Category: Immanuel Kant

Hurrell Andrew, 1990: ‘Kant and the Kantian paradigm in international relations, review of international studies, pg 183 to 205, vol 16, no 3.

Hurrell Andrew begins by saying that Kant has been off great influence in international relations and philosophy especially his book called perpetual peace, which introduced ideas of federalism, world order and pacifism. There has been a 2 stand interpretation of kant’s view, those who say kant is against a world government and non intervention on the one hand, and statist on the other who says progress can be attained if states grow internally and reject the view of a cosmopolitan law.they say kant’s meaning of a federation of states doesn’t mean a world government, but simply republican states coming together for a common aim of stopping wars between them. Thus to them, the solution to war is not bringing states together but simply creating a loose league of republican states (that is, a free federation).

However, there are some who see kant’s stands in a different dimention. They have viewed kant as the paradigm, that is, there exsist a universal or cosmopolitan tradition in international relations. Thus, Hurrell says his article is aimed at looking at the balance or areas where there exsist statist and areas where they exsist a universal element in Kant’s ideology in international relations.

Kant’s view of the international system

To kant, insecurity is always present and this is the state of nature. States are very lawless as well as the individuals in the state, and it is for this reason that insecurity exsist and not necessarily because there exsists fights. So to kant, freedom can only be gotten if the nature of states is changes and characterised by laws. Such a society is what should be put in place if moral progress is needed. A state of lawlessness is what makes morality incapable of being archived and thus this leads to war. To kant, as Andrew explains, domestic and international societies are connected, and as such, if anarchy continues at the international scene, so too it will be difficult to get domestic political liberty. Thus, the second need to be solved, for there to be total freedom and perfection. As Andrew puts it, to kant, total life or free life is possible only if the aspect of international state or war is treated. This is what distinguished kant from the traditional western political thinking of resolving anarchy domestically by creating states.

Kant’s view of progress to a peaceful world

To Kant, a guarantee of Perpetual Peace between states means ‘Standing armies (miles perpetual) should gradually be abolished altogether. This is so because their presence (standing armies) constantly threatens the other states with war by the very fact that they are always prepared for it. Thus these armies are in themselves the cause of wars of aggression, which in turn set out to end burdensome military expenditure.

Kant explains in his Preliminary Articles of a Perpetual Peace between States that, No conclusion of peace shall be considered valid if it was made with secret reservation of the material for a future war. Thus by ‘peace’, Kant means an end to all hostilities and to attach the adjective ‘perpetual’ is close to pleonasm. Thus a conclusion of peace nullifies all existing reasons for a future war. He also says, No independently existing state, whether large or small, may be acquired by another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase or gift. In Kant’s Second Definitive Article of a perpetual peace, he emphasized on the Right of Nations shall be based on a Federation of Free States. Kant explains we ought to consider the right of nations in relation to one another in so far as they are a group of separated states. He goes ahead to declared in his Third Definitive Article of a perpetual peace: Cosmopolitan Right Shall be limited to conditions of Universal

Hospitality. By hospitality, Kant explains it as the right if a stranger not to be treated with hostility when he arrives on someone else’s territory. He goes further to explain that if he (the stranger) can’t be accepted there, he can indeed be turned away without causing his death but all in all, he must not be treated with hostility so long as he behaves in a peaceful manner. The stranger may claim a right of resort and not rights of a guest, for all men are entitled to present themselves in the society of others by virtues of their right to communal possession of the earth’s surface. Thus since the earth is a globe, we must tolerate one another’s company.

Kant’s statist or cosmopolitan

Andrews in this article takes a stand that Kant is more of statist than cosmopolitan. Aspects of his statist have to do with the way he rejects the idea of creating a world government. He prefers the stand that, states can protect themselves by increasing their military, economic and political strength. To kant, wiping away a society or federation of states is not his goal but rather creating a system where states do not struggle and its stability depends on each other’s respect of the other sate’s independence and legitimacy. So kant does not reject international law but simply says the law should respect the autonomy of states. A critical look at this, one will think kant is in faivour of universalism as he points to the international order.

But Kants’s view on mon intervention on state’s sovereignty shows him as more concerned with the state’s order and thus a statist. Also, his concern for individual freedom and a need for a system which is interstate makes him statist.

However, there are places where Kant brings in universalism or cosmopolitanism especially in his idea of a universal history where kant holds that, he has hopes of the emergence of a global society in the future. His makes him more universal or cosmopolitan. Also, Kant believes mankind’s coming together as one as well as the importance of this coming together of mankind. In perpetual peace as seen above, Kant says in other to archive peace there is a need for universal hospitality.

Conclusion

We can thus conclude from the above that, Kant was more of statist as Andrew and his co writer postulates. Kant held that the state system has 2 functions and cannot be changed. However, there are aspects of him that shows him as cosmopolitan as he encouraged universal hospitality of individuals. However, deciding on wither Kant’s philosophy was statist or cosmopolitan still remains an issue to be resolved.

Philippa Foot in his publication “Killing and Letting Die,” formulated a thought experiment that incorporated two situations. Despite the two different scenarios yielding the exact same consequences in the end, the different methods employed in arriving at those similar outcomes raise questions revolving morally permissibility. In the first scenario which we shall call Rescue I, a person is in a situation where he must drive swiftly in order to rescue five individuals from an imminent ocean tide. Along the way the driver learns of a single person also requires immediate assistance from another tragedy. However, if the driver chooses to rescue this one individual first he will not be able to rescue the other five. Therefore, the driver decides to drive on to save the five and lets the single individual die. In the second scenario, Rescue II, a person is in a situation where he must also drive swiftly in order to rescue five individuals from an imminent ocean tide. However, this time round the road is narrow and blocked with an injured man and the driver is incapable of using another road. However, if the driver chooses to rescue this one individual first he will not be able to rescue the other five. Therefore, the driver decides to drive over the injured man and proceeds to save the five people. If one stops, they can save him, but they will not reach the other five in time and they will die. The two situations in this thought experiment eventually produce the exact same outcomes where five people are rescued and one person ends dying. In this essay, I will analyze the works of two great philosophers, John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant under Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperatives respectively in order to assess the moral acceptability of the two scenarios, Rescue I and Rescue II.

Mill was an advocate for utilitarianism which held the position that, it is the significance of the outcomes of a certain action that matters most when judging whether that action is right. According to act utilitarianism, an action is deemed as being morally right when it generates the greatest good (i.e. generates maximum pleasure and happiness) than other feasible actions for the maximum number of people (Mill 98). Utilitarianism argues that the objective of morality is to make life better by maximizing the quantity of well-being, for instance, pleasure and happiness, in the world and minimizing the quantity of bad things, for instance, pain and unhappiness. Therefore, a deed is only morally acceptable if and because it generates the greatest good to a maximum number of people. In Rescue I, it involves a person choosing to drive past a single individual who needs immediate help in order to go save five other people from an imminent danger which results to the single person dying while the five get rescued. Mill would have definitely agreed with the actions of the driver in choosing to let one person die in order to rescue the lives of five other people in Rescue I. Therefore, the driver’s action can be viewed as being morally acceptable since utilitarianism, it results in the generation of the greatest good or happiness to the maximum number of people while minimizing suffering. In Rescue II, it involves a person choosing to drive over a single individual who needs immediate help in order to go save five other people from an imminent danger which results to the single person dying while the five get rescued. Mill would have definitely agreed with the actions of the driver in choosing to kill one person in order to rescue the lives of five other people in Rescue II. Therefore, the driver’s action can be viewed as being morally acceptable since according to utilitarianism, it results in the generation of the greatest good or happiness to the maximum number of people while minimizing suffering.

