Immanuel Kant is recognized as the founder of deontology, who derives morality from pure reason (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). “Deontology” means “the study of duty” (Cardwell, 82), derived from the Greek words “deon” (meaning duty) and “logos” (the study of). Deontologists believe that morality depends on how acts and motives fulfill the duty, not consequences. According to Immanuel Kant, living a good life is fundamentally rooted in the exercise of rational autonomy, where individuals’s adherence to duty, as directed by the categorical imperative, forms the cornerstone of moral action. Kant posits that the essence of a good life is not the pursuit of happiness or the outcomes of one’s actions, but the commitment to act towards duty following the categorical imperatives as rational autonomous subjects.
Rational autonomy and categorical imperatives
For Immanuel Kant, to answer “How does one live a good life”, one must first answer the question “How one lives a life”. Outlined in “Critique of Pure Reason”, Kant answers that one lives a life by rationality, rooted in his epistemological understanding of the world. Kant developed the idea that reason is the source of laws directing the human experience. This notion is a fundamental shift in the way the subject views the world is understood, termed “the philosophical Copernican Revolution” by scholars (Britannica). Before Kant, epistemologists believed that the subject is discovering and describing the external world as it exists and independently of us (empiricism and rationalism); Kant argues that the subject perceives the outside world by reason, and the active role of perception by reason shifts how the subject perceives the outside world: epistemologically, the subject can never directly perceive the noumena (thing-in-itself) of an object, but only of things as they appear to us through the filters of our sensory experience and the categories of our understanding (phenomena).
This theory, outlined in “Critique of Pure Reason”, is the foundation of all Kantian philosophy — including his ethics. Since humans cannot directly perceive the noumenal moral laws, it is the human rationality or reason that gives itself the moral law. Rationality is the cornerstone of our living — humans live as rational autonomous subjects. Deriving from the belief that our understanding of the world is shaped by our rational faculties, so is our ability to intellect morality. Rational beings are capable of acting according to principles that are determined by reason, and thus we possess autonomy. Rational autonomy means governing oneself in accordance with reason (Cardwell, 86). Autonomy refers to the self-governing capability of rational agents, and to govern oneself is to create laws and act according to them; to be rational is to direct these self-created laws by reason. For Kant, the basic Good is thus rational autonomy itself, which has its intrinsic value, and it is a valuable end in itself (Cardwell, 84).
For one to exercise their rational autonomy to live well, one must self-govern by self-legislated rules, which Kant calls “maxims” (Cardwell, 85). A maxim is “a principle of action and a practical guide for volition” (Cardwell, 85). Maxims that give the motivation for our actions are morally significant, often taking the form of “to achieve [a specific goal] in [circumstances], I will do [action]” (Cardwell, 84). Because humans cannot fully control the outcome yet the intentions, an action’s moral worth does not depend on its consequence, but on the maxim by which it is determined (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Kant believes that maxims are central to a good life. For one to live a good life, their maxims must ultimately follow the categorical imperatives. In “Metaphysics of Morals” and later works, Kant introduces three formulations of categorical imperatives:
The formula of the universal law (principle of universalizability): Act only in such a way that we can will the maxim of our action to be a universal law (Cardwell, 89).
When one can support the universalized law, then the maxim is permissible; If a maxim being generalized turns out to be self-contradictory, then action motivated by this maxim is not moral.
The formula of humanity as an end in itself: treat persons, including yourself, always as ends in themselves and never as a means only (Fink, 42).
For Kant, the inherent worth of human beings resides in the following fact: unlike mere things, human beings are rational, autonomous beings, capable of governing their own lives and making rational choices. Thus, they should be ends in themselves. To treat someone “as an end” is to respect that person’s rational autonomy and recognize their intrinsic worth; to treat someone “as a means only” is to treat that person as a mere thing (Fink, 42). “Only” emphasizes that others can become a means to our ends, but do so in accord with their own ends, hence are not used (Cardwell, 87).
For example, assume that I am a manager at a company. An employee Amy asks me for a recommendation letter for a new job that suits her career and personal development better. She is hardworking and dedicated.
Option A: I secretly write untrue bad things in the recommendation letter, or I do not write the recommendation letter. I just do not want her to go since her new company is my competitor, and she’s going to benefit my current project if she stays. My primary motivation is self-interest and how she can continue to serve my objectives, not her. Thus, I am treating her as a mere means.
