College of Teacher Education

First Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021

Module 10
Kant and Rights Theorists

Course Title: Ethics

Course Code: GE 8

Name: ___________________________________
Course and Year: __________________________
Date and Time Allotment: _______ (3 hours)

Introduction
This module entitled Kant and Rights Theorist will discuss Kantian Theory otherwise known as
Deontological Theory that focuses on duty as the primary factor for determining if an action is good or not. In this
theory, two tests will have to be passed: The universalizability test and the treatment of humans as an end and not as
means.

I. Objectives:
In this module, you will be able to:
1. Understand Kantian theory.
2. Analyze ethical situations using Kantian Theory.
3. Differentiate legal rights from moral rights.

II. Lecture and Discussions of the lesson/s

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

 Greatly influenced by David Hume

 Known for his “categorical imperative” and inspiration for
German Idealism
 Birth: April 22, 1724, Kaliningrad, Russia
 Death: February 12, 1804, Kaliningrad, Russia
 Studied theology at University of Konigsberg
 His parents were Anna Regina Reuter and Johann
George Cant, a harness maker.

www.aforisticamente.com
He is a German Lutheran theologian and philosopher famous at the most influential in the Age of
Enlightenment and Western philosophy. He has three know bools: Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of
Practical Reason, Critique of the Power of Judgment. He is renowned student, writer and professor in
mathematics, physics, and metaphysics at the University of Konigsberg.
 Kant live during the European cultural revolutions of enlightenment or renaissance in the 18 th century. He
followed his predecessors, Voltaire and David Hume in trying to replace religious traditions, superstitions and
monarchy with rationalism through his three Critiques on reason. Rationalism aims at providing answers to
metaphysical and other questions though the powers of reason alone. These influenced German idealism and
analytic philosophy.
Kantianism or Kantian Ethics is a deontological theory that emphasizes morality based on duty, reason, moral
principle, moral obligation, and motive or intention. It rejects consequences as the basis of morality. Kantian ethical
framework is considered as a Moral Universalism or Moral Absolutism and Moral Formalism.

“Humans are motivated by the duty to act morally or rationally instead of emotionally or without
Duty Principle
reason.”
Kant argues that duty or moral obligation is the very nature of the pure human reason. This means that as
rational agents, people can grasp the moral principles and act out of his principles without the aid of experience and
consideration of consequences.

Good Will “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good
Principle without qualification, except a good will.”

Good Will
Kant holds that fundamentally, there is only one thing that is good in and of itself – the Good Will. It is the
overarching principle of all morality. Good will is the very nature of the person’s free will. Free will as the ability of
pure reason is an absolute command of reason without qualifications. Thus, good will can freely choose its moral
duty dictated by reason alone.
Good will is “good” by virtue of being an end in itself or as a means to only one end, which is “good”. It is then
bad if the will is a means to another end or ends other than itself. The human reason produces a will that is
universally good in itself and absolutely good.
As universalist, the reason has only one end or “good”, which could be found in the will, reason and person. The
“good” is found in all activities or instances and not only in some instances. Thus, there should be no disparity
between intention and act. Intention and action should be one or good and they justify the end.
As absolutist, the reason allows no exceptions or qualifications other than the “good”. Reason is objectively good
in itself regardless if there is no one that approves of it. An act should absolutely and truly proceed, reflect and
represent the intention. There are two tests: “categorical imperative” and “persons as ends in themselves.”

Categorical Imperative “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it
Principle should become a universal law.”

Categorical Imperative: First Test

Kant’s “good will,” which is universally and absolutely good can be considered also as the one and the same
“categorical imperative.” It is the consistency of intention and the act.
This principle is the first test if morality comes from pure intention an objective judgment supported by rationality
alone. What is right or good is right or good and what is wrong or bad is wrong or bad. This is maxim or formal
command to be categorically or unconditionally followed in order to be moral. In making a right action, it could
become a universal law to be acceptable and followed by all.
The categorical imperative is also called a principle of objectivity because as a moral test it assesses the
universalizability of moral actions. To be able to discern whether an action is right or good one must be able to
imagine that it can be adapted or accepted as a rule by everyone around the world. But if seems not acceptable
or adaptable by all anywhere in the world, then it is wrong or bad.
Categorical imperative simply believes in his reason as he may as some form of questions such as: If you do
that, do you think everybody will like it?; Could that action be possibly made as everybody’s standard?; Is your
act universalizable?
 But categorical imperative is neither feeling nor inclination. Feelings are what pushes persons to choose
particular option or decision. They tend to favor. However, a categorical imperative or duty is doing what persons
ought to do despite opposing feelings.
For Kant, telling a lie can never be a good. It can never be rational and universalizable, despite very strong
reasons or good intentions. It may also bring good consequences but it remains bad. It does not change the fact that
lying is not an impartial standard. Lying is destructive. If all people lie then nobody believes that some are telling the
truth. Nobody can be trusted; no society will possibly exist.