On the other hand, Kant argued that there exist imperatives that should be responsible for dictating our moral actions and judging the moral acceptability of those actions. So as to be able to accurately predict Kant’s standpoint on both situations, I have to implement the imperatives to the scenarios of both Rescue I and Rescue II. Kant’s first Categorical Imperative asserts that “Act only in conformity with that principle by which you can in any event decree that it should become a universal law without contradiction” (Paton 17). Kant goes further to claim that an accurate moral postulation needs not be constrained to any specific circumstances, as well as the identity of the person making the choice. An ethical maxim needs to be separated from the specific physical particulars encompassing its proposition and needs to be relevant to any rational person. Drawing from Kant’s assertions, above everything else we have a moral obligation not to behave by maxims that end in logical inconsistencies (Paton 18). Simply put, Kant’s first categorical imperative directs an individual to treat others as he would like to be treated. In Rescue I, it involves a person choosing to drive past a single individual who needs immediate help in order to go save five other people from an imminent danger which results to the single person dying while the five get rescued. In this scenario, the maxim as the driver would have been to not let people perish and the duty would have been to rescue all the people that need saving. Therefore, Kant would have strongly argued for the rescuing of the single person since neglecting people that need help when you are in a position to render that help is immoral and no one wants to be left out to die if they can be rescued. Ignoring people in life threatening situations cannot be a general rule. In the case of Rescue II, the maxim will be not to commit murder and the duty will be to save life at all cost. Therefore, drawing from Kant’s first categorical imperative, the driver’s action can be viewed as being morally inacceptable. Based on these, the recommendation will be to stop and save the life of the person trapped on the road.

Kant’s second Categorical Imperative states that “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end” (Paton 20). According to him, rational beings should never be treated simply as tools for achieving certain ends. Instead, they are regarded as an end in themselves and their rational motives must be respected. Kant argued that there are some kinds of actions, such as murder, stealing, and dishonesty, which are totally forbidden, even if they would result into more joy. In Rescue II, it involves a person choosing to drive over a single individual who needs immediate help in order to go save five other people from an imminent danger which results to the single person dying while the five get rescued. In applying Kant’s ethics to the Rescue I and II, there are two queries that must be taken into consideration. These acts would mean using human beings to make an end, preventing the death of five people. As such, these actions would not be accepted by Kant. A reasoning being cannot sensibly accept being treated simply as an object to make an end; they are regarded as an end in themselves. Therefore, drawing from Kant’s second categorical imperative, the driver’s action can be viewed as being morally inacceptable. In addition, Kant would refute such acts if adopted by everybody.

Utilitarianism’s primary criticism has to do with justice. A standard objection to utilitarianism is that it could require us to violate the standards of justice (Lawhead 105). For example, imagine that you are a judge in a small town. Someone has committed a crime, and there has been some social unrest resulting in injuries, violent conflict, and some rioting. As the judge, you know that if you sentence an innocent man to death, the town will be calmed and peace restored. If you set him free, even more unrest will erupt, with more harm coming to the town and its people. Utilitarianism seems to require punishing the innocent in certain circumstances, such as these. It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness.

But even though Kant’s claim is convincing, yet his formulation of it faces major criticism. This is because, rather than the formula, “So act that the maxim from which you act can be made a universal law,” (Paton 17) which is only a negative rule, the moral imperative is properly this: “do good and avoid evil” (Lawhead 107). Thus evil ways of acting can never become universal laws since they are in themselves self-destructive. For instance, if we hold that we shouldalways so act that the maxim from which we act can be made a universal law, how about sadists who may wish to make the maxim of their action – inflicting pains on others, universal since they themselves would like the inflicting of pains done to them? Besides, there are also good ways of acting that can never become universal laws, such as working to alleviate poverty. Hence the reason for the moral goodness of an act is not the fact that it can be made a universal law, otherwise, anyone can will to universalize the maxims of his or her actions not taken into consideration that every individual is different from his fellows – including his actions, wants, desires and will.

Having analyzed the two philosophies of Kant and Mill, I am of the opinion that the ethical approach employed by utilitarianism is superior in this thought process as it offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation we may find ourselves in. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after all the variables have been taken into account.

Works Cited

1. Lawhead, William F. The Phillosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
2. Mill, John Stuart. On liberty; and, Utilitarianism. Bantam Classics, 1993.
3. Paton, Herbert James. The categorical imperative: A study in Kant’s moral philosophy. Vol. 1023. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.

Beyond the phenomenological understanding of the world, human ethics and morals are as fermented in human reason as our need for oxygen to breathe. Most discussions about ethics and morals seem synonymous with one association in particular: God. Divine Command Theory argues that what’s good, and what’s not, are determined by a deity, whether that’s the God of Abraham, or a plethora of gods with their own ethical rules. In the theory of Natural Law, Thomas Aquinas, says that morality comes from us, but only because we were made by God who preprogrammed our moral sensibilities. But, as time progressed, Moral Philosophy advanced beyond a supernatural force giving humanity a moral code to live by. Immanuel Kant, 18th Century German Philosopher, believed that morality and religion were not to be paired so easily and should in fact stay apart. Kant was an Enlightenment philosopher, and in an essay titled “What is Enlightenment?”, published in 1784, Kant proposed that the identifying feature of his age was its “growing secularism”, Kant welcomed the decline in Christianity, but in a rational sense he was alarmed by it. Kant argued that in order to determine what is morally right, humanity had to use reason as an application and not religion.

Kant appears to take morality pretty seriously, and he thought we should, too – all of us – regardless of our religious beliefs, or lack of. Kant seems to operate under the framework that if we continue to look for religion for morality, we are all going to be asking the same question but receiving different answers. In the Kantian perspective, morality is a constant almost in a mathematical sense. There are fundemental universal laws that are constant whether your an athiest, Christian, or Muslim, and for Immanuel Kant the same went for moral truths. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Moral philosophy, for Kant, is most fundamentally addressed to the first-person, deliberative question, “What ought I to do?”, and the answer to that question requires much more than delivering or justifying the fundamental principle of morality.” This “I ought” is the supreme building block of the nature of morality.

But he made a distinction between the things we ought to do morally, and the things we ought to do for other non-moral reasons. Kant acknowledges that, “most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something isn’t really a moral choice, instead it’s just a contingent on our desires”. For example, if your desire is to get money then you ought to get a job. The Kantian terminology for these is Hypothetical Imperatives, these are the commands you should follow if you desire something; but hypothetical imperatives are about frugality rather than morality. If you don’t want money, then you don’t have to work, totally optional. This is why Kant chose to view morality in hypothetical imperatives but in what he termed categorical imperatives. These imperatives are commands that a person must adhere to regardless of your desires, because categorical imperatives are our moral obligations derived from pure reason. The categorical applies to us unconditionally due to our possession of rational wills, “….without reference to any ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have antecedently adopted for ourselves”. So, whether you want to be moral or not, the moral law is binding to us all whether we are using pure reason or not. So, understanding what is wrong and right is completely comprehensible by using your own reason and intellect, and in doing so you don’t need religion for morality.

Continuing, how do you really figure out what’s moral? Kant argues that the categorical imperative can be understood in a number of formulations, or different ways of phrasing while looking at the same idea. He came up with four, this essay will only focus on what seem to be the most popular.

The first of these is often understood as the universalizability principle.

The force of moral requirements as reasons is that we cannot ignore them no matter how circumstances might conspire against any other consideration. Basic moral requirements retain their reason-giving force under any circumstances, they have universal validity. So, whatever else may be said of basic moral requirements, their content is universal. In summation, “So, whatever else may be said of basic moral requirements, their content is universal. Only a universal law could be the content of a requirement that has the reason-giving force of morality. This brings Kant to a preliminary formulation of the CI: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (G 4:402). This is the principle which motivates a good will, and which Kant holds to be the fundamental principle of morality”. A maxim is just a rule and, as previously understood, a universal law is something that must always be done in situations. Now knowing this, as a Kantian, before I act I must ask myself, “what’s the maxim of my action?” “Will it be in accordance to universal law?”.

Well, according to Kant, “it is possible that a universal law of nature could subsist in harmony with this maxim, yet it is impossible to will that which principle should hold everywhere as a law of nature. For a will which decided in this way would be in conflict with itself, since many a situation might arise in which the man needed love and sympathy from others, and in which by such a law of nature sprung from his own will, he would rob himself of all the help he wants for himself”. Let us attempt to ‘de-Kant’ this for a more simpler understanding. So a person wakes up late late for work and in leaving their house they forget their wallet. On the way to work, they stop by the local corner store for a bagel and apple, but after realizing they had left their wallet at home they face a moral dilemma. They notice the clerk is caught in conversation and they could easily just walk out with bagel and apple in hand. Is it ok, morally, for a person to do this? Well this action is considered stealing, and if you approve of theft as a maxim then what this person is actually doing is universalizing this action. They are saying that everyone should always steal, which would go against universal law and bring about a contradiction, and to the Kantian perspective, moral action cannot bring about contradictions. This is saying that stealing would be alright some of the time, but in making this a law that would mean everyone would steal from each other and you’d never get your bagel and an apple for breakfast. So, the argument here is that it is not universalizable to make exceptions for yourself. To place your own self desires above the understanding of the universal moral law contradicts the categorical imperative and in doing so is not recognized as a moral law.

Now, Kant’s view that moral laws apply to everyone equally sounds all fair and nice, but it can possibly lead to some cumbersome results. Let’s imagine one morning Leigh and Mark were having dinner and they heard a knock on the door where a stranger is and asks Leigh where Mark is, who answers while leaving Mark in the kitchen, so he can kill him. Leigh’s first instinct is to lie and say that Mark is gone in order to protect him, but according to Kant says Leigh cannot lie, not even to save Mark’s life. The reasoning here is that suppose she is at the front door distracting the stranger, and Mark was curious about the stranger and followed her into the living room, after overhearing the strangers intentions Mark escapes from the back door. But, stranger, believing Leigh, turns to leave and sees Mark escaping and kills him. Due to Leigh’s lie, Mark dies and if she had told the truth the stranger might have headed toward the kitchen and given Mark ample time to escape. So, by Kant’s reasoning, Leigh is responsible for Mark’s death, because her lie to the stranger caused it. If she had the moral thing and told the truth, only the murderer would’ve been responsible for Mark’s death. Yes, she could have refused to answer or try to talk him out of it but to a Kantian she is not allowed to violate the moral law. This brings us to the second most popular formation, the Humanity Formula, which goes like, “This formulation states that we should never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself. This is often seen as introducing the idea of “respect” for persons, for whatever it is that is essential to our humanity.” To use something as a “mere means” is to use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the interests or benefit of the thing you’re using. It is perfectly fine to use things as mere means, but not humans, because we do not exist to be used we autonomous and rationional. We are our own ends.

Pens exist for writers, cameras for filmers, books for readers, forks for eaters, but humans exist for themselves. So, to treat someone as an end-in-themselves is to recognize that the humanity of a person you are in contact with, to see that the have values, interests, and goals of their own, and one must, with the use of moral philosophy and the understanding of Kant’s categorical imperative, keep in mind that your encounters with them. The “Supreme Principle of Morality” is the categorical imperative, act only on that maxim which you will to be a universal law. The only true morality is that of the “good will”, and with the application of reason, not religion, humanity can grow into true moral beings.

Bibliography

1. Kant, Immanuel, and H. J. Paton. The Moral Law: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Routledge Classics, 2005.
2. Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 7 July 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.
3. Kant, I. and Nisbet, H. (n.d.). An answer to the question, “What is Enlightenment?’.

Deontological ethical theories state that the morality of an action is predicated on whether the action is wrong or right through considering a set of rules instead of results of the action. In such theories, the action itself is important than its consequences. Immanuel Kant believed in understanding the real nature of morality by placing his focus on the act of happiness. He suggested that something good must be good in itself or intrinsically good and be good without qualification, which means that additional of that action will not make a situation worse ethically. The theory uses the basis of what is wrong and what is right. In Kant’s point of view, humans are free and rational subjects who should be given an appropriate chance to practice their being.

Goodwill, Moral Worth and Duty

Immanuel Kant argues that a consequence of an action cannot be used to determine whether a person has goodwill. Kant’s theory suggests that the motive of people for carrying out actions should be used to judge whether the action is wrong or right rather than consequences of the action. There are possibilities of getting a consequence for a desire, which was motivated to harm an innocent person. However, the theory seems to create a conflict between a reason and a desire. One may think that it is odd to translate human desire directly into reason. Kant has explained the tension between self-interest and morality by stating that a well-motivated action can also cause a bad consequence. People should act due to the clear moral motives. When a person does a good thing because it is right to do it, then their actions add value to the world through moral goodness.

Kant suggested that things, which are good without qualification, are the ‘goodwill.’ According to him, what makes a person good is the making of decision-based on moral laws. The major argument is that Kantian theory does not provide enough information on what people should do because the moral law is a non-contradiction principle. It is difficult to apply the theory as a supreme principle of morality. Kant explained that the moral worth of action must lie on the expected results but the motives borrowed from the action (Kant 528). In Kant’s ethical theory, “goodwill’ is valued without qualification or limitation. Maintaining and possessing a commitment to moral principles is a condition by which everything is worth having. For instance, intelligence and pleasure are worth having in conditions that they do not necessitate giving up central moral convictions.

Kant suggests that a person is motivated by the duty if the action bares respects for the moral laws. According to Kant, there is always something bad that cannot protect itself easily, and it easily becomes seduced. Such acts require more action and the availability of knowledge. People respect the moral law because they have a duty of doing so. A good action is the one, which is done because an individual has a duty of doing it. For instance, the state establishes the responsibilities of the citizenis and administers them with legal power. Now, if something is done because of duty, then duty is made from the respect of the codes. Being a duty-bound is respecting the laws and conserving morality.

The ‘action from duty’ conformity seems to be morally despicable. The respect for the set laws is not valuable because the motive of conforming to some laws can be due to respect. People have to play an essential part in the maintenance of law and social order due to fear of punishment or loss of reputation toward existing laws. People only respect such laws to the degree that will not violate principles, laws, and values that are highly valued. Immanuel Kant’s theory argues that ‘acting from duty’ the results is not forsaken, and if one thinks that they may bring trouble to other people, then such action should be avoided (Kant 529). He suggested that it is evil for someone to deviate from the principle of duty and should work within the available laws of duty, which are motivated by the outcome except those who are required by the duty itself.

Kant supported the acknowledgment of moral laws as a source of moral requirements. He suggested that moral laws are high authorities that allow people to experience some feelings. Individuals have respect for the moral laws, although they do not move by it and sometimes break the moral canons that they consider as authoritative. Reasoning moral is based on the scrutiny of the unique force of moral considerations for reasons for carrying out different actions. The force of moral requirements cannot be ignored, no matter how the consequences collaborate against other considerations. The act of humanity to be co-legislators contradicts the claim of universe priori and must partly depend on humans who do not always exist (Kant 532). According to Kant, the basic moral actions should maintain their reason force under any circumstances, and they are valid universally for matters of serving the will as its principle (529). One should not act until the individual confirm that the maxim will become a universal law.

In Kant’s ethical theory, universal law is an essential requirement for a reason for morality. People should never act except when they will that their maxim would become a universal law. So, whatever is said on basic morals, only the universal laws can be a content of the condition that has a reason-giving force of morality. Kant holds the same principle that motivates the goodwill as the fundamental morality’s principle.

Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives

Kant’s theory suggests that the main code of moral duties is categorically crucial. The moral duty is authoritative since it is addressed to subjects that can follow it but might choose not. It is categorical because it applies to individuals because it possesses rational will without reference to ends that people might either have or not. Additionally, it applies to us in conditions that we had adopted some goals for ourselves.

In Kant’s arguments, the theory has some ‘oughts’ other than the normal duties. The oughts are based on the kinds of principles. One principle is hypothetical imperative, which is a command applied in the goodness of having a rational will. The argument is the application of ethics should be in explanation of the real-world challenges. The ‘oughts’ represented by Kant requires people to exercise the will in a given way that they have antecedently willed for a given end (Kant 136). Indeed, a hypothetical imperative is an authority under a conditional form, but not all commands are hypothetical imperatives according to the theory.

For the theory, end willingness contains more than desiring. It involves active choosing instead of finding someone with a passive desire for action. Moreover, there is nothing irrational like just failing to will what an individual desires. An imperative that applies to us is the virtue of desiring. Virtues cannot be taught in a real sense, and naturally, individuals are either virtuous or not. Immanuel Kant suggested that the result we get might be the opposite of our will, and people might also receive results that they might not have willed. It shows that the results might be different from the expectations of the person who did the action.

The distinction between the two kinds of hypothetical imperatives helps in the identification of what individuals’ might have willed and what they might not have willed. For instance, problematic hypothetical imperatives are the possible ends that people might will or might not will. All the non-moral ends are problematic. The hypothetical imperative applies to us because an individual did them to meet their happiness (Kant 538). Kant’s ethical theory addressed the presence of normative forces in ethics by presenting the prudential and moral of rational as important demands for a will. The presence of prudence makes humanity stronger rather than the normative forces. Evaluation of prudential and moral is the first evaluation of the will of expressed actions.

Kant’s Concept of Enlightenment

Kant suggested that one should be in a position of treating people as ends in themselves. It means that individuals should do to people what they would want to be done to them. The major argument is the possibility of passing various tests and whether the information provided on considering people as an end, is enough. Immanuel Kant suggested that what makes someone a moral being is because they are rational and free creatures. Treating people as an end involves the respect that people are free of rational choices, which may be different from what they wished to be their best choices.

People are required between what is wrong and what is right by them. Kant discussed that human ‘immaturity’ was the time when people did not fully believe in themselves, but they truly believed in the moral rules presented by the church, tradition, religion, and authorities. The shortcomings of human reasoning and maintenance all the requirements of the moral laws make something else to be in charge of moral authority. According to Kant (530), even wisdom skill requires some involvement of science to learn the durability of its precepts. The understanding is a powerful counterweight if the commands of the duty represent the highest respect for increasing the level of satisfaction.

According to Kant, morality is not something that comes from anywhere, but the rational being should impose them on themselves. Reasoning itself is a categorical imperative. Kant (530) outlines that entire satisfaction is the main source of happiness. The precepts of reason issues, which did not promise inclination and failed to be neutralized by the command, are not accepted to according to the requirements of the moral law.

Wok Cited

1. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of Metaphysics of morals. Chapter 55. 526- 538

The ideology of following one’s heart and desires is a common saying that is taken upon people without thinking about the consequences that can come after. Can we really take action without caring what happens afterward? According to Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, this isn’t the brightest thing to do. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant & Marino, 2010, pg. 189). Kant explains that before we take action the maxim should be examined, whether it be good or bad, and be asked if this is something that can be universalized for everyone else. One cannot simply carry out their actions without thinking about how it can affect things or others around them. Kant also mentions that some imperatives and duties correlate with the maxim that helps identify the right approach of taking action and the results that come after. The notion of autonomy and the Kingdom of Ends are considered as well in which affects the way on how we take action. If we examine our actions before we perform them, then we are sure to learn and practice goodwill.

Imperatives are commands or requests that we follow. Kant distinguishes between two types of imperatives in his writing. One of the imperatives is known as categorical. “Applying the categorical imperative should enable us to decide whether or not an act is morally permissible” (Kant & Marino, 2010, pg. 189). Whenever we take our personal reasons and try to implement them, we need to consider if this reason can be turned into a maxim or rule. This would mean that it would be ok for everyone to lie, and we would never hold true to anything anyone said. Allowing lying is not virtuous. “A moral maxim must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding its proposition and should be applicable to any rational being” (Shakil, 2013). A maxim should be permissible to one who is moral not involving any type of wrongdoing, and if they’re moral they are sure to be rational in decision making. If we take our personal reasons and act on them without considering the consequences that follow, we are not acting in a morally way. Categorical imperatives are seen more as moral obligations such as the Ten Commandments that we must follow. This type of maxim is not one to help us be righteous. The hypothetical imperative also doesn’t help people achieve an end because they want to avoid any type of frustration it comes with. Although, this doesn’t mean a person can be irrational, but rather they find satisfaction in having an end and not pursuing it. This is not seen as a moral imperative because it does not produce goodwill.

In addition, we can take a look at another imperative known as practical. Practical imperative correlates with the categorical imperative because they both agree on that one cannot use others as a means to reach a certain end. We should treat others as ends and not as means. Instead, we ourselves are our own ends. We should not try to use others unjustifiably to attain a goal for ourselves or seek to take advantage. Every individual is to be treated equally in any kind of matter. If we have imperatives, then we are sure to have duties that follow within them. What is a duty? A duty is a moral obligation or responsibility (Merriam-Webster, 2019). Two types of duties are mentioned and distinguished in Kant’s writing. The first type is perfect duty, these are duties of justice that are seen as negative in which we should not perform certain actions. A perfect duty is a duty that should be done always by an individual. The second type of duty is imperfect duty, these are positive duties of virtue. They are permissible sometimes to perform a certain action. Imperfect duties are rarely done, but whenever they’re performed it should be done with some fulfillment. Whenever you perform a duty, it has to be done out of duty. You can ask yourself, what exactly is doing something out of duty? “For in this case we can readily distinguish whether the action which agrees with duty is done from duty, or from a selfish view” (Kant & Marino, 2010, pg. 195). According to Kant, one cannot just do something because they feel like they have to do it, instead, they do it because they know it is the right thing to do.

The Kingdom of Ends and the notion of autonomy can also be noted in Kant’s theories. They are what help form the basis of individuals to be rational. “So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as and end withal, never as means only” (Kant & Marino, 2010, pg. 224). When one is their own end, they do not use others as a means to obtain a certain end for themselves. Although, sometimes we have to use others as a means, but not in a bad way. For instance, if I am sick, I need to go see a doctor to feel better. The mean here would be the doctor, and the end is treating my sickness. This would be ok according to Kant. We need to remember though that the doctor as well is a rational being and should be viewed as an end and not just as a means. The notion of autonomy is the ability to set one’s ends and act on one’s interests. To be autonomous is to be self-governed. Your own actions are rightly yours and aren’t forced by anything external. We can look at the example of someone having a first-order desire of wearing sunglasses, this solely would be autonomous because it’s a desire you initially have. Though, that first-order desire can be interrupted by a second-order volition that you want to do after

Kant was a philosopher who lived in Prussia as a university professor. Dedicated his life to contribute to the world with his thoughts. Kant experimented most of the significant changes of the eighteenth century and his thoughts were an expression of the new modernity conception of that times. He was a representative of the criticism and promoted the German idealism, and is well known as an influent figure of modern Europe.

