How Would A Kantian Deontologist Evaluate An Action

The evaluation of actions within Kantian deontological ethics hinges on adherence to moral duties and principles, irrespective of consequences. Immanuel Kant's deontological framework emphasizes the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of actions based on their conformity to the Categorical Imperative, a universal moral law discoverable through reason.

Foundations of Kantian Deontology

Kantian deontology is rooted in the idea that morality is based on reason, not on empirical observation or emotions. Kant sought to establish a system of ethics that was both universal and necessary, applicable to all rational beings at all times. The cornerstone of this system is the Categorical Imperative, which Kant formulated in several ways, each offering a different perspective on the same fundamental principle.

The Good Will

At the heart of Kantian ethics lies the concept of the good will. According to Kant, the only thing that is good without qualification is a good will. This means that the moral worth of an action is determined not by its consequences or outcomes but by the motivation behind it. A good will acts out of duty, respecting the moral law for its own sake. Kant distinguishes between actions performed from duty and actions performed in accordance with duty. An action has moral worth only if it is done from duty. For example, a shopkeeper who charges fair prices to customers does so from duty if they do it because it is the right thing to do, not because it is good for business.

The Categorical Imperative

The Categorical Imperative is the supreme principle of morality in Kant's philosophy. Unlike hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional and depend on personal desires or goals ("If you want to achieve X, then do Y"), the Categorical Imperative is unconditional and applies to all rational beings regardless of their individual circumstances. Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative in several ways, each designed to capture a different aspect of the same fundamental moral law:

• The Formula of Universal Law: This formulation states, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." In other words, before acting, one should ask whether the principle behind the action (the maxim) could be willed to become a universal law applicable to everyone. If it cannot, then the action is morally impermissible.
• The Formula of Humanity as an End: This formulation commands, "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." This principle emphasizes the inherent dignity and worth of all rational beings. It prohibits using people as mere instruments to achieve one's own goals; instead, one must always respect their autonomy and treat them as ends in themselves.
• The Formula of Autonomy: This formulation emphasizes that moral laws must be self-imposed. Rational beings are not merely subject to external moral rules but are also the authors of these rules. This autonomy is what gives humans their dignity and moral worth.

Evaluating an Action: A Kantian Approach

To evaluate an action from a Kantian deontological perspective, one must systematically apply the Categorical Imperative and consider the underlying principles that guide the action. The evaluation involves several steps:

1. Identifying the Maxim

The first step in evaluating an action is to identify the maxim that underlies it. A maxim is a subjective principle or rule that guides a person's actions. It expresses the intention behind the action and the circumstances in which it is performed. For example, the maxim might be "I will lie to get out of trouble" or "I will help others in need." The maxim should be formulated as a general principle rather than a specific action.

2. Universalizability Test

Once the maxim is identified, the next step is to apply the Formula of Universal Law. This involves asking whether the maxim could be willed to become a universal law applicable to everyone. To do this, one must imagine a world in which everyone is compelled to act according to the maxim. If the maxim cannot be universalized without contradiction, then the action is morally impermissible.

Kant identified two types of contradictions that can arise when attempting to universalize a maxim:

• Contradiction in Conception: This occurs when the maxim, if universalized, would undermine the very possibility of the action it proposes. For example, consider the maxim "I will make a false promise to borrow money." If everyone made false promises, no one would believe promises, and the institution of promising would collapse. Therefore, the maxim cannot be universalized without contradiction.
• Contradiction in the Will: This occurs when the maxim, if universalized, would be contrary to what a rational person would necessarily will. For example, consider the maxim "I will not help others in need, even when I can do so easily." While it is possible to conceive of a world in which no one helps others, Kant argued that a rational person would not will such a world because everyone needs help at some point in their lives.

3. Respect for Humanity

The third step in evaluating an action is to apply the Formula of Humanity as an End. This involves asking whether the action treats humanity, in oneself or in others, merely as a means to an end. To act morally, one must always respect the inherent dignity and worth of all rational beings. This means avoiding actions that exploit, manipulate, or deceive others.

For example, consider the act of lying. Lying to someone treats them as a mere means to an end because it deprives them of their autonomy and ability to make informed decisions. By lying, one is using the other person as an instrument to achieve one's own goals, without regard for their well-being or dignity.

4. Consideration of Autonomy

The final step in evaluating an action is to consider the principle of autonomy. This involves asking whether the action respects the autonomy of all rational beings. To act morally, one must act in accordance with laws that one could rationally will for oneself and for all others. This means avoiding actions that undermine one's own autonomy or the autonomy of others.

For example, consider the act of paternalism, in which one person interferes with another person's freedom or autonomy for their own good. While paternalistic actions may be well-intentioned, they can be morally problematic from a Kantian perspective because they violate the other person's autonomy.

Examples of Kantian Evaluation

To illustrate how a Kantian deontologist would evaluate an action, let us consider several examples:

Example 1: Lying to Save a Life

Suppose a person is hiding a friend in their home from a murderer who is searching for them. The murderer comes to the door and asks if the friend is inside. Should the person lie to the murderer to save their friend's life?

• Identifying the Maxim: The maxim might be "I will lie to prevent harm to an innocent person."
• Universalizability Test: Can this maxim be universalized? If everyone lied whenever it was necessary to prevent harm, trust would be undermined, and communication would become impossible. Therefore, lying cannot be universalized without contradiction.
• Respect for Humanity: Does lying treat the murderer as a mere means to an end? Some might argue that it does not because the murderer is threatening the life of an innocent person. However, Kant argued that lying is always wrong because it violates the duty to be truthful.
• Consideration of Autonomy: Does lying respect the autonomy of all rational beings? Lying deprives the murderer of the ability to make an informed decision based on the truth.

From a strict Kantian perspective, lying is always wrong, even to save a life. This is because the duty to be truthful is absolute and cannot be overridden by other considerations. However, some Kantians have argued that there may be exceptions to this rule in extreme circumstances.

Example 2: Helping Those in Need

Suppose a person sees someone in need of help, such as a homeless person who is hungry and cold. Should the person help the homeless person?

• Identifying the Maxim: The maxim might be "I will help others in need when I can do so easily."
• Universalizability Test: Can this maxim be universalized? While it is possible to conceive of a world in which no one helps others, Kant argued that a rational person would not will such a world because everyone needs help at some point in their lives. Therefore, the maxim can be universalized.
• Respect for Humanity: Does helping the homeless person treat them as an end in themselves? Yes, it does. By providing assistance, the person is recognizing the inherent dignity and worth of the homeless person and helping them to meet their basic needs.
• Consideration of Autonomy: Does helping the homeless person respect their autonomy? Yes, it does. By providing assistance, the person is empowering the homeless person to make their own choices and improve their situation.

From a Kantian perspective, helping those in need is a moral duty. It is an action that can be universalized, respects humanity, and promotes autonomy.

Example 3: Keeping a Promise

Suppose a person makes a promise to meet a friend for lunch. However, something comes up that makes it difficult to keep the promise. Should the person keep the promise?

• Identifying the Maxim: The maxim might be "I will keep my promises, even when it is inconvenient to do so."
• Universalizability Test: Can this maxim be universalized? Yes, it can. In fact, the institution of promising depends on people keeping their promises. If no one kept their promises, the institution would collapse.
• Respect for Humanity: Does keeping the promise treat the friend as an end in themselves? Yes, it does. By keeping the promise, the person is respecting the friend's autonomy and recognizing their worth as a rational being.
• Consideration of Autonomy: Does keeping the promise respect the autonomy of all rational beings? Yes, it does. By keeping the promise, the person is upholding the principle of fidelity and respecting the expectations of the friend.

From a Kantian perspective, keeping promises is a moral duty. It is an action that can be universalized, respects humanity, and promotes autonomy.

Criticisms of Kantian Deontology

While Kantian deontology offers a powerful and influential framework for moral decision-making, it has also been subject to several criticisms:

• Rigidity: One of the main criticisms of Kantian deontology is that it is too rigid and inflexible. Critics argue that the absolute nature of Kant's moral duties does not allow for exceptions or contextual considerations. This can lead to counterintuitive and morally problematic outcomes, as in the example of lying to save a life.
• Conflicting Duties: Another criticism is that Kantian deontology does not provide a clear way to resolve conflicts between moral duties. For example, what should one do if one has a duty to be truthful and a duty to protect innocent life, and these duties conflict? Kant's theory does not offer a straightforward answer to this question.
• Abstractness: Some critics argue that Kantian deontology is too abstract and theoretical to be easily applied to real-world situations. The Categorical Imperative can be difficult to interpret and apply, and it may not provide clear guidance in complex moral dilemmas.
• Neglect of Consequences: Critics also argue that Kantian deontology neglects the importance of consequences in moral decision-making. By focusing solely on the intentions behind actions, Kant's theory may overlook the impact that actions have on others.

Responses to Criticisms

Despite these criticisms, Kantian deontologists have offered responses to defend their theory:

• Clarification of Duties: Kantians argue that many apparent conflicts between duties can be resolved by carefully defining the scope and nature of the duties involved. For example, the duty to be truthful might be understood as a duty to avoid intentional deception, rather than a duty to disclose all information at all times.
• Emphasis on Rationality: Kantians emphasize that their theory is based on reason and rationality, not on blind adherence to rules. They argue that moral decision-making should involve careful reflection and consideration of all relevant factors, including the potential consequences of actions.
• Importance of Moral Character: Kantians also emphasize the importance of moral character and virtue. They argue that a person with a good will is more likely to make sound moral judgments and act in accordance with duty.
• Recognition of Moral Progress: Kantians acknowledge that moral understanding can evolve over time. They argue that the Categorical Imperative provides a framework for moral progress, as people strive to better understand and apply its principles.

Conclusion

Evaluating an action from a Kantian deontological perspective involves a systematic application of the Categorical Imperative. This requires identifying the maxim underlying the action, testing its universalizability, considering whether the action treats humanity as an end, and respecting the autonomy of all rational beings. While Kantian deontology has been subject to criticisms, it remains a powerful and influential framework for moral decision-making. Its emphasis on reason, duty, and respect for humanity provides a valuable foundation for ethical reflection and action. By adhering to the principles of Kantian deontology, individuals can strive to live moral lives and contribute to a more just and equitable world. The enduring relevance of Kant's ethics lies in its commitment to the inherent dignity and worth of all rational beings, and its insistence that morality is based on universal principles that apply to everyone, everywhere.