Person as End “Act so that you treat people never as a mere means to an end, but always as end in
Principle themselves.”

Person as Ends in Themselves: Second Test

This “person as ends in themselves” principle is a second test that could be considered as the same with the
golden rule: “Treat others as you would like them to treat you” or “Do to others what you want others do unto
you.”
But to consider persons only as means to achieving other goals or one’s personal interest rather than being
good is wrong. Rationality is fundamentality objective or does not promote personal interest and have only one
ultimate goal – to be moral.
To be moral is the function of practical reason to allow humans “to apply general principles to particular
instances of action.” This means that humans should engage in moral reasoning as a way of determining one’s
moral duty. They should discover through reason alone “what is the “right” action to do.” They should apply a
moral principle such as the “categorical imperative,” “good will” and “persons as end in themselves” as the very
source of actions.

End Lawmaker Principle “Act as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaker of kingdom of ends.”

Kant thinks that persons as ends are autonomous. Autonomous persons are able to exercise free and good will
by legislating the moral law for everyone. Every rational being is able to regard himself as a maker of universal law
not because of an external moral authority but under the authority of his own reason alone. Being autonomous
demands respect for “ends” or persons have basic moral rights.

Applying 7-Step Model Kant’s Ethical Decision

1. Gather the Facts
 Your friend is inside the house.
 A sinister-looking (the looks make you feel that something bad or evil might happen) man carrying an axe
knocks on your door.
 He asks where your best friend is.

2. Determine the Ethical Issues

 Telling a lie (saving a life and preserve friendship) versus telling the truth (categorical imperative)
 In such situation, if you tell the axe man that your friend is in the house the axe man may kill your friend. But
even if you tell a lie in order to save your friend there is a possibility that the axe man finds your friend inside
or outside the house and kills him.

3. What principles have a bearing on the case?

  Categorical Imperative. This holds that an action is good or right if it can be universalized. Telling the truth is
a universal duty. This recognize and promotes that persons should be respected because they are persons
and it is a duty to treat others as “ends.” Besides, it is what comes from good will or pure reason.
 Sanctity of life. This is a moral principle or highest value that must be protected and preserved.
 Friendship. This moral principle is centered on affection, love, compassion and trust. One should do
everything to prove it.

4. List the Alternatives

Alternative 1: Attempt to convince the axe man that your friend is not in the house.
Alternative 2: Call for help from the neighbors to get rid of the axe man.
Alternative 3: Call for the police officers to report that a sinister-looking axe man is looking for your friend.
Alternative 4: Inform your friend about the axe man and let him decide if he allows you to reveal his location.
Alternative 5: Tell the truth that your friend is inside the house.
Alternative 6: Tell a lie that your friend is not in the house.

5. Compare the Alternatives with Principles

a. Attempt to convince the axe man that your friend is not in the house.
 But if the above is unsuccessful you can either call for help from either the neighbors or the police
officers.
b. Call for help from the neighbors or the police officers.
 But if the above is unsuccessful, inform your friend about the axe man and let him decide if he allows
you to reveal his location.
c. Tell a lie that your friend is inside the house.
 But even if the above option is possible, the axe man can still intrude and as your friend sneaks out at
the back door he can still be caught and be killed. It would be better to tell the truth for whatever
possible consequence you will not be responsible.
d. Tell the truth your friend is inside the house.
 This is the best option because it follows the categorical imperative.
6. Weigh the Consequences. (This is not applicable because consequences do not matter at all. Even if there are
good, better and best consequences, the basis should still and always be the good will or intention.)
7. Make a Decision
We have to think through Kant’s principle of “good will,” “categorical imperative,” and “persons as ends in
themselves.” How far should we tell the truth?
If you tell the truth as a categorical imperative, then it must be your absolute duty to tell him that he is hiding
inside. To tell the truth is universally good regardless of bad consequences. Telling the truth may cause the death of
your friend but you are not responsible for it. But if you tell a lie, which by chance will lead the axe man find and kill
your friend, then you are responsible. Even if your friend sneaks out at the back door and is killed, you’re lying itself
even to a murderer makes you still responsible.