Kants life was uniform and methodic, without adventures or eccentricities, a reserved man that can be understood by this philosophy and works(Otfrie Hoffe, 2001 ). He used to follow strict routines which follow methodically and with high precision

Immanuel Kant was born on April 22 of 1724 in Königsberg, a Prussian city under the Frederik Williams I rules. Descendant of harness makers Johan Georg Kant and Ana Regina Kant. His father moved from Tilsit to Königsberg, the marriage with a daughter of a tradesman allows him to live as independent craftsmen. That was because the guild regulated the exercise of business in the city and approved the ones who could open a business in there and the journeymen had to belong to a guild to be able to work. And as a foreigner the only way to get into the business was to marry to a master`s daughter. Belonging to a guild meant that special laws and customs applied to the craftsman and to his entire family due the guilds were independent of public authorities, but nevertheless be a member of them means that the family belonged to a “respectable” class.

To be a harness maker was not the most distinguished guild but let the Kant`s had a fairly good living and a respectful social stand and they were proud of that honor (Mandred Kuehn, 2001), also they sons had special rights to be birth members of the guild. To be a harness maker was not a way to be rich or access to luxuries, but let the family live in a comfortable house by the standards of the century.

In 1733 the whole family moved to the house of Kant`s mother in law, due the death of her husband Johann had to took care of their business. The business started to decline due to the new location had more competitors, the age of the father and also because of the crisis of the guild system. The guild system was not that efficient as it was before due the quarreling between them and the abuses, also the relation between the masters and journeyman were not that well, nonetheless the guild system still remining powerful.

The environment generated by the quarrels between the harness and the saddle makers affected the family. Even though Kant`s parents manage that situations with respect and love to their enemies, trusting in their destiny. The teachings imparted to Immanuel in these times marked his education, being part of his memories even though he was a child when he experienced that. During the 1730s and 1740 was difficult for the family to make living of their profession due the saddle makers encroached the harness market, a profession that was being absorbed in many places by them.

Immanuel had a protected youth were his parents take care of him and his siblings overcoming the difficulties of the business. Johann and Regina were good parents described as decent and honorable. Immanuel felt grateful to his parents and highlight the noble education he received form them and remembered his childhood with gratification. He wrote in a letter “my two parents (from the class of tradesmen) were perfectly honest, morally decent, and orderly. They did not leave me a fortune, but neither did they leave me any debts. Moreover, they gave me an education that could not have been better when considered from the moral point of view. Every time I think of this I am touched by feelings of the highest gratitude” (Mandred Kuehn, 2001)

Kant was formed with the values of industriousness, honesty, sincerity, moral sense, and grew in a respectful, supportive, warm and very religious environment provided by his family. Kant`s family was influenced by Pietism, and followed its practices and beliefs as well as many tradesman’s. Known Pietism movement as a religious doctrine of the protestant church, that came up in opposition to the formalism of orthodox protestant and proponed a religion focus in the heart, and an emotional and sincere feeling. These impacted in his intellectual development but it’s not possible to know if this had influence in Kant’s philosophy. The way he was erased formed him with self confidence in his abilities and a strong moral statement, based in the distinctive character of the guilds which were characterized by independence, self-determination, self-sufficiency and honor. Kant background was formed by the simple morality of guilds and the Pietism of his parents

In 1730 Immanuel Kant went to Vorstädter Hospitalschule school, were was thought the basics with other children of this neighborhood . After a shot time he stated classes in the Collegium Fridericianum from 1732 to 1740, a Pietistic institution under a strict religious system. Kant described his time there as an horrifying experience and defines as “the slavery of his youth” (…)., were an atmosphere of punishment coercion and strict education dominated the institution.

As a student with highest grades its unlikely to got punishments very often, but he was witness of corporal punishment daily. Students were prepared for high office in civil life and for the church, providing a well preparation for the Prussia of the eighteenth century. Immanuel as a commoner this was an opportunity to social growth. Was an education focused on the self-discipline of the body and the mind, educating the intellect and the will according to moral and religious principles, however was not an education which encourages independent or critical thinking.

During the school period he felt the pressure related to convert than to the intellectual demand. He was graduated from the Fridericianum as the second of his class. Kant turned away for the searching of soul and self-condemnation of the Pietists to the French literature, changing the religious scope.

In the 1740 the family was declared poor by the taxation system, and the family received support from friends and other family members. Immanuel was able to study thanks of the assistance received form an uncle, a shoemaker craftsman who had a better position than Kant`s family.

Kant assisted to the Albertina University of Königsberg were he become a member of the university. That condition meant that he was more under the rules of the officials of the university as independent corporation, than the city rules. That involved a series of rights as protection of the mandatory army. At the university Kant was moved to the academic guild, this was similar to belong to the nobility for those who become form a craftsman guild.

At university he took classes in philosophy, mathematics, logic, theology disputation, rational psychology, natural law, rhetoric, algebra, mnemonics, analysis of the infinite and also, he was introduced to the physics of Isaac Newton. During his studies Kant tutored other students, and live a modest student life without suffering needs. He was supported by his uncle and helped by his fraternity of colleagues in order to get quarters and clothes. When he was a senior student, he tutored the young students not only in academic subjects but also in moral.

Finally, he finished university in 1748 at the age of twenty our and he was on his own due the lost of his father. He moved to the estate of von Hülsen and become a private teacher, a Hofmeister. After three years he moved to Arnsberg under the services of a Prussian knight, to thought to his sons. Kant stablished good relations with the families and pupils and usually kept in contact even after he moved to another place. While his time of Hofmeister he developed manners and social skills but also increased his knowledge ins philosophy and science. And also, he started private studies, which later would be used for his further works.

In 1755 Kant achieved his Magister degree in philosophy, that allows him to teach at university. That was a difficult way of leaving due he just received money from the fees collected form the students in his classes. He used not to follow strictly the textbooks while he added observations and his own theories. Kant thought with dry humor but without didactic methods lectures of logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, anthropology, geography, philosophy of religion, natural law, moral philosophy and ethics. Nevertheless, he encourages independent thought and that caught the interest of his students form the very beginning.

In the context of seven-year war, in 1758 Prussian army lost a battle at Groß Jägersdorf against the Russians. That implied that Königsberg was since that moment under Russian occupation, that situation lasted till 1762. The life style in the city changed, there was more money and social activity, and brought open mind ideas, luxuries and costumes into the Prussian austerity.

During this period Kant situation improved due the taught officers in his lectures and gave private classes, that contribute to Kant`s finances. Also, during those times Kant usually attended to the theaters, went to the most respected saloons and also shared dinners and parties with Russian officers, bankers, nobles, the court of the countess and influent figures of the high society. As the countess of Keyserlingks was interested in philosophy, Kant was a regular dinner guest and he stablished an association for thirty years with the family.

In 1776 Kant becomes dean of the faculty of philosophy situation which was repeated a few times again after a few years. He serves as dean in 1779, 1782, 1785 and in 1794. In 1780 the becomes a permanent member of the university senate till 1804. And in 1786 Kant become rector of the university as well as in 1788 but he had to decline to its proposition in 1796 due to his heath condition.

