At the end of the chapter, you are expected to:

• Understand the basic tenets of deontological ethics

• Explain Kant’s Idea of Good Will and the Categorical Imperative
• Resolve a moral issue using the categorical imperative

Derived from the Greek word “deon” which means duty, the Deontological theory
places special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of the action.
An action is considered morally right, not because the product of the action is good, but
because of some characteristics of the action itself. This theory holds that certain types
of acts are intrinsically right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong in themselves, irrespective of
their consequences.

Among the various deontological ethical theories, the most prominent theory is
that which was propounded by the preeminent German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Born on April 22, 1724 in Konigsberg Germany,

Immanuel Kant was the fourth child of 9 offspring of very
religious parents. Although he retained a high regard for
religion and had a deep moral sense, he rejected the
puritanical pietism that prevailed in his family.

Kant lived an unexciting life. Unlike his

predecessors, who usually maintained a very high
traveling spirit, Kant never got beyond 30 miles of his
native town.

He studied at the University of Konigsberg where

he took up classics, physics, and philosophy. It was said
that he was extremely studious and competent. After
finishing his studies, he was not given any offer from the
university. In order to earn for a living, he hired himself
out as a private tutor in science, mathematics, and philosophy over the next 10 years.
Eventually he was hired as a lecturer with the title of Privatdozent, a lowly instructor
position without any official title. It was at the age of 46 that he was promoted to the
position of professor of logic and metaphysics. Although perhaps it was not readily

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

recognizable in his works, he is nonetheless reported to have been in excellent lecturer,
full of wit and good humor.

His personal life was anything but illustrious. He never married. He did not
socialize; although he was known for his extreme politeness and graciousness. His
neighbors would consider him as a perfect example of German orderliness.

Kant lived during the Age of Enlightenment, when a Western man, flashed with
the success of modern experimental science and Newton’s physics, felt confident of
himself and of his reason. It was a time for Rationalists, who held that man has access
to knowledge by sheer a priori reason, independent of experience. It was also a time for
the Empiricists, who held, on the other hand, that all knowledge stems from sense
experience, and that except for logic and mathematics, only statements based on
experience are considered valid.

Kant’s ethical theory, known as categorical imperative, holds that the rightness or
wrongness of an act does not lie on its results or effects. He held that the task of moral
philosophy is to discover how we are able to arrive at principles of behavior that are
binding upon all humanity. He was trying to establish a universally accepted moral
principle. For him, the human person is subject not to the external but to the internal
condition of humanity, i.e., his good will.

GOOD WILL

For Kant, the highest good, that which alone is intrinsically valuable, is a moral
good. The only thing that is good in itself is what he calls a good will. Kant uses the term
“will” to refer to intention or motive. Kant held that what is morally right or wrong is
solely a matter of intent, motive, and will. A person has a good will if he/she does what
is right and does so with correct motive. The will of man, according to Kant, is
considered to be good when it acts so that it conforms itself to what duty demands. In
other words, submission to one’s duty is not due to the external demand imposed upon
the human person but due to the internal decision made by the human person himself.

For Kant, the only correct motive for moral actions is duty. Doing what is right
because it leads to something else like pleasure, prestige, or avoidance of guilt, is to act
from the wrong motive. Having a good will should not be seen as a means to some other
good. It is good in itself and has intrinsic value.

ACTING FROM DUTY

Duty can be considered as that which an

individual
ought to do despite the inclination to do otherwise.
In other
words, doing one’s duty is doing what one is
obliged to do.
According to Kant, one acts with a good will if
he/she does
the right thing for the right reason. By right reason,
he
means right or correct motive. A good moral
person is
someone who does the right thing (that is, follows
acceptable moral rules) for only one reason – respect for the
moral law itself. This respect amounts to what Kant calls
acting from duty.

Kant distinguished between acting from duty and

acting in accord with duty. To illustrate, when a student fulfills his requirements for the
DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
sake of passing the subject or getting high marks, he is considered to be acting in
accord with duty. But if the student recognizes that he has a special obligation of
studying and learning, i.e., because it is the right thing to do, then he is acting from
duty.

Some people conform to the moral law because they think it will be beneficial for
them to do so. But they are not truly moral because they do not act for the sake of the
moral law. For example, if a restaurant owner treats his customers well, provides them
with high quality service, and gives them correct change, but he does so thinking that
this is good for his business and will attract more customers to patronize his restaurant,
he may be acting in accord with duty by not from duty.

Some people may also perform right actions because of certain feelings or
emotions such as sympathy or compassion. Suppose you see an old woman begging for
alms in the street, and because you felt pity for this person, you gave her something to
eat. For Kant, if you have done this good deed because of such feeling or inclination,
reason, such act has no moral points.
For Kant then, if you do not will an action from a sense of duty, for instance, to be
fair and honest, your action does not have true moral worth. Actions have true moral
worth only when they spring from a recognition of duty and a choice to discharge it.

