KANTIANISM

Duty as Moral Criterion or Standard

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a great Germanphilosopher. He formulated a moraltheorygrounded in the idea of duty. It is a deontological theory. “Deontology” is derived from the Greek roots deon = duty + logos = reason. From these words, we can see that in deontological theories an action is seen as moral in virtue of its being a duty ‘obligation or obedience to moral laws’.

We may associate ‘duty’ for example with military duty. But duty in this sense is derived from a military code. Kant’s concept of moral duty is much wider; it is an outcome of an individual’s rational thought. Human actions may lead to good or bad consequences. But these do not determine the moral worth of actions. In other words, an action which leads to undesirable consequences may be moral;and an actionwhichleadsto goodconsequencescan be immoral.Consequenceshave nothing to do with moral obligation or duty, which alone counts for determining whether an action is moral or otherwise. In short, an action is moral if it is the outcome of a moral agent’s sense of duty.

Kant says that when any individual acts intentionally in a particular way in a given situation, he sets up a rule of conduct for others. It is the rule which underlies his action. Intentional action is not based on blind impulse but on rational thought. Such actions are in conformity with his moral duty. If a moral agent acts according to his duty, he can rationally recommend such actions for others.

Another way of expressing this prescription is that one should obey the moral law. This raises the question of what the moral law or duty is for the individual. Kant does not enumerate a set of rules or moral duties. He describes the moral law in a formal and abstract way; the moral agent perceives his duty in any given situation by applying the formal law. As Kant’s account of the moral law is complicated, we can follow it with the help of the following example.

(i) X borrows Rs 50,000 from Y with a promise that he would return the amount in six months.

(ii) Aftersix months, X mayeither(a)return theamount or(b) evade payment.

(iii) In either case, he sets up a rule of conduct applicable not only to him but to everyone.

(iv) In (a), the rule or principle of conduct is ‘loans should be repaid on time’.

(v) In (b), the rule or priniciple is that loan repayment should be evaded.

(vi) X can recommend in good faith that everyone should adopt (a) as a rule of conduct. In ftant’s phrase. X can recommend that it should be adopted as a universal law. Obviously, this universal law will be rational in that it creates trust among people and promotes business and commerce.

(vii) The rule or principles underlying (b) cannot be recommended in good faith for universal adoption. For it will destroy trust between people, commerce and economic progress.

Kant says that people should follow such rational universal principles without relying on personal sentiments which usually misguide them.

Categorical Imperative

From the above reasoning, Kant derives a universally valid moral rule of action known as the Categorical Imperative. When a moral agent acts rationally, his action is based on a rule or maxim. The rule regulates his action. If a debtor evadesrepayment of hisloan, he will be acting on the maxim: “one should evade loan repayment whenever one can”. When as a rational agent he acts on this maxim, he is making an implicit recommendation that others should follow the very same maxim. Now a rule or maxim that everyone must follow would be a law, a rule of action that is universal or applicable to everyone. This is what Kant means by a universal law. From this reasoning, it followsthat an intentional action is rational and thus morallypermissibleonly if onecould rationally recommend it to others. This is the same as saying that a moral agent’s action is rational and morally permissible only if he could will that the maxim of his action become a universal law.

Kant’s categorical imperative can be paraphrased as: A rational moral agent should neveractexcept in such a way that he can also will that the maxim of his action become a universal law. This formulation is known as theuniversal lawversion of thecategorical imperative. In Kant’sownwords,thecategorical imperative can be expressed as: “So act that the maxim of your will might always hold as a principle of universal law”.

We can derive many common rules of morality from Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative. ‘One ought not to steal’. ‘One ought not to injure others’. ‘One should be kind to others.’ In following such maxims, we can also wish that other members of society should follow those maxims for it would obviously be in our interest. However, we should not look upon Kant’s theory as resting upon enlightened self–interest or recognition of the social advantage in following common rules.

Categorical Imperative and Rule Utilitarianism

In this regard, we can note the difference between Kant’s categorical imperative and rule utilitarianism. Both rely on universally applicable rules of conduct. Rule utilitarian considers the probable consequences of such rules in terms of likely happiness. Kant considers whether the rule underlying a moral agent’s action can be adopted in general social interest and in his own interest. Rule utilitarianism is empirical in that its moral worth depends on its likely consequences. Kant considers moral judgments as a priori, that is to say, judgments we can make without reference to what happens in the world. Mathematical propositions such as 3+2 =5 are a prioripropositions. Kant says that one can evaluate moral actions without knowing the place or time of their occurrence or their consequences. It all depends on whether actions are based on maxims which can become rational universal rules of conduct. There is, however, an empirical side to Kant’s categorical imperative. One should be able to formulate precisely and clearly the maxim or rule which underlies an agent’s action. Only then can one determine whether it can be elevated to the status of a rational rule which all members of society can follow.