As his religious teaching were based in the rationalism and not in the divine revelation, that brought problems with the Prussian government. For that view about the religion, in 1792 Frederik II forbidden Kant to teach or write about religious topics. That prohibition lasted during the king`s life, after his death Kant felt free from that duty.

In 1796 Kant begun his retirement, his mental power started to vanishing slowly and that was getting worst by the years, till they were completely disappeared turning the great thinker in an incompetent. He was incapable to teach at the university by the winter semester of 1796 due to his weakness and his declined mind. He got worst through the years and in 1799 was clear that he will never teach at the university again due he suffered dementia. Kant said to his friends ‘I am old and weak. Consider me as a child.'( Mandred Kuehn. 2001)

The last five years before his death Kant was prepared to die and hoped each night was his last night. A long process of deterioration affecting first his memory and then his body become a difficult path to reach the death. He lost his short-term memory first, till the point he wasn`t able to remember the last hours. The weakness of his body forced him to stay at bed where he lost weight reducing him to bones.

Kant died at the age of 79 in 1804, he was honored as a king when he passed away with a adapted cantata written at the death for the great Prussian king (Frederick II). Kant was one of the most important citizens of Königsberg. His grave is outside of Königsberg cathedral, actual Kaliningrado, and is one of the few german monuments kept by the soviets after the city was conquerd and anexed in 1945.

Dilemma 1 states that Blair has accessed Sam’s computer without his consent and has discovered Sam’s gambling bets with a local sports bookmaker over the last several days. Since employees of the casino are forbidden to partake in any gamble activities, Blair is currently concern as to whether he should report on his co-worker or refrain from disclosing his illegal acts. This case is an example of an ethical dilemma as neither of these proposed decisions will provide a satisfactory outcome for Blair.

If Blair chooses to correct a wrong that his co-worker is doing, then he would have to admit to violating the company’s information technology regulations. While silencing and condoning Sam’s behaviour, Blair can avoid getting both parties in trouble; this would then be a case where an issue could be ethical but illegal. To determine what would be more morally acceptable, three frameworks were applied to the dilemma; Utilitarianism, Kantian and Virtue ethics.

Framework 1

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that determines whether an action is morally acceptable by the amount of pleasure and pain it would produce. According to Bentham, if a proposed action were to bring the greatest good for the greatest number, then this action is morally obliged to be adopted than the alternatives. Conduct of ‘net happiness’ for all plausible parties involved can assist in selecting a decision that will lead to the greatest aggregate pleasure (refer to table 1). In this case, the three main categories of people who are directly affected are Blair, Sam, and employees.

Firstly, Blair would experience a decrease in net happiness in both decisions. As Blair is knowingly letting his co-worker go against the company’s policy, he will likely have a guilty conscience from not reporting wrongdoing. Thus, this choice of action may be comprised with his integrity and affect his daily productivity at work. Correspondingly, if Blair chooses to act as a whistle-blower, he will face negative consequences for violating his written contract. Although reporting misconduct within the organisation may seem to be morally right, it could have an adverse effect on Blair and can lead him to get his job terminated. As a result, there are no benefits for Blair to snitch on Sam except to help the business enforce its rule and regulation; hence, he would have a decrease of 5 points in happiness for both options.

From Sam’s perspective, he will encounter an increase in happiness for option 1 and a decrease in option 2. Since Blair could avoid getting Sam in trouble if he kept silent, the pleasure level of Sam would be quite high due to him being unaware of the problem and will continue to gamble. However, once it is disclosed, it is then assumed Sam would be unhappy due to some possible turmoil he would face such as the loss of his reputation, career, family and the betrayal of a friend.

The third stakeholder is the employees. People who work in the casino and know what is expected in the company’s policy will likely experience a decrease in happiness and suffer if they discover Sam’s gambling acts. As it is their job to work collectively under the same terms and conditions, they will believe that it is unfair for an individual to get preferential treatment. This could potentially provoke conflict between co-workers and negatively affect the work dynamics within the company. For this reason, the pleasure levels of employees are expected to drop after Blair reports to the head.

Therefore, taking the utilitarianism theory into account, the increase and decrease in pleasure must be quantifiable to show the overall net happiness. Looking at the total column, option 1 is morally required because this action produces the greatest amount of net happiness. Whereas, adopting option 2 whereby Blair reports Sam is deemed as an unethical behaviour under these assumptions.

Table 1 – Utility associated with each stakeholder

Option 1 – If Blair does NOT report Sam Option 2 – If Blair DOES report Sam

Blair -5 -5

Sam +8 -8

Employees, 1000 0 -4

Total Net Happiness +3 -17

Note: The 0 represents the midpoint, while -10 is unhappiness and +10 is happiness.

Framework 2

Kantian deontological ethics is centred around the belief of a ‘categorical imperative,’ which is a moral duty that must be fulfilled in all circumstances. This approach involves subjecting an action to two formulations and if they do not prohibit the action, then it would be considered as morally permissible.

The first formulation by Kant outlines that all individuals must “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The maxim the case would be, “I will hack my co-worker’s computer to complete an important work project.” Since this formulation focuses on universal acceptability, it could be universalised as followed: “Everyone will hack their co-worker’s computer to complete an important work project.” When this maxim is applied, people would believe that breaking policy is a ‘right’; thus, defeating the purpose of having a company policy in place. Therefore, the universal maxim is a contradiction in conception and would not be a moral course of action.

The second most basic form of the imperative is: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” This principle discusses a person who violates the freedom or property rights of other people. Blair logging into Sam’s computer to retrieve files he needs appears to contravene this imperative as he is not respecting Sam’s privacy. So, the proposed action will then fail the second formulation of the categorical imperative.

It can be concluded that both categorical imperatives have been breached and Blair’s action can be determined as not morally correct.

Framework 3

The Virtue Approach focuses on the moral character of an agent and the nature of the good life. For Aristotle, a virtuous person is someone who has a life of mindless routine and embodies the ideal character traits. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, the virtue approach introduces the idea that ethics should be based on how one is ought to behave, and less about the consequences and intentions to act. It can be applied to Blair’s case by considering the four elements of Aristotle’s approach: Function, goals and the good, Flourishing, the Virtues or Excellences, and the Development of virtues.

The function/goal of being a data analyst is to gather and interpret data whilst working alongside teams within the business. According to Aristotle, for a data analyst to flourish, they must possess the intellectual virtues and character traits required to perform this role. An example of excellence in analytics is knowledge and honesty. As an employee, it is crucial to understand the company’s regulations and to report when misconduct is happening. For Blair, he is demonstrating this knowledge but should now choose to admit to his violation as an aim to become virtuous.

Concerning the development of virtues, Blair must inherit the traits of a trustworthy and courageous person. As a friend and a co-worker of Sam, it is important to foster a strong sense of trust even if it means to confront Sam about his problem. In doing so, Blair is looking out for his best interest and will display that he truly values their friendship. This course of action would then help Blair flourish in his job as he is building a true relationship with his co-worker to be able to work effectively as a team.

Conclusion

In conclusion, given the risks and uncertainties involved with Utilitarianism and Kantian, it is recommended that Blair follows the Virtue Ethics in this scenario because it focuses on helping develop character traits such as honesty, trustworthiness and courageous. Therefore, allowing him to make decisions based on these traits will bring the ‘greatest good’ in him and will make him a better person. In contrast to Utilitarianism, a theory based on the net happiness that violates the standards of justice and can make Blair feel miserable which is unethical to do. Also, as the universal maxim is non-logical, it is not possible to use Kant’s ethics, thus deeming the Virtue Ethics as the only moral action to follow.

Throughout the course we have discussed many types of ethics and views on morals. However, one of the biggest differentiating facts between these types of ethics is their view on lying, whether it be right or not and if so when lying would be ethically correct. However, one of the biggest debates is between Kant and Mills. Kant made the argument that lying is never okay, no matter what situation or what motive, and Mills, who is known for utilitarianism ethics, ultimately made the statement that lying is okay in certain situations, if it produces the happiest outcome for the greater amount of people. After thoroughly researching Kant’s views on lying and comparing it to Mill’s views on lying, I have decided that, personally, I believe Mill’s outlook on lying has the stronger argument. This is because we need rules that can have exceptions, or else it has the possibility to cause more harm than good.

Beginning with Kant’s views on lying for altruistic purposes, his overall argument is that nobody should ever lie for any reason. On plato.stanford.edu, from the article “Lying” by Tim C. Mazur they have a statement from Kant, “To be human, said Kant, is to have the rational power of free choice; to be ethical, he continued, is to respect that power in oneself and others.” In this, Kant is saying that being lied to can corrupt what he believes to be the most important quality in being human which is the ability to make free, rational choices. By being lied to and lying to others Kant is arguing that it is robbing other of their freedom to choose, when we lie we change the outcome of what someone may or may not choose to do if only they knew the entire truth through this we are harming not only human dignity but their, and our, autonomy. Kant also believe that all people have perfect duties, one of them being that we should avoid damaging, interfering or misusing one’s ability to be able to make free decisions. In short, no lying by any means. However, while this may seem like a reasonable argument to some their can be many flaws found in Kant’s perspective. In class, the hypothetical murderer at the door scenario was brought up. This scenario is a murderer knocks on your door and asks where your friend is he wants to kill him, you knowing your friend is in the kitchen lie and say he is not in your home. Unknowingly, the friend hears what is going on and sneaks out the back door. Through Kant’s perspective this can lead to the murderer bumping into the friend around the house and killing him anyways and despite your efforts to keep him safe you are ultimately responsible for your friend’s death, rather than if you were to be honest and tell the murderer your friend was in the kitchen, your friend could have escaped and stayed alive. Personally, I believe this theory to be extremely absurd, if you take the hypothetical scenario and replace it with a real one, Kant’s views may no longer seem like the best morals. For example, during World War II if you were to hide a Jewish family in your attic, with no escape, and a group of Nazis’ came to your door asking you knew where they were, Kant would want you to be honest and tell them you are hiding them in your attic. But why do you owe the Nazi’s that truth? Kant would argue that if you didn’t tell them where that family is, they would find them anyways and kill them or that they would go and kill another family and the blame would be placed on you. However, my rebuttal would be that either way if the Nazi’s end up causing harm, why would it be your fault to take a risk and try to save a family, why would it be your fault for any deaths if the end goal of the Nazi’s would be to kill as many Jewish families as possible. By taking away hypothetical situations and adding more details to them, personally, I cannot fully agree with Kant’s theory. While the overall idea is strong, that by lying to others it takes away their freedom of choice which would be considered morally wrong, the fact that there are no exceptions to this rule, even in sever situations makes it a little more difficult to accept.

This leads me in to an opposing theory to Kant’s views on lying which would be Mill’s. Mill does not ever state that lying in general is ok, however he does believe that in certain situations lying is ok if it is not for personal convenience. From the article “Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics” also from plato.stanford.com, paragraph two states, “As John Stuart Mill once wrote: The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not…(one’s) own happiness, but that of all concerned.” We can see through this statement that Kant does view thing more through utilitarianism and this includes when or when not to lie and if it’s ok. He believes it is only permissible to lie or withhold information from someone or something that intends to do harm. You need to carefully consider any situation which permits lying by weighing up the conflicting utilities involved, overall if the situation in which lying would cause more happiness than unhappiness, it is permissible.

Moral philosophy serves as a guiding light in navigating the complexities of ethical decision-making, offering us insights into how we should approach moral dilemmas. Within this realm, utilitarianism and Kantianism emerge as two prominent ethical frameworks, each with distinct principles and applications. In this essay, we will delve into the key principles, differences, applications, and implications of utilitarianism and Kantianism, shedding light on their contrasting perspectives.

The Foundations of Utilitarianism

Originating from the minds of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism stands as a consequentialist ethical theory, placing emphasis on the outcomes or consequences of actions. At its core lies the principle of utility, which dictates that the morality of an action is determined by its ability to maximize overall happiness or pleasure while minimizing suffering. Utilitarianism, therefore, prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, advocating for decisions that lead to the greatest overall well-being.

The Tenets of Kantianism

In stark contrast, Kantianism, formulated by Immanuel Kant, takes a deontological approach to ethics, focusing on moral principles and duty rather than consequences. Kantian ethics revolves around the concept of categorical imperatives, which are universal moral commands that apply irrespective of outcomes. Kant emphasizes the intrinsic worth of individuals, stressing the importance of treating them as ends in themselves rather than as mere means to an end.

Key Differences and Applications

Utilitarianism and Kantianism diverge significantly in their fundamental principles and applications. Utilitarianism evaluates actions based solely on their consequences, aiming to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. This often involves quantifying happiness, a task fraught with subjectivity and challenges. On the other hand, Kantianism prioritizes moral principles and duty over outcomes, emphasizing the importance of acting out of a sense of duty irrespective of the consequences. Kantian ethics offer a more rule-based and deontological approach to moral decision-making, focusing on treating individuals with inherent dignity and respect.

Implications and Ethical Dilemmas

The clash between utilitarianism and Kantianism becomes apparent in ethical dilemmas. Utilitarians may justify actions such as sacrificing one individual to save many, based on the principle of maximizing overall well-being. However, Kantians would likely object to such actions, arguing that they violate the intrinsic worth and autonomy of individuals. Moreover, these ethical frameworks have implications for various societal issues, including healthcare allocation, criminal justice, and environmental ethics. Utilitarianism may advocate for resource allocation strategies that maximize overall well-being, while Kantianism may prioritize individual rights and principles, even at the expense of overall happiness.

Conclusion: Bridging the Divide

In conclusion, the debate between utilitarianism and Kantianism underscores the complexity of moral philosophy. While these frameworks offer valuable insights into ethical decision-making, they differ fundamentally in their principles and applications. Ultimately, the choice between utilitarianism and Kantianism often depends on personal ethical convictions and the specific context of a moral decision. Efforts to reconcile these differences and find common ground are crucial, as they remind us of the enduring importance of ethical philosophy in guiding our decisions and shaping our understanding of justice.

Introduction

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill demonstrate two contrasting moral theories. The philosophers have very different ideas about ethics and happiness. Immanuel Kant, author of “Duty and Reason”, believed in the morality of goodwill and duty. According to Kant, happiness is an emotion unable to be controlled while motive is controllable; therefore, duty is the most important aspect of leading a moral life. Conversely, John Stuart Mill, who wrote, “The Greatest Happiness Principle”, is well known as a utilitarian, who stresses the greatest happiness for the greatest amount. While they may have disagreed about what makes an action ethical, Kant and Mill are both extremely significant philosophers.

Ethics can be defined as “the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs to improve, extend or refine those beliefs in some way.” Kantian moral theory and Mill’s Utilitarianism ethics theory are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as critically discuss and compare why Kant’s theory provides a more plausible account of ethics. 