But then, what determines our duty? How do we know what morality requires of
us? Kant answers these questions by formulating what he called the categorical
imperative. This extraordinarily significant moral concept provides answers to the
question, “What makes a moral act right?

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

All mention of duties or obligations can be translated into the language of

imperative or commands. As such, moral duties can be said to have imperative force.
Kant distinguished two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical.

Most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something isn’t really a moral
choice – instead, its just contingent on our desires. For an instance, if you want money,
then you have to find a stable job; if you want good grades, then you have to study
hard. These If/Then statements are what Kant called hypothetical imperatives. These
are commands that we should follow if we want something. But then, you could always
choose not to work and you could always skip studying hard. For Kant, morality is not
based on hypothetical imperatives. Rather, it must be based on categorical imperatives.

The categorical imperative is the principle that describes this sense of

unconditional duty that lies within all of us. According to Kant, it is the source of “the
moral law within,” the source of our feeling that we ought to perform or refrain from
performing certain types of actions, no matter what. These are commands we must
follow, regardless of our desires. For Kant, the moral law is in its character absolute,
and it can allow no exception.

The Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

1) First Formulation: “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time
will, that it should become a universal law
without contradiction”

Definition of Terms:
Maxim = rule or principle of action
Universal Law = something that must always be done in similar situations

The first principle may be called the Universalizability Principle. This makes us
stand outside our personal maxims and estimate impartially and impersonally whether
they are suitable as rules for all of us to live by. This is similar to the Golden Rule: “Do
unto others as we would want them do unto us”. It requires that acceptable moral
maxims be the same for all.

To explain further, take a look at this scenario:

You’re very hungry.
You You saw your
left classmate’s snacks on
your top of his desk. You
noticed that you are
alone in the
wallet in your dorm. classroom.

If you approve of the maxim of stealing – which you’re doing, whether you admit
it or not – then what you’re actually doing is universalizing that action – you’re saying
that everyone should always steal.

Question: Do you want to have your food or belongings stolen?

The point is, who wants to be a victim of stealing? If you say none, then stealing
cannot be universalized.

Kant argues that there should be no exception to the rule. What applies to one
must be applicable to all.

Case Scenario: Is it wrong to lie to the murderer?

 Kant says Cassie can’t lie. Not even to save Kristoff’s life.
Suppose Cassie is in the front door talking to the stranger. At that
time, she thought that Kristoff is in the kitchen. It turns out that
Kristoff became curious so he went to the living room and heard the
stranger making threat. Afraid of what might happen, Kristoff went
off the backdoor. Meanwhile, Cassie told the stranger “Kristoff is not
here”.

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

Based on Cassie’s lie, the stranger went off and
just a minute later saw Kristoff at the gate and killed
him.

Had Cassie told the stranger the truth, the

stranger could have proceeded to the kitchen giving
more time for Kristoff to escape. Cassie is responsible
for Kristoff’s death because her lie caused it. Had she
told the truth, only the murderer would have been
responsible for any deaths that might have occurred.

Point to Remember: The one thing you are never permitted to do is violate the
moral law, even if others are doing so, even for a really good cause.

2) Second Formulation: “Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own

person or in that of any other, every case as an
end,
never as mere means.”

Mere Means– to use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the
interests or benefit of the thing you’re using.

The second principle can be called the Humanity Principle or Principle of

Respect for Person. This formulation underscores Kant’s belief that every human being
has an inherent worth that emanates from the sheer possession of rationality. Human
beings are important not merely for how much they contribute to society; but they are
worthwhile in themselves because of their inherent rational faculty.

We are not mere objects that exist to be used by others. Kant’s second
formulation argues that it is morally wrong to use someone as a thing, or as a mere
means for the good of another, as this violates the person’s inherent worth as a rational
being.

Case Scenario: The Surgeon, His Neighbor and the Transplant

Patients
 CARDO knows that no one would miss the guy if he were to disappear.

By some miracle, the neighbor is a match donor for all four patients. Is it morally
permissible for Cardo to kill his healthy neighbor, harvest his organs, and save his four
very sick patients?

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

Kant’s answer: No! An act cannot be morally justified if it treats an individual
person only as a means, though it produces a greater good for society.

Going further, we do use people all the time. We use other people as a means for
something but not as a mere means. For an instance, the bank teller who processes our
transactions, the restaurant staff who serve our food, your parents who provide for your
wants and needs. We still recognize their humanity when we use them and they agree of
being used. We still recognize their rights, autonomy and dignity.

Since a maxim that involves using people as objects cannot be universalized, Kant
believes that the two versions of the categorical imperative are two different
formulations of the same principle. For example, a maxim that allows people to cheat is
to be rejected since it uses others as objects through deception or manipulation. But it
is also rejected as valid maxim because it is not universalizable. No one in his/her right
mind would will that everyone is allowed to cheat, since it will contradict the essence of
communication and interaction between people.