Natural Rights Theorists. Greeks like Aristotle had long believed that rights are natural rights that re inherited from
nature and reason, like the rights to life, freedom, property and pursuit of happiness. Many modern thinkers like Hugo
Grotius (1583-1645), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Samuel von Pufendorf (1632-1694), and John Locke (1632-
1704) were natural theorist.

Instrumental Rights Theorists. Consequentialists and Utilitarianists like Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Henry
Sidgwick (1907) describe rights as parts of rules instrumental in achieving an optimal distribution of advantages or
greatest utility (happiness) for the greatest number of people. Pure egalitarian theorists also contend that rights lead
to the achievement of a more equal distribution of advantages. Whereas, the prioritarian theorists go beyond by
giving extra weight to the interests of the less privileged.
Contractual Rights Theorists. These thinkers hold that rights are stipulations guaranteed by a certain valid contract
between peoples. They also uphold rights in business contracts. Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and
Locke consider rights in social contracts between the government and its citizens as rights surrender to the authority
in exchange for protection of their remaining rights including their right to social order.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), [Kantian and Deontology] holds that human persons have rights that are autonomous,
universal and treat persons as ends. The only innate right is “freedom, insofar as it can coexist with other’s freedom
in accordance with a universal law.” The foundation of Kant’s human dignity and human rights is duty or reason.

Rights Theories or Rights Based Ethics

Rights theories are ethical/moral frameworks that consider rights as moral standards of the rightness or
wrongness of behaviors. Rights are moral rights either prohibiting behaviors that cannot be done against or
allowing behaviors that can be done to individual.
Rights theorists are considered deontological theories because the rights themselves are duties (reasons) that
everyone ought to obey regardless of any circumstance or consequence. Natural and human rights are
considered deontological.
A right defends an interest. To follow and defend a right then is good. But to violate it is bad. Rights are
considered also as entitlements or justified claims to certain kinds of positive and negative treatments and non-
interference from other.
Rights can be the social conditions of life that can help individuals realize their best. They help develop
personalities that may contribute best service to others and the society. No society is entitled to disrespect or
compulsorily remove these rights because they are natural or assigned as pillars of society.
When applied to moral behaviors, rights theories state that in order for actions to be good or right, the intention
of doing ought to be right and are duties in themselves that promote human rights. It is not the outcome of
actions that make them morally justified but the very moral principles or reasoning behind them.
The United States of America’s Bill of Rights and the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights
epitomizes the kinds of rights, which the rights theory adhere and promote. Rights could either be moral or legal.

Two Different Kinds of Rights

1. Moral Rights
Rights that arise from being part of a social community which recognizes the inherent worth of a human
being to one another. It is brought out from the basic respect and value one gives to another person.
Example: A person has the moral rights to expect others to give her credit for her works.

Characteristics of Moral Rights

a. Moral rights are universal and eternal. These are to be respected in all humans irrespective of their race,
age, status, religion, and generation. Example is the right to life and freedom which should be respected
anywhere around the world and at any time.
b. Moral rights are inalienable rights; they are called “human rights.” They are accorded to human persons not
for any other reason but by just simply being humans.
c. Human rights entail freedom to choose how one lives and express oneself, what end one should aspire for,
and many other things. Human rights often assure one to freely choose his own means in order to satisfy his
basic needs and dreams.
d. Moral rights are also traditionally considered as rights ordained by God to humans in order for them to
discover their own source and ultimate end. God himself.
e. Moral rights are natural laws that give undeniable or inherent freedom and life. Freedom and life are natural
and unchangeable rights. These moral rights are moral principles or norms, which guides human behaviors.
Any other considerations a far from being “moral” “human,” “natural” and “reasonable” are all considered
arbitrary, prejudicial, morally irrelevant and unequal.
 f. Moral rights are moral status which is having a kind of protective moral shield so that whosoever go beyond
or take advantage of them is a violation. Others are not free to take, to interfere, to limit and to abuse them
as they want. Any behavior that compromises the moral rights are called trespassing of the moral status.