Besides the categorical imperative, Kant refers to hypothetical imperatives. Categorical imperative is an absolute command to be obeyed for its own sake. Hypothetical imperatives are technical means to other ends and have an instrumental value. A surgeon has certain skills which he uses for alleviating human suffering. A statesman has certain acumen which he uses for promoting general welfare. This sort of skill or acumen belongs to hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives subserve other ends; categorical imperatives have their ground in themselves.

Second Formulation of Categorical Imperative

The categoricalimperative has anotherformwhich holdsthat humanbeings areends in themselves. In other words, men cannot be treated as instruments for securing any supposedly higher ends. This view will condemn the mass killings of Jews under Hitler and of Russian Kulaks by Stalin. In Kant’s words this formulation of categorical imperative is: “So act as always to treat man, both in yourperson andthat of another, as an endand neversolely as ameans.” Kant recognises that everything in the world, including man, may be used as a means. Man is the only rational being we know. Anyone who uses the categorical imperative is himself an ultimate end. Thus we find in Kant a clear enunciation of humanism. However, Kant has strong religious feelings–though ironically, he gave the first clear proofs demolishing the arguments for God’s existence. Kant’s view that men should not be treated as means but as ends in themselves encapsulates the modern day ideas on human rights.

Austere Morality of Kant

It is clear that Kant’s moral philosophy is austere. He sees a constant struggle between human inclinations and duties. Nature does not endow men with innate ‘pure spirits’. According to Kant, it is “sheer folly to flatter oneself into relying on an innate goodness of soul that requires neither spur nor check, nor even any commandment and so to forget one’s duty”. Relying only on mere feeling for the right will destroy human morality. While valuing good inclinations, uprightness of heart and a beautiful soul in man, Kant says that these must be sustained by a clear sense of duty. Ethical law for rational but imperfect beings cannot be a law of holiness but a law of duty.

Kant describes duty in his following famous passage: “Duty-word sublime and strong that implies nothing that pleases or charms … nothing that threatens or inspires fear; your power is merely to establish a law before which all desires fall silent and which still is admitted to the chamber of the heart where it is held in reverence even if it is not obeyed.”

Kant traces the origin of moral law to man’s rationality or reason. He rejects education, civic constitution, inner perfection and God’s will as sources of moral law. All these imply man’s dependence on external sources or heteronomy. Kant affirms the autonomy of human reason and locates the moral law in it. In Kant’s phrase, man has a self–legislating capacity.

Criticism of Kant’s Theories

Notwithstanding its high moral tone, Kantianism has not escaped criticism. Philosophers have criticizedits ‘formalism’. It resembles an abstract formula. It contains few concrete moral directions or guidelines. Men get no direct instruction on what is right or what they should do to become good and contribute to a just society.

Kant ignores material values; it is their experience which creates moral motivation in men. The ascending hierarchy of material values is shown in the following table.

Kant’s ethics rest on abstract laws or pure principle, without regard to the results which can follow from rigid adherence to principles. Philosophers continue to have a debate on principles versus results. Many thinkers argue that men are not to be judged by their principles alone, but are answerable for their actions. Kant’s moral law resembles the injunction: “do what is right and leave the consequences to God”. As Karl Jaspers says, “Those opposed to it can point to the evil that can be done in the name of moral principles. They can point to the violent men whose moral judgments have served their manifest desire to command and torment other men. They can evoke teachers of morality who have been the basest of men because they have used morality as a weapon by which to achieve immoral power and prestige.”

Kant’s emphasis on abstract laws leads him into extreme positions. He says that ethical laws “command unconditionally, regardless of what the outcome may be; indeed, they demand that we leave the outcome wholly out of account, when a particular action is being considered.” What need men have “to know the outcome of their moral commissions and omissions? It depends on the course of the world. For them it is enough that they do their duty.” In this spirit, Kant argues that we cannot tell lies under any circumstances, even for saving someone’s life.

In Kant’s view, morality is its own reward, and one is always obliged to do what one should. This obligation to follow law does notcease even if others disobey the law. One is bound by moral law even when there is no reciprocal obedience to law from others. This creates a difficult situation. To quote Karl Jaspers again: “Where menwieldtotalterroristpoweror serve it or takeadvantage of itintheir actions, am I not justified in treatingthem as wild beasts? … Is the categorical imperativenot blunted, if insteadof speaking in itsownright, itistranslated intoabstractinjunctionssuchas:Never lieor:everyone whobelongs biologically to species “man” is a rationalbeing and must be treated as such, even when to do so involves the risk or even the certainty that I myself or those I love will perish as a result.” Further, “Do complete openness to reason, boundless patience, tireless striving for mutual understanding presuppose favourable situations and a consciousness of my own strength without which they become form of criminal self-destruction?”

Moral law, as Kant conceives, arises from human rationality. However, it operates and has its effect in the social world of human experience. Hence moral laws cannot be conceived in a Platonic world and implemented in society without taking into account their results. They have to be linked to the contexts of human existence. In a way, Kant conceives and abandons moral law in a world of pure thought.