Kant’s Deontology

Kant’s theory is what is known as a Deontological theory, which means duty in Greek. The deontological theory assesses whether actions are right or wrong based on whether they conform to our duties. For Kant what is most important in life is having goodwill, will actions that conform to one’s duty, because it is one’s duty to do so. In other words, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethical theory assesses if actions are moral based on the person’s will or intention of acting. The main idea of Kantian includes the rightness or wrongness of action as property of the act itself not as its consequences. Wrong actions contain hidden contradictions in that they depend on other people not doing them if they are to make sense for me to do them. This being said, there are two elements to having goodwill: actions must conform to the moral law. A person must choose the actions solely because it’s the right thing to do- they must have the right motive (doing one’s duty). The person with goodwill does not do the right actions because they fears punishment or hopes for a reward or any other pleasure. They do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do.

Kant’s theory can be categorized as deontological because “actions are not assessed to be morally permissible based on consequences they produce, but rather on the form of the agent’s will in acting,” (Timmons, 2002), therefore his actions are based on duty and not consequential. The Kantian theory is based on three principles: maxims, willingness, and the categorical imperative. Kant states that a maxim is a ”general rule or principle which will explain what a person takes himself to be doing and the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it” (Feldman, 1999, 201). It is important that this principle is universalized and that the maxim can be applied consistently to everyone who encounters similar situations, therefore willed as a universal law. Put differently, he suggests that we should never act instead in such a way but act on maxims which you could will as a universal law. Kant says we need to ask ourselves whether we could live in a world, where every other person acts according to the principle we act on. For example when a student cheated on a test because he did not study, according to Kant he should ask himself, would he want to live in a world, where everyone everywhere always cheated, taking an exam they did not prepare for? It seems that this will be an undesirable world, for example, the grades would not be able to be trusted, and academic honors would be meaningless and violate the moral duty and the moral law in other words.

The second aspect of Kant’s theory is willingness. This involves the agent consistently committing oneself to make an action occur. He states “In general, we can say that a person wills inconsistently if he wills that p be the case and he wills that q be the case and it’s impossible for p and q to be the case together” (Feldman, 1999, 203). In other words, the Humanity Principle is where one acts in such a way to treat humanity in your person or a person of another always as an end and never as a means. He believes that human beings have infinite intrinsic value because we are rational beings. Each person is capable of forming their purposes and goals. When acting toward another person we need to remember that each person has goals, plans, dreams, and desires just like you. We cannot reduce people to mere objects to fulfill our plans. The worth and value of human beings come solely from what they are and not from a utility or a job they do for someone else. Any act that involves using another person, or even oneself as a means, without also respecting the person as an end counts as an act that violates the moral law and one’s duty.

Kant came up with another test to see if actions are in accord with duty or fit with the moral law, known as the categorical empirical states. The importance of the categorical imperative is that one must act in such a way that one can ensure that the maxim behind one’s actions can be conceived as part of the universal law. The maxim has to be consistent and able to be applied to every situation, for every person. The other main point of Kantian moral theories is the differences between imperfect and perfect duties. Perfect duties are those duties that one must always perform in a particular situation, whereas imperfect duties are those that one must perform only when the situation arises.

Mill’s Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism theory was applied by Jeremy Betham, who was born in 1748, and John Stuart Mills, born in 1806 with the principle: ‘the best for the most. Together, they arrived at the idea that “what is right is whatever produces the right outcome for most people, what is wrong is anything that fails to do that. Put differently, Utilitarianism is based upon utility or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to this theory, the morality of an act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.

Some of the strong points of this theory include that it makes ethics practical by equating what is morally right with the producer’s beneficial outcomes. In addition, it corresponds with the wide standpoint that rationality is the preference of the best means to reach our ends. Finally, it also maintains that happiness is the highest good. However, on the other hand, utilitarianism also supposes that we can see ahead into the future, gauge consequences impartially and calculate which continuing consequences are not important. It does not take into account the matter of intention and cannot account, unlike Kant’s theory that some actions are not permissible.

Similarities between the theories

Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to explain how one can go about acting ethically, however, they differ in areas of measuring morality and their usage of rules. While there are many differences, they are both objectives, looking for the greater good. Both can have very different paths, however, in the end, they are looking for the greater good. With Utilitarianism: one may be promoted by many other people, supporting them to go in one direction, while Kantian it may be a single person, being supported on the other side of the worst path to follow.

Both Kant and Mills measure morality in different ways. Kantianism says that an act is deemed moral for two reasons: if it is done for the sake of duty and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. If one completes an action based on their duty to perform, they do the right thing because it is what they feel they ought to do as their duty. Therefore, this act would be considered morally just. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved.

Differences between the two theories

The two theories also differ in how rules are applied. Both follow paths to the good, but Kantian theory suggests that humans are free rational beings capable of rational behavior and should not be used purely for the enjoyment or happiness of another. It basically can be argued that I am not going to steal because I don’t want someone stealing from me. Kantian moral theory values the universal law and maxims as its guide for how people should act in a given situation. Maxims “describe some general sort of situation, and then propose some form of action for the situation. To adopt a maxim is to commit yourself to act in the described way whenever the situation in question arises.” (Feldman, 1999, 202) Maxims are also used consistently throughout and therefore are a valued guide because they apply universally. For example, Kant made a moral rule for lying which says that if one person can make a lying promise, then it should be said that everyone can do the same and therefore it being a universal law trust would be self-defeating. By saying that it is not a perfect duty to lie, the universal law or rule, states that no one can under any circumstance lie. Kant has also developed similar moral rules for rusting of talents, helping others in distress, and suicide. Kantianism can therefore be seen as a rational and logical theory in which decisions can be made.

On the other hand, with utilitarianism, we should do actions, which produce the greatest amount of happiness. Utilitarianism would say, “I am not going to steal because everyone would be happier if I don’t steal.” In comparison, Utilitarianism has no universal set of rules on which morality is based; therefore it judges each situation individually. Because of this, weighing consequences to determine if an action will maximize utility can become a lengthy, time-consuming process. Not to mention the fact that you will never clearly know if your decision will in effect truly promote the most utility.

In assessing the two moral theories, I believe that Kantianism provides a more plausible account of ethics even though from the outside it seems as though Utilitarianism would be the more ethical theory because it looks to maximize utility. Utilitarianism refers to moral theories that maintain that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Therefore, correct moral conduct is determined solely by analyzing an action’s consequences. Utilitarianism requires that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action; we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper. It seems as though this process is more subjective and can not be universally applied whereas Kantianism can be. Also, one’s determination of what produces the greatest utility may not be consistent with another person’s, therefore this theory is inconsistent and a universal law cannot be applied to it. Kantianism is by far more consistent of a theory and can be universally applied to all beings. It is more plausible because even if the consequences of actions aren’t necessarily the best, the agent is still obligated to act. After all, they must do so. Therefore, ethically and morally they are doing the right thing.

In conclusion, this paper has discussed two main theories regarding the ethical behavior of human beings. Kantianism is a theory based on duties, maxims, willingness, and the categorical imperative. Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Both theories, although similar in some ways, possess clear differences. Kantianism focuses on the motivation of actions, has a clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.

Bibliography

1. Lecture notes, ‘Utilitarianism.’
2. Lecture notes, ‘Kantianism.’
3. Fred Feldman, ‘Kant’s Ethics Theory: Exposition and Critique’ from H. J. Curzer, ed Ethical Theory and Moral Problems, Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999.
4. J.S. Mill, ‘What Utilitarianism Is’ from Peter Y. Windt, An Introduction to Philosophy: Ideas in Conflict, St Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1982.