Trespassing of moral status only means that one may have to exceed in their rights to the extent that they may
violate others’ rights. Though any response to trespassing must be within one’s rights. For example, if a criminal
attack a person and the person see it as great threat to his life, he has to use any means to preserve his life
even if it may harm or kill the criminal. Any exception to violate rights such as the case of self-defense could
never be the moral standard to violate other’s rights. It should always be the last resort.
In Section 1 under the Bill of Rights, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it states: “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has thirty articles:

1. Right to Equality
2. Freedom from Discrimination
3. Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
4. Freedom from Slavery
5. Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
6. Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
7. Right to Equality before the Law
8. Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
9. Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
10. Right to Fair Public Hearing
11. Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
12. Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
13. Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
14. Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
15. Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change it
16. Right to Marriage and Family
17. Right to own Property
18. Freedom of Belief and Religion
19. Freedom of Opinion and Information
20. Right to Peaceful Assembly and Association
21. Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
22. Right to Social Security
23. Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
24. Right to Rest and Leisure
25. Right to Adequate Living Standard
26. Right to Education
27. Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
28. Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
29. Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
30. Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights
These moral rights concern human equality. No human beings can ever be denied of these moral rights
through any legal means or other “good” reasons. Nevertheless, they may be formalized through some contacts
or legalization.

2. Legal Rights
A right created under the law. It can be based in the constitution or a statute. It is usually the crystallization of the
tradition, values and what is generally regarded as ethical and moral within a specific political area and
 recognized by a duly authorized authority (which in most cases would be the state and its citizens). They might
be loosely termed also as codified moral rights.
Example: A qualified voter has the right to vote provided he/she does not have any of the disqualifications.
Are claims that protect the interests of humans both as individual and as a group. They are “special” rights or
privileges granted by the government or a legal authority through a certain contract of agreement.
Legal rights are also called conventional or political rights, which are created by humans, authorities,
conventions.

Legal: Not Always Moral

Obviously, moral and legal rights cannot be separated. Some moral rights are legalized even though not all
legal rights are moral. There is an overlap between moral and legal rights whereby legal laws are essentially
based on moral rights. Right to life is both legal and moral so that laws on this such as its violation like
murder is both illegal and immoral. One may have a legal right to do bad not a moral right to do it. Some
legal laws can be unjust, thus immoral.
With diverse cultures, what is legal may not necessarily be moral. Laws and ethics are not the same. Laws
often embody ethical principles or codify ethical principles. They do not always prohibit acts that are widely
condemned as immoral and do sometimes prohibit those that are perceived as ethical.
Example: The use of artificial contraceptives is supported by the R.A No. 10354 or The Responsible Parenthood
and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. Families can choose artificial methods in family planning. But many
Filipinos especially the religious groups consider the law immoral because it does not only violate the natural law
but also promote premarital sex, self-indulgence, and teenage pregnancy and proliferation of pills, condoms and
pornography.
Correspondingly, some laws are immoral but not illegal. Some examples are back biting, gambling, smoking
and drinking alcohol, disobeying your parents, harsh treatment of children and sex with animals. Having no
law that prohibits them basically “legal” or permissible (through unwritten as a law) to ordinary people.
Tan (2014) has discussed some unfair legal rights or laws Revised Penal Code of the Philippines especially
to women:
1. Article 333 and 334 (Marital Infidelity Laws) hold that a wife may be found guilty of adultery if she has
sexual relations with a man not her husband. In contrast, a husband would only be guilty of
concubinage by meeting certain specific conditions. The punishment for adultery is heavier than
concubinage.
2. Article 202 holds that prostitution is the act of women who engage in sexual relations and lascivious
acts for profit, and outlines the appropriate punishment for such acts. According Philippine Commission
on Women, the law implies that prostitutes are “criminals who engage in the sex industry for monetary
gain.” It does not consider that most prostitutes are forced into the sex trade by socio-economic factors
such as poverty, making them victims rather than perpetrators. The law only penalizes prostitutes – not
the customers or pimps.
3. Article 351 defines premature marriages, in which women are barred from remarrying for 301 days or
when pregnant following legal separation, annulment, or being widowed. Despite the fact that there
have been no convictions for premature marriage, the law is seen as unfair to women as it enforces a
period of mourning on them.

III. Other References

1. Makie, Gleemoore C., Ethics: Flourishing Life, Research, Statistics, Business Consultancy and Publishing
Company, 2020
2. Pasco M. O., Suàrez V. F., Rodriguez A. G., “Ethics” C&E Publishing, Inc., 2018
3. Bulaong O., Calano M., Lagliva A., Mariano M., Principe J., “Ethics: Foundation of Moral Valuation”, 1st
edition, REX Book Store, 2018
4. Ramos, Carmela, “Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person”, (1st edition), REX Book Store,
2016