Kant believed that ethics could be built through reason not
observation not learnt by observing the world. This means that
morality can be deduced. This was a reaction to Aristotle (to know how
to be ethical, find a good man and study him).
You may think this is nice - you don't have to get out much to create
ethics. In actual fact he does require some observation of the world
and humanities reactions in order to come to conclusions (how would
you know that if people were generally lied to they wouldn't believe
promises without some effort of observation).
The philosophical concept of a categorical imperative is central to
the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. In his philosophy, it denotes
an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and
is both required and justified as an end in itself, not as a means to
some other end.
The first (Universal Law formulation) of the categorical imperative:
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law."
According to Kant immorality occurs when the categorical imperative is
not followed: when a person attempts to set a different standard for
themselves than for the rest of humanity.
This is emotionally persuasive, think of someone saying 'well
obviously it's wrong if other people do x y z, but it's OK if *I* do
it' - you would tend to think that the person had no moral code
whatsoever. You would tend to think he was an arrogant person who was
also judgemental. This person does not seem moral.
It also seems quite logical. Ethics should be objective. IT should be
something that is true for everyone. If ethics can be different for
different people then how can it be a standard to aspire to?
There are however various problems:
(1) It is always possible to devise unusual circumstances where most
people would think you shouldn't follow a generally good rule: e.g.
the scenario given by Benjamin Constant who asserted that since truth
telling must be universal according to Kant's theories, one must (if
asked) tell a known murderer the location of his prey.
(2)Just because a rule makes practical sense does not give it an
aspect or morality. e.g. Louis White Beck used the example of the
maxim that the purchaser of every new book should write their name on
the flyleaf. This is practical and helpful and can be universally
applied. However is this 'moral'? According to Kant's method of
building ethics it must be.
John Stuart Mills theory of untilitarianism conflicts with Kant
because it essentially argues that moral action is the one that
produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number (but not all
types of happiness are equal). In untilitarianism there is no creation
of absolute rules to follow, therefore there will be situations where
the ethics conflict. Kant "I should tell the truth" Mills "most people
will be happy if I don't tell the murdered where the prey is".
The conflict is fundamental not only in the results. Utilitarianism
considers happiness, even the more elevated educated happiness
described by JS Mill, as a persuasive factor in judging ethics. Kant
would not think the end result relevant. Essentially if Kant and JS
Mill were in the room, not only would they not agree on the precepts
of an ethical system - they wouldn't agree on a type of criteria for
judging which ethical system works.
The second (Humanity or End in Itself formulation) of the categorical
imperative: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether
in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a
means, but always at the same time as an end."
This is also emotionally persuasive. It does not seem right to ?use?
people. Where is their dignity?
A fault with utilitarianism could be that sometimes the greatest
happiness may require abhorrent acts. For instance consider the
following scenario: A surgeon has six patients: one needs a liver, one
needs a pancreas, one needs a gall bladder, and two need kidneys. The
sixth just came in to have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon
kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others? This
would obviously violate the sixth man, but utilitarianism seems to
imply that violating him is exactly what we ought to do. The second
categorical imperative would not allow such use of a man.
Logically however the Kantian rule has some problems. We ?use? people
all the time. I don?t take much notice of the bank teller when I
withdraw sums or the checkout girl when I get my shopping. This does
not mean that my actions when shopping were immoral.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative |
