Kant's Ethics

IMMANUEL KANT
General context for Kant’s moral philosophy
Problem:
The new science developed by Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Descartes and others
viewed the universe as one big machine governed by precise physical laws that can
be discovered by observation and experiment. Freedom and responsibility disappear
from this picture of the world – and with them morality. Such a world has no
meaning, no purpose, no intrinsic value; it simply is.
Solution:
Kant did not want to oppose this new science; but he did want to defend belief in
morality (and religion). To be able to do this, he would have to show that
theoretical or scientific knowledge has limitations that prevent it from reaching
all of reality. In other words, scientific knowledge leaves room for and does
not undermine morality.
What can I know?
Kant's main contention . . . is that man as reason, as unity of consciousness, as

the "I think," is not so much he who is subjected to some object as he who
constitutes the subjective conditions which make possible the object of
experience. Thus the Kantian subject is one that "legislates," sets the rules and
boundaries for the emergence of the object. This, in general, is what is meant by
Kant's "transcendental" method. (Sullivan, 1989: 55)
Transcendental Deductive Method:
Conditions of the possibility of experience and knowledge;
to uncover the limit-boundaries of what we could possibly know.
Space and Time +
Sense ManifoldConcepts of Understanding + Experience
Implication for what we can know:
If space and time are merely ways in which the mind orders things, then things
can only be known by human beings as they appear, that is, under the conditions
of space and time (a priori forms of sensibility), and never as they are in them-
selves
Kant's famous distinctionbetween :
1.Phenomena: things as they appear
2. Noumena: things as they are in them-selves.
According to Kant, all we can know are phenomena; this is the limit of what we
can know. Beyond the phenomenal world (i.e. the noumenal), there can be no
knowledge
Summary / Conclusion
(a) "Knowledge," properly so called, is partly based on sense experience and

is partly not so based. Knowledge is always composite, i.e., we may identify
FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICS Page 1

empirical elements and a priori elements. The latter are contributions of the
knower.
(b) The limit of what we can know then is the limit of what is there in
sensuous experience that we can apply our a priori forms to.
“Concepts without sense experience are empty; sense experience without concepts
are blind.”
“All our knowledge begins with experience, but not all our knowledge arises out
of experience.”
Transition: Knowledge is limited to what we can experience in space and time.

But there are “things” we don’t experience empirically – like the “ought” in
moral imperatives. Through his excursion into the possibility of knowledge, Kant
has shown that there is room for matters of moral and religious significance.
Kant’s aim is then to rehabilitate morality. But to do this, he first had to

analyze knowledge, to explain how we come to know the world and what counts as
such knowledge. Only then would he be in a position to show the limits of
knowledge.
Our presentation of Kant’s thinking on morality will be guided by the following

three questions:
(1) What can we know? [Kant had to analyze knowledge first.]
(2) What ought I to do?
(3) What may I hope for?
KANT’STASK
What Ought I to Do?
To seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality” and so to be in a

position to justify and defend, not every individual moral judgment, but the
principles in accordance with which such judgments can be truly made.
To develop a “proof by reason” (a priori) that will work for moral laws. He
wants to prove the basic moral laws not by experience or observation but by
reason a priori, i.e., by pure reason alone. Pure reason gives us results that
are absolutely true and cannot be doubted. It is true for everyone, every-where,
and all the time. And this sort of absolute truth, Kant thinks, is very
desirable indeed.
The need for pure ethics
“Since my aim here is directed strictly to moral philosophy, I limit my proposed

question to this point only--Do we not think it a matter of the utmost necessity
to work out for once a pure moral philosophy completely cleansed of everything
that can only be empirical and appropriate to anthropology.”
Kant calls pure reason by the name “reason a priori”. What he means by this is a
reason that can prove things prior to experiencing them. This is a method not of
observation but of intellectual proof. . . . The thing about pure reason is that
it gives us results that are absolutely true. The statement that 82 + 45 = 127,
for example, is absolutely true and cannot be doubted. It is true for everyone,
everywhere, and all the time. And this sort of absolute truth, Kant thinks, is
very desirable indeed

“The GOOD WILL”
“It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it,
which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will.”
To clarify Kant's assertion about the good will, we ought to pay attention to
"without qualification”:
(i) A good will alone can be good in itself, or can be an absolute or

unconditioned good. That is – it is a good will alone which is good in whatever
context it may be found.
(ii) Its goodness is not conditioned by its relation to a context or to

an end or to a desire. It is good on the basis of itself and nothing else.
Therefore, the only possible basis of a pure ethics is the good will because it
is always good, or is good in every circumstance and situation. And so it is the
good will that Kant will use as the basis of his ethical theory.
“What makes a person have a ‘good will’”?
When we act, we always act to accomplish something; every action has some goal or
other. But we do not consider people to be morally wanting when, despite their
best efforts, they fail to achieve their goal. Instead – “morally good [will] is
. . . intrinsically good, that is, good in itself, just for what it is and not
good merely insofar as it is effective in achieving something further.
Against Utilitarianism: An act is not right or wrong because people are happy or
not. If the will acted from moral duty, then it acted rightly, even if its
action makes me, or other people, very unhappy. We must do our moral duty even
if the whole world perishes.
“The function of reason”
 Since . . . reason has been imparted to us as a practical power--that is, as

one which is to have influence on the will . . . its true function must be to
produce a will which is good, not as a means to some further end, but in itself;
and for this function reason was absolutely necessary in a world where nature, in
distributing her aptitudes, has everywhere else gone to work in a purposive
manner.
. Reason, which recognizes as its highest practical function the establishment of

a good will, in attaining this end is capable only of its own peculiar kind of
contentment--contentment in fulfilling a purpose which in turn is deter-mined by
reason alone, even if this fulfillment should often involve interference with the
purposes of inclination.
What makes the good will good is the performance of DUTY?
Kant wants to distinguish two different ways of acting. The first we might call
“outward agreement with duty.” Here the action does do what duty requires. But
the motive behind the action was not duty itself, but some other inclinations.
The second way of acting is acting from duty. Here the action not only does what
duty requires, but the motive behind the action is duty as well.
And what Kant wants to argue, here, is that it is only this second way of acting
– only acting from duty – that has true moral worth.
The formal principle of duty
Our second proposition is this: An action done from duty has its moral worth, not
in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim in accordance with which it

is decided upon; it depends therefore, not on the realization of the object of
the action, but solely on the principle of volition in accordance with which,
irrespective of all objects of the faculty of desire, the action has been
performed.
Maxim": When you are contemplating doing a particular action, you are to ask what
rule you would be following if you were to do that action. This will be the
maxim of the act. The maxim is thus the subjective principle in the categorical
imperative. This is the rule of action a person follows as part of his own
policy of living.
What Kant is saying is that morality does not depend so much on what we do or on
whether we are successful. Rather, morality depends on our doing things in a
principled way. It is not what we do, but how (on the basis of what principles)
we do it. Or, to put it a little differently, whatever our purposes might be,
the important thing is to pursue those purposes in a way that stays constantly in
touch with the principles of duty. (Velasquez, 199)
“Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.” Since dutifulness
abstracts from any ends we may desire, it requires us to comply with the moral
law out of respect for it, regardless of any desires we may have and regardless
of anything further we may or may not achieve.
(Sullivan, 1996: 32)

Kant's Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kant's Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kant's Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMMANUEL KANT

General context for Kant’s moral philosophy

What can I know?

Kant's main contention . . . is that man as reason, as unity of consciousness, as

Transcendental Deductive Method:

Conditions of the possibility of experience and knowledge;

to uncover the limit-boundaries of what we could possibly know.

Space and Time +

Sense ManifoldConcepts of Understanding + Experience

Implication for what we can know:

Kant's famous distinctionbetween :

1.Phenomena: things as they appear

2. Noumena: things as they are in them-selves.

(a) "Knowledge," properly so called, is partly based on sense experience and

FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICS Page 1

Transition: Knowledge is limited to what we can experience in space and time.

Kant’s aim is then to rehabilitate morality. But to do this, he first had to

Our presentation of Kant’s thinking on morality will be guided by the following

(1) What can we know? [Kant had to analyze knowledge first.]

(2) What ought I to do?

(3) What may I hope for?

What Ought I to Do?

To seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality” and so to be in a

The need for pure ethics

“Since my aim here is directed strictly to moral philosophy, I limit my proposed

FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICS Page 2

(i) A good will alone can be good in itself, or can be an absolute or

(ii) Its goodness is not conditioned by its relation to a context or to

“What makes a person have a ‘good will’”?

“The function of reason”

 Since . . . reason has been imparted to us as a practical power--that is, as

. Reason, which recognizes as its highest practical function the establishment of

What makes the good will good is the performance of DUTY?

The formal principle of duty

FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICS Page 3

(Sullivan, 1996: 32)

FUNDAMENTALS OF ETHICS Page 4

You might also like