation: given moral awareness, what ought to be

the relation between morality and happiness?


33/48

The way the world is, and how it ought to be33

In the world as it is, there is a divorce betweenmorality and happiness

The motive of self-interest drives economic life

People satisfy their needs and desires based on their position

in the market place

People who do their duty are often punished while those whostep on others, betray innocent people, etc., are ecomomicallyrewarded

But this is not how it ought to be! This is unjust! People who fulfill their duties ought to be rewarded

Those who violate duties ought to be punished


34/48

The Highest Good34

The Highest Good is therefore a world in whichpeople are happy in proportion to their moral worth

The moral person does not want happiness as an end

in itself, but wants to deserve happiness


35/48

4) Is morality a fantasy?35

Major issue: is such a world really possible, or is it afantasy?

But all of morality points to this goal of creating a

just world Therefore if it is not practically realizable, morality

itself is just a fantasy

For a goal that is impossible to realize cannot be a

duty (ought implies can) = Antinomy of practical reason


36/48

Antinomy of Practical Reason36

But if this is not possible, then all of morality fallsdown

= Keystone of morality

But empirical life seems to imply that the HighestGood is impossible

We live in a dog-eat-dog world of egotism

Kant on the general injustice

This is human nature Apparent powerlessness of the moral individual to

change this


37/48

Responses to the Antinomy37

1) the empirical evidence is appearance, not based onreality

People choose to act as egos

They are able to choose otherwise

2) the postulates of morality

3) teleology of history


38/48

Postulates of morality: 1) Freedom38

The Highest Good ispossible

It is necessary to believe in certain principles whichregarding its realizability

1) Freedom: the world of empirical experience issues frommoral choice: people in general choose to act as egos, andcreate a world that embodies their choice.

It is possible then for us to choose otherwise


39/48

2) God39

It is necessary to believe in a power capable ofrealizing the Highest Good

1) Coming about unconsciously through a teleology

of history = Providential character of human egotism: it plays a limited

positive historical role, and so even egotism is promoting themoral good

See teleology of history

2) The Power implicit in the moral will

The power of united humanity in the will of the morallyattuned individual


40/48

Two kinds of religion40

1) God as maker of the laws and as source of justice: External source of the moral law (external religion)

Rewarding the good and punishing the evil

Especially in the next life

2) God as the source of the Power experienced inmorality Acting for a reward and to avoid punishment: destroys morality

The moral law arises out of the inner nature of human acts, not as an

external set of commandments (inner religion) Morality is a duty for thisworld and for human agents

Belief in a power capable of realizing the Highest Good is rooted inactual moral experience and its postulated source: Intelligible World


41/48

3) Immortality41

Two meanings of immortality also:

1) rewards and punishments in the next life But this is External Religion

2) belief in immortality as a postulate of inner moralexperience We are imperfect moral beings, who only realize our duties

fitfully, incompletely, with limited progress in our moral lives

One lifetime is insufficient for becoming a fully moral person Hence, to support our commitment to morality it is helpful to

believe that we will have many lifetimes


42/48

Metaphysical choice42

Either we are fleeting beings arising out of thechance collisions of an indifferent universe

Belief that arises out of the evidences of sensible life

Or we are immortal beings, fulfilling a destinyprepared by a humanly attuned nature/providence

Belief that supports moral experience and is suggested by it


43/48

5) Source of moral power?43

1) Hume argues that morality is a powerful force that moves people to act

But reason is cold

So morality must be a feeling of a certain kind

But this deterministic perspective underminesmorality (Kant)

2) Rousseau: conscience is a sentiment of the soul,not a feeling of the body

3) Kant: noumenon v. sensible phenomena But there is a kind of 1st person evidence of this

noumenal reality in moral experience


44/48

The Intelligible World44

Duty! Thou sublime and mighty name what originis worthy of thee, and where is the root of thy nobledescent which proudly rejects all kinship with theinclinations It is nothing else than personality, i.e.,

the freedom and independence from the mechanismof nature so that the person belonging to the worldof sense is subject to his own personality so far as he

belongs to the intelligible world. For it is then not to

be wondered at that man, as belonging to twoworlds, must regard his own being in relation to hissecond and higher vocation with reverence, and thelaws of this vocation with the deepest respect.


45/48

The power of the personality45

As noumenal beings or things-in-ourselves webelong to an intelligible world

This is the world of the true personality which is inunity with humanity As distinct from the ego which is separate from other egos.

We dont know this, but choose to believe it as thebasis of moral experience

How else explain the power within us that is capableof setting aside all our sensible desires, feelings,interests?


46/48

Why be moral?46

If morality means setting aside all our ordinarydesires and interests, why should this interest us?

Kant: because we ourselves, as autonomouspersonalities, are at the source of the moral law

Thus in morality, we (believe that we) are more thanour sensible selves (ego)


47/48

Teleology of history47

But postulates are feeble supports in the face ofempirical evidence

Hence the 3rdCritique and Kants historical essayssupply empirical evidence for progress morality asthe guiding thread for understanding history We dont know this (1st Critique)

But the 3rd Critique defends another kind of knowing:teleological perspective

And the historical essays provide evidence: e.g.,progress in political life over the centuries


48/48

Kant on the French Revolution48

The Platonic Ideal (respublica noumenon [thenoumenal republic]) is not an empty chimera, butrather the eternal norm A civil society organizedconformably to this ideal is the representation of it in

agreement with the laws of freedom by means of anexample in our experience (respublicaphaenomenon [the phenomenal republic]) and canonly be painfully acquired after multifarioushostilities and wars; but its constitution, once wonon a large scale, is qualified as the best among allothers to banish war, the destroyer of everythinggood. (1798)

Documents

2 Kant on Morality