Option B: I will write her a recommendation because I genuinely want to support her career development and personal growth. I recognize her autonomy by respecting her decision, instead of considering the benefit to me. Thus, I’m helping her as an end in herself.
The formula of Kingdom of Ends: act following the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
In conclusion, Kant deducts deontology (the study of duty) from reason, paralleling his epistemological belief. For him, living a good life is fundamentally rooted in the exercise of rational autonomy: subjects act according to their own self-governing laws dictated by rationality. He calls these self-governing moral laws “maxims”. Moral actions and moral maxims should ultimately obey the three categorical imperatives — the principle of universalizability, the principle of treating others as ends in themselves, and the formula of the kingdom of ends.
Putting deontology into real-life scenarios, one can examine whether or not doing an action means a good life. Cardwell exemplifies the “right-based analysis”: a right is that which is due one or upon which has a legitimate claim; for each right, there must be a corresponding duty to deliver or provide whatever is due by that right. “My rights establish others’ duties, and my duties are established by other’s rights” (Cardwell). A rights-based analysis is thus the flip side of the analysis of duties (Cardwell, 92).
One example of rights-based analysis in real life is Mr. Sickman’s case (Cardwell, 93). He is sick and goes on a treatment. The pharmacy discovers that the drug the treatment uses can damage the patient’s body thus terminating his treatment. Mr. Sickman says that they violate his rights to health and thus rights to medication. However, there’s no one having a duty to provide health, because no one can: health is a condition, not a right. “Sickman confuses his desire with the right” (Cardwell, 93).
II. Objections to Kantian formalism (Cardwell, 87-93)
There exist a few objections to Kantian formalism or deontology.
First, people accuse Kantian formalism of being too abstract and difficult to apply. However, being too abstract is irrelevant to whether or not the theory is correct. Second, some scholars also argue that Kantian ethics excludes too many acts from the moral domain. Cardwell agrees that this objection is solid: in reality, people could choose a more inclusive and practical approach.
Third, Kant seems to deny the moral standing of children (and animals) with no full rational autonomy — people seem to be justified in abusing them, who have no full intrinsic worth. However, though they are not all capable of rational self-governing, this limitation does not justify people mistreating children or animals. People must use rational autonomy to act in compliance with categorical imperatives — and mistreating children or animals is not morally permissible.
Fourth, Kantian formalism ignores outcomes. However, Kant does include consideration of outcome in universalizing laws — if a universalized maxim produces self-contradictory outcomes, it is not a moral maxim.
Lastly, Kant provides no way of choosing among incompatible acts in cases where all acts conform with the Categorical imperative. This objection is solid (Cardwell, 89). For example, Kant argues that capital punishment is appropriate for heinous crimes to respect the rational autonomy of the victim; however, Kant opposes suicide because the life of the rational autonomous subject is intrinsically valuable. Therefore, Kant’s notion is over-complicated and sometimes self-contradictory at the same time.
III. Kantian from “The Good Place”: Chidi Anagonye
Chidi exemplifies Kantian ethics in his behavior, life principles, and decision-making. He commits to the universal moral laws (categorical imperatives), as he advocates for actions that he believes can be universally justified, such as Elenor should not be rude to other people. Chidi’s actions are also guided by a sense of duty, and he believes in doing the right thing for its own sake — such as cleaning up the neighborhood. He also values rational deliberation in decision-making. For example, he explains to Elenor detailedly why he decides to help her, proving that his actions are dictated by rationality, not impulses. Lastly, Chidi also recognizes people as ends in themselves, such as respecting Elenor. Though he believes Elenor is imperfect, he still helps her to be a better person, respecting and recognizing her humanity as an end in itself.
Works Cited
Cardwell, Charles. Hornbook Ethics. Hackett Publishing, 3 Apr. 2015.
Fink, Charles K. Moral Reasons: An Introduction to Ethics and Critical Thinking. Lanham, Hamilton Books, an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.
Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#KinEndFor. Accessed 10 Mar. 2024.
McCormick, Matt. “Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/. Accessed 10 Mar. 2024.
Wood, Allen W. Kant. Malden, Mass., Blackwell, 2008.
留言