Following Kant’s principles, can we make an excuse for our

white lies? Why? Why not?

The remaining two formulations of the categorical imperative draw from the
central points of both the first and second formulations.

3) Third Formulation: “So act that your will can regard itself at the same time
as making universal law through its maxims.”

The third formulation may be called the Autonomy Principle. The focus of this
formula is the authority that rests within our human will to productively shape the world
around us when following reason. As we act, we should consider whether our intended
maxims are worthy of our status as shapers of the world. Here, Kant means that moral
rules must be freely chosen by us.

Kant claims that the property of the

rational will
is autonomy. Autonomy means self-law. Its
opposite is
heteronomy which means other-law. To
illustrate the
difference between the two, let’s take a look at
this trivial
example:
 When you were a child, did you like to brush your
teeth? We may say that we did not want brushing at all
but our parents know that it is a must for oral hygiene.
Hence, our parents tried their best to get us to brush our
teeth. They either used scare tactics or offered us
rewards in exchange with brushing our teeth. In this
case, were we autonomous? Certainly not. We did not
freely choose to brush our teeth. Instead, our parents
imposed such principle on us via rewards or punishments.

Now that you are a grown-up, do you still need your parents scare tactics or
incentives just for you to brush your teeth? Hopefully, it’s not the case anymore. At a
certain point, you must have discovered for yourself the value of brushing one’s teeth.
As you grew up, you must have agreed with the principle of oral hygiene and thus, you
practice brushing your teeth even without the prodding of your parents.

Autonomy means as governing, regulating, restraining, oneself, including one’s

own choice or courses of action, in accord with the most principles, which are one’s own
and
DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
which are binding on everyone (universalizable). This imbues us with an absolute moral
worth, which means that we should not be manipulated or manipulate other autonomous
agents for our own benefit.

Nevertheless, there are instances when we want people to follow what we think is
right. This happens a lot of time. There is an urge in us to impose our principles on
others. For an instance, parents or elder siblings would like to guide their daughter or
sister in choosing the appropriate course in college to the point of choosing a particular
course for her thinking that this certain course will best prepare her for the future. It so
happened that this daughter or sister wanted to pursue a different course. Should the
parents or elder siblings impose on her and pressure her to take the course which she
does not want in the first place? Kant would say no. We have to recognize the
daughter’s autonomy from which his dignity as a person emanates. Forcing her is an
utter disrespect of her rationality and autonomy as a person.

4) Fourth Formulation: “So act as if you were through your maxims a law
making member of a kingdom of ends.”

The fourth principle can be called the Kingdom of Ends Principle. Kant envisions
a web of all rational beings, held together by the threads of shared moral maxims. He
means that the moral fate of all people hangs together. We saw that Kant thinks of
human beings as ends in themselves, and so, collectively, we are a “kingdom of ends”
or, more simply, a moral community.

As I act, I should consider whether my actions contribute to or detract from the

moral community. Specifically, I should consider whether the intended maxim of my
action could productively function as a universal rule in the moral community.

1) Kant’s ethics views moral rules as absolute and exceptionless. The problem
comes in when conflicts between moral rules arise.
For example: You received a tragic news about your relative, and your
mom who is at risk of a fatal heart attack asked you what happened. You know
that she will most likely suffer a heart attack if she hears about it. Will you lie
to her about what happened?
 Kant’s theory is unable to deal with cases where two or several values
conflict. The categorical imperative does not provide a way to rank
competing rules.
2) Kant argued that the only worthwhile motive for moral action is duty. And it is
acting from duty, not acting with a sense of duty, that makes us moral. Critics
say that this is too unrealistic and too demanding.

For example: I passed by the streets of Quiapo and saw a single mother
with a very sick infant. Moved by pity and sympathy, I handed her P1000.

For Kant, my generous act has no moral worth because I did it out of
sympathy. But then, a critic would say that we find a person with strong
human sympathies a better and more admirable person than someone
who gives solely out of an abstract sense of duty.

3) For Kant, only persons have moral standing as members of the “kingdom of
ends”. A person is someone who must be capable of rational judgment and of
deliberating about universal moral principles, and you must have the power of
will to adhere to those principles. How about the rationally impaired –
those who suffer from dementia? It implies that they have no moral
standing.
DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

Kant’s theory focuses on duty as the primary factor for

determining if an action is good or not.
Kant distinguished between acting from duty and acting in accord with
duty. Actions have true moral worth only when they spring from a
recognition of duty and a choice to discharge it.
For an action to be considered good, it must pass the principles of
categorical imperative: the universalizability, humanity, autonomy, and
kingdom of ends principle.
DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION