Immanuel Kant believed in an objective right and wrong based on reason. We should do the right thing just because it is right and not because it fulfils our desires or is based on our feelings. We know what is right not by relying on our intuitions or facts about the world but by using our reason. To test a moral maxim, we need to ask whether we can always say that everyone should follow it and we must reject it if we cannot.

Kant opposed the view that all moral judgements are culturally relative or subjective so that there are no such things as moral absolutes. Kant’s approach to ethics was deontological, where the right takes precedence over the good, and basic rights and principles guide us to know which goods to follow.

Modern deontology avoids too close a link with Kant and rejects his absolutism and complete disregard for consequences; however, his moral theory has been and continues to be influential.

Kant’s Copernican Revolution

Kant’s main area of study was to investigate the formal structures of pure reasoning, causality, a priori knowledge (knowledge not based on experience) and the question of objectivity. He wrote these ideas in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781; 2nd edn 1787). He then went on to demonstrate the formal structure of practical-moral reasoning in the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and to study the conditions of the possibility of aesthetics and religion in the Critique of Judgement (1790).

Kant’s work was a reaction against the rationalists and empiricists, and he was concerned with the problem of objective knowledge: can I have any knowledge of the world that is not just ‘knowledge of the world as it seems to me’? He is asking, ‘How do we know what we know and what does it mean to know?’

Kant is closer to the rationalist views of Descartes and Leibniz and opposed to the empiricist views of Hume, which spurred him to explain his own view. Kant considers that our knowledge is not of the world as it is in itself but of the world as it appears to us. If our sense organs were different, our languages and thought patterns different, then our view of the world would be different. Kant is saying that humans can never know the world as it really is (the thing in itself) because as it is experienced it is changed by our minds – the world we now see is a phenomenon (like a reflection in a mirror). Kant argued that various structures or categories of thought (space, time and causality) were built into the structure of our minds – we have been preprogrammed. This means that all we can really know about scientifically are our own experiences and perceptions, which may or may not correspond to ultimate reality.

Kant called this analysis the Copernican Revolution, as its implications for us are just as vital as the implications of believing that the solar system revolves around the sun. Science then can never give us any knowledge of objective reality, as it can never move beyond the view of the world given to us by the categories of our mind. However, Kant did think that these categories could be described as objective, as they are the objective laws of our mind – this is pure reason and tells you what is the case.

Copernican Revolution

Belief that the solar system revolves around the sun.

Kant’s moral theory

Practical reason looks at evidence and argument and tells you what ought to be done. This sense of the moral ‘ought’ is something which cannot simply depend on external facts of what the world is like, or the expected consequences of our actions. Kant saw that people are aware of the moral law at work within them – not as a vague feeling but a direct and powerful experience. ‘Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me’ (Critique of Practical Reason). Kant’s moral theory is explained in the ‘Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals’ (1785) and tries to show the objectivity of moral judgement and the universal character of moral laws and attempts to base morality on reason as opposed to feelings, inclinations, consequences or religion. He roots his view of morality in reason to the exclusion of everything else, and rejects especially Hume’s idea that morality is rooted in desires or feelings. He does not reject desires and feelings, but says that they have nothing to do with morality. Only reason is universal. Kant approached morality in the same way as he approached knowledge (looking at the a priori categories through which we make sense of the world) – he looked for the categories we use: what makes a moral precept moral? Kant declared that these were rooted in rationality, were unconditional or categorical and completely unchanging and presupposed freedom.

Freedom

For Kant, if I am to act morally then I must be capable of exercising freedom or autonomy of the will. The opposite of this is heteronomy – that something is right because it satisfies some desire, emotion, goal or obligation. Our reason must not be subservient to something else even if this is the happiness of the majority.

Autonomy

Self-directed freedom, arriving at moral judgement through reason.

A posteriori

A statement which is knowable after experience.

A priori

A statement which is knowable without reference to any experience.

Absolute

A principle that is universally binding.

Absolutism

There is only one correct answer to every moral problem.

Good will

Making a moral choice expresses good will.

Duty

A motive for acting in a certain way which shows moral quality.

Good will

The idea of a ‘good will’ is Kant’s starting point for his morality.

It is impossible to conceive of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgement and any other talents of the mind we care to name, or courage, resolution, and constancy of purpose, as qualities of temperament, are without doubt good and desirable in many respects; but they can also be extremely bad and hurtful when the will is not good expresses good will. which has to make use of these gifts … Good will, then, like a jewel, it would still shine by its own light, as a thing which has its whole value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitfulness can neither add to nor take away anything from this value.

(‘Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals’)

It is only the ‘good will’ which counts and which is the starting point for ethics. Abilities, talents and even virtues count for nothing, as do consequences. Only the will is within our control and so only the will can be unconditionally good and can exercise pure practical reason. This will means the total effort involved in making a conscious moral choice. The good will is when someone acts rationally and ignores inclinations, desires and emotions when making an ethical decision. This requires freedom, as a moral agent needs the ability to choose to act with the right intention.

David Hume (1711–1776)

David Hume was born in Edinburgh on 7 May 1711. He was a historian and philosopher. He influenced the development of scepticism and empiricism. He worked in an office in Bristol for a short time and then moved to France. A Treatise of Human Nature was published in three volumes between 1739 and 1740. Hume went back to his family home in Berwickshire and worked on Essays Moral and Political, published in 1741 to 1742. Hume moved to Edinburgh in 1751 and became librarian of the Advocates’ Library. Hume was a friend of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and brought him to Britain, but the friendship collapsed due to Rousseau’s mental condition. Hume died on 25 August 1776.

This is the opposite of Hume’s argument that morality is based only on making people happy and fulfilling their desires – it is just a servant of the passions, and morality is founded on our feelings of sympathy for others and depends on our human nature.

Duty

Duty is what makes the good will good. It is important that duty be done for its own sake, and it does not matter whether you or others benefit from your action – our motives need to be pure. Doing duty for any other reason – inclination, self-interest, affection – does not count. The good will chooses duty for duty’s sake.

Duty

Richard Warburton/Alamy

Acting according to good will is doing one’s duty and is acting without any personal motive or from any hope of gain, such as personal pleasure. Kant does not rule out pleasure in doing one’s duty, but pleasure will not help us to know what duty is or the morality of our actions. According to Kant, there is no moral worth in the feeling of satisfaction we get from doing our duty – if giving to charity out of love for others gives you that warm glow of having helped others, it is not necessarily moral. If I give to charity because duty commands it, then I am moral. So, even though the act of giving to charity has the same result, according to Kant one way is moral and the other is not. We are not moral for the sake of love but for duty’s sake only. He is arguing against Hume that duty and reason can help us guide our emotions so that we are not dominated and ruled by them.

Kant

Kant was looking for some sort of objective basis for morality – a way of knowing our duty. Practical reason, therefore, must give the will commands or imperatives. He makes the distinction between two kinds of imperatives – non-moral (hypothetical) and moral (categorical).

The hypothetical imperative

Hypothetical imperatives are not moral commands to the will, as they do not apply to everyone. You need to obey them only if you want to achieve a certain goal – that is why a hypothetical imperative always begins with the word ‘if’.

For example: if I want to lose weight I ought to go on a diet and exercise more. A hypothetical imperative depends on the results and aims at personal well-being.

The categorical imperative

Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, are moral commands and do not begin with an ‘if’, as they tell everyone what to do and do not depend on anything, especially desires or goals. According to Kant these categorical imperatives apply to everyone (like the categories of pure reason, which apply to everyone) because they are based on an objective a priori law of reason, which Kant calls the categorical imperative. This is a test to judge whether an action is in accordance with pure practical reason.

There are a number of different forms of this, but they are variations on three basic ones:

1 The universal law.
2 Treat humans as ends in themselves.
3 Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends.

Hypothetical imperative

An action that achieves some goal or end.

Categorical imperative

A command to perform actions that are absolute moral obligations without reference to other ends.

1 Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

Kant calls this the formula of the law of nature. This first formulation of the categorical imperative asks everyone to universalise their principles or maxims without contradiction. In other words, before you act ask yourself whether you would like everyone in the same situation to act in the same way. If not, then you are involved in a contradiction and what you are thinking of doing is wrong because it is against reason.

Kant always wants to universalise rules, as he wants everyone to be free and rational, and if rules are not universalisable then others will not have the same freedom to act on the same moral principles as I use. However, Kant does not claim that everyone should be able to do the same thing as I choose to do in order for it to be moral – but rather everyone should be prepared to act on the same maxim.

Kant uses promise-keeping as an example. I cannot consistently will that promise-breaking for my own self-interest should be a universal law. If I try to make a universal law of the maxim ‘I may always break my promises when it is for my benefit,’ the result will be that there is no point in anyone making promises – this is inconsistent and so cannot be a moral imperative.

To make his argument as clear as possible Kant uses four examples, including the one of promise-keeping:

Law

Objective principle, a maxim that can be universalised.

Maxim

A general rule in accordance with which we intend to act.

A man feels sick of life as a result of a series of misfortunes that have mounted to the point of despair, but he is still so far in possession of his reason as to ask himself whether taking his own life may be contrary to his duty to himself. He now applies the test ‘Can the maxim of my action really become a universal law of nature?’ His maxim is ‘From self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life if its continuance threatens more evil than it promises pleasure.’ The only further question to ask is whether this principle of self-love can become a universal law of nature. It is then seen at once that a system of nature by whose law the very same feeling whose function is to stimulate the furtherance of life should actually destroy life would contradict itself, and consequently could not subsist as a system of nature and is therefore entirely opposed to the supreme principle of all duty.
Another finds himself driven to borrowing money due to need. He well knows that he will not be able to pay it back; but he sees too that he will get no loan unless he gives a firm promise to pay it back within a fixed time. He is inclined to make such a promise; but he still has enough conscience to ask: ‘Is it not unlawful and contrary to duty to get out of difficulties in this way?’ Supposing, however, he did resolve to do so; the maxim of his action would be: ‘Whenever I believe myself short of money, I will borrow and promise to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done.’ Now this principle of self-love or personal advantage is perhaps quite compatible with my own entire future welfare; only there remains the question ‘Is it right?’ I therefore transform the demand of self-love into a universal law and frame my question thus: ‘How would things stand if my maxim became a universal law?’ I then see straightaway that this maxim can never rank as a universal law of nature and be self-consistent, but must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality of the intention not to keep it would make promising, and the very purpose of promising, itself impossible, since no one would believe he was being promised anything, but would laugh at utterances of this kind as empty shams.
A third finds in himself a talent whose cultivation would make him a useful man for all sorts of purposes. But he sees himself in comfortable circumstances, and he prefers to give himself up to pleasure rather than bother about increasing and improving his fortunate natural aptitudes. Yet he asks himself further: ‘Does my maxim of neglecting my natural gifts, besides agreeing in itself with my tendency to indulgence, agree also with what is called duty?’ He then sees that a system of nature could indeed always subsist under such a universal law, although (like the South Sea Islanders) every man should let his talents rust and should be bent on devoting his life solely to idleness, indulgence, procreation and, in a word, to enjoyment. Only he cannot possibly will that this become a universal law of nature or should be implanted in us as such a law by a natural instinct. For as a rational being he necessarily wills that all his powers should be developed, since they serve him, and are given to him, for all sorts of possible ends.
Yet a fourth is himself flourishing, but he sees others who have to struggle with great hardships (and whom he could easily help); and he thinks: ‘What does it matter to me? Let everyone be as happy as heaven wills or as he can make himself; I won’t deprive him of anything; I won’t envy him; only I have no wish to contribute to his well-being or to support in distress!’ Now admittedly, if such an attitude were a universal law of nature, mankind could get on perfectly well – better no doubt than if everyone prates about sympathy and good will and even takes pains on occasion to practise them, but on the other hand cheats where he can, traffics in human rights, or violates them in other ways. But although it is possible that a universal law of nature could subsist in harmony with this maxim, it is impossible to will that such a 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 hope of the help he wants for himself.
(‘Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals’)

Kant’s followers disagree about how to apply this universal law test. R.M. Hare suggests an alternative approach to test a proposed moral maxim:

Try to understand the consequences of following it on affected individuals.
Try to imagine yourself in the place of these individuals.
Ask yourself whether you want the maxim to be followed regardless of where you imagine yourself in the situation. This is the role of reason in choosing only maxims that can be universalised.

The challenge then is to distinguish right maxims from wrong ones. This is the role of reason in choosing only maxims that can be universalised.

2 So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, never solely as a means but always as an end

Kant calls this the formula of end in itself. He means that we should not exploit others or treat them as things to achieve an end, as they are as rational as we are. To treat another person as a means is to deny that person the right to be a rational and independent judge of his or her own actions. It is to make oneself in some way superior and different. To be consistent we need to value everyone equally.

Kant saw the first two formulations as two expressions of the same idea. He summed this up as follows: ‘Principles of action are prohibited morally if they could not be universalised without contradiction, or they could not be willed as universal laws’ (‘Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals’). The third formulation follows from the other two.

Kingdom of ends

A world in which people do not treat others as means but only as ends.

3 Act as if a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends

This he calls the formula of a kingdom of ends. Everyone should act as if every other person was an ‘end’ – a free, autonomous agent. Kant believed that each person is autonomous, and moral judgements should not be based on any empirical consideration about human nature, human flourishing or human destiny. However, this idea of the autonomy of the individual does not mean that everyone can just decide their own morality, but rather that each individual has the ability to understand the principles of pure practical reason and follow them. Pure practical reason must be impartial and so its principles must apply equally to everyone. Kant’s kingdom of ends is an ideal community in which all members are both the authors and subjects of all laws. In this community the only possible laws are those which could apply to all rational beings. This means that the categorical imperative demands that we follow only those principles that could be laws in the kingdom of ends. Thus the kingdom of ends can be achieved only if each individual follows the categorical imperative unfailingly; so helping to achieve the kingdom of ends is a duty, and people must hold each other accountable for helping achieve it.

In more modern times a good application of Kant’s thoughts on the kingdom of ends can be found in Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness (Rawls, 1971). Rawls’ approach is that the correct rules of justice are those that are conducive to harmony in society. This means that our fundamental obligation is to act only on principles that would be accepted by a community of fully rational autonomous agents who all share in legislating these principles for their community. This adds a social dimension to Kantian ethics.

4 Any action that ignores the individual dignity of a human being in order to achieve its ends is wrong

Thought point

1 Why does Kant believe that the ‘good will’ is the only thing that is good without qualification? Can you think of anything else that is good without qualification? What are Kant’s supporting reasons? Do you agree with him?
2 How would Kant suggest that where there is a clash of duties, we know what takes precedence by following the categorical imperative. Does this work? Discuss the following:
1. (a) It is your turn to make a presentation in class and you are running late. On the way you witness a car crash and are asked to wait to make a statement to the police.
2. (b) If only actual persons are ends in themselves, how would a Kantian approach a student who accidentally becomes pregnant and decides to have an abortion so as to continue her studies?
3. (c) E.M. Forster wrote, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.’ Do you agree?
3 Kant could be criticised for having an homogenous view of people. How might his views make sense in a society with multiple cultures, religions and values?
4 Would the kingdom of ends be a model society? Is it like a modern democracy?

The three postulates of practical reason

Apart from making the individual the sole authority for moral judgement, Kant’s theory of ethics seems to grant freedom to do anything that can be consistently universalised. This morality sets limits but does not give direct guidance; therefore, in order for it to make sense Kant has to postulate the existence of God, freedom and immortality.

Kant’s ethical theory could, in fact, be said to be a religious morality without God but he seems to take for granted God as lawgiver and he argues that there must be a God and an afterlife, as there has to be some sort of reward.

Kant has already explained that happiness is not the foundation or reason for acting morally, but he claims that it is its reward. Kant’s ideas seem to be really twisted with regard to happiness. In the ‘Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals’ he writes,

The principle of personal happiness is the most objectionable not merely because it is false and because its pretence that well-being always adjusts itself to well-doing is contradicted by experience; not merely because it contributes nothing to morality (since making a man happy is quite different from making him good) but because it bases morality on sensuous motives.

However, he also says that we have a duty to make ourselves happy, not because we want to be happy but because it is necessary for us to do our other duties. Kant seems to put duty in a sort of vacuum, totally separate from our everyday lives.

To solve this dilemma Kant looks at the postulates of God and immortality: after death, in the next world, there is no conflict between ‘duty’ and ‘happiness’, as ‘duty’ is part of the natural harmony of purposes created by God. Kant thought that our aim in acting morally is not to be happy but to be worthy of being happy. The summum bonum or highest good is a state where happiness and virtue are united – but for Kant it is the virtuous person who has a ‘good will’ which is vital for morality; happiness is not guaranteed. The summum bonum, however, cannot be achieved in this life, and so there must be life after death where we can achieve it – thus for Kant, morality leads to God.

Summum bonum

The supreme good that we pursue through moral acts.

Strengths of Kant’s theory of ethics

Kant’s morality is very straightforward and based on reason.
There are clear criteria to assess what is moral.
The moral value of an action comes from the action itself.
Kant’s categorical imperative gives us rules that apply to everyone and command us to respect human life.
It makes clear that morality is about doing one’s duty and not just following feelings or inclinations. This means that we cannot assume that what is good for us is morally good and so good for everyone else. This is Kant’s equivalent of the Golden Rule of Christian ethics.
It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so corrects the utilitarian assumption that the minority can suffer so long as the majority are happy.
Kant sees humans as being of intrinsic worth and dignity as they are rational creatures. Humans cannot be enslaved or exploited. This is the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Weaknesses of Kant’s theory of ethics

Kant’s theory is abstract and not always easily applied to moral situations – it tells you what types of actions are good, but it does not tell you what is the right thing to do in particular situations. As Alasdair MacIntyre points out, you can use the universalisability principle to justify practically anything: ‘all I need to do is to characterise the proposed action in such a way that the maxim will permit me to do what I want while prohibiting others from doing what would nullify the action if universalised’ (A Short History of Ethics).
Kant’s emphasis on duty seems to imply that an action is made moral by an underlying intention to do one’s duty. However, it is not always possible to separate ‘intentions’ from ‘ends’, as intentions are closely linked with what we do (e.g. intending to come to the help of a friend who is being beaten up is not the same as actually doing so). In addition, our motives are not always pure and people seldom act from pure practical reason; we more often help others because we like them or we feel sorry for them. Some philosophers think that putting duty above feeling is cold and inhuman. Kant’s theory severs morality from everyday life and everyday feelings and emotions.
Many people would consider that thinking about the result of an action is an important part of ethical decision making, and if the outcome hurts another person, most people would feel guilty.

Universalisability

If an act is right or wrong for one person in a situation, then it is right or wrong for anyone in that situation.

Kant’s system seems to work only if everyone has the same view of the final purpose and end of humans. It depends on some notion of God to justify this rationally ordered world. We do not all even have the same views on life and obeying the moral law could put one at a real disadvantage when dealing with people who are wicked, amoral or simply less rational.
Kant is clear when explaining the conflict between duty and inclination, but he does not help us understand the conflict between different duties, each of which could be justified.
In addition, though Kant tells us in general terms to respect others and not treat them as ends, this does not tell us what to do in individual cases. What about the terminally ill patient who wants help to die? What about protecting the innocent victim from murderers? What about stealing a drug to help a loved one to live? What about conscription in time of war? Kant’s theory here seems to lead either to a position where no decision can be made or to a situation where I may consider doing my duty as just plain wrong.

The theory of W.D. Ross

These problems with Kant’s theory of ethics led W.D. Ross to make certain changes.

Ross said that there were two kinds of duties:

Prima facie duties
Actual duties.

Prima facie duties

Ross argued that exceptions should be allowed to Kant’s duties – he called these prima facie duties (first sight duties). These duties are conditional and can be outweighed by a more compelling duty (e.g. ‘Never take a life’ could be outweighed by ‘Never take a life except in self-defence’).

I suggest ‘prima facie duty’ or ‘conditional duty’ as a brief way of referring to the characteristic (quite distinct from that of being a duty proper) which an act has, in virtue of being of a certain kind (e.g. the keeping of a promise), of being an act which would be a duty proper if it were not at the same time of another kind which is morally significant. Whether an act is a duty proper or actual duty depends on all the morally significant kinds it is an instance of.

(The Right and the Good, pp. 19–20)

Ross lists seven prima facie duties:

1 fidelity or promise-keeping
2 reparation for harm done
3 gratitude
4 justice
5 beneficence
6 self-improvement
7 non-maleficence.

These stress the personal character of duty. The first three duties look to the past and the last four to the future, but they do not need to be considered in any particular order, but rather as to how they fit the particular situation. For example who should I save from drowning: my father or a famous doctor? A utilitarian would save the doctor because he could help more people. Ross says we have a special duty of gratitude to our parents which outweighs any duty to a stranger. Ross shows that there are possible exceptions to any rule and these exceptions depend on the situation in which I do my duty, the possible consequences of doing my duty and the personal relationships involved.

However, calling these ‘duties’ may be a bit misleading, as they are not so much duties as ‘features that give us genuine (not merely apparent) moral reason to do certain actions’. Ross later described prima facie duties as ‘responsibilities to ourselves and to others’ and he went on to say that our actual duty is determined by the balance of these responsibilities.

Every act therefore, viewed in some aspects, will be prima facie right, and viewed in others, prima facie wrong, and right acts can be distinguished from wrong acts only as being those which, of all those possible for the agent in the circumstances, have the greatest balance of prima facie rightness, in those respects in which they are prima facie right, over their prima facie wrongness, in those respects in which they are prima facie wrong … For the estimation of the comparative stringency of these prima facie obligations no general rules can, so far as I can see, be laid down.

(The Right and the Good, p. 41)

Actual duties

This is the duty people are left with after they have weighed up all the conflicting prima facie duties that apply in a particular case.

Problems with Ross’ theory:

How do we know what a prima facie duty is?
How do we know which one is right where there is a conflict between them?

Ross says that we simply know which acts are right by consulting our deepest moral convictions, but is this an adequate response? Can we be sure that Ross’ list of duties is correct? How can we compare and rank them in order to arrive at a balance which will guide us to our actual duty?

Ross thought that people could solve problems by relying on their intuitions.

Review questions

Look back over the chapter and check that you can answer the following questions:

1 What did Kant mean by ‘good will’?
2 Why is duty important to Kant?
3 Spider diagram or mind map the categorical imperative, with examples.
4 Make a chart of the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian ethics.

Terminology

Do you know your terminology?

Try to explain the following terms without looking at your books and notes:

The categorical imperative
The hypothetical imperative
Duty
Good will
The kingdom of ends
Maxim
The summum bonum
Universalisability.

Summary

Deontological ethics are concerned with actions, not consequences. Kant’s theory is deontological because it is based on duty. To act morally is to do one’s duty and so obey the moral law.
Moral actions must be free autonomous actions that are freely decided upon.
People seek the highest good – the summum bonum, which is virtue plus happiness. Morality, therefore, leads to God. And God is necessary for morality.
The good will is intrinsically good and means acting in accordance with the moral law, out of duty and not out of any emotion. Kant’s ethics are based on reason.
Moral statements are categorical – they prescribe and the result is not important.
Kant rejects hypothetical imperatives as they are not universal and do not apply to everyone. A hypothetical imperative can be good but not moral as it depends on the result.
Moral actions follow the categorical imperative:
- Universal law
- Treat humans as an end in themselves
- Live in a kingdom of ends.

Examination questions practice

It is a good idea always to use examples to explain the categorical imperative. Do not use phrases like ‘a priori’ if you cannot remember what they mean.

To help you improve your answers look at the AS Levels of Response.

Sample exam-style question

Critically assess the claim that Kant’s theory of universalisability provides a sound basis for ethical decision making.

AO1 (15 marks)

• You could include some of the following in your answer:
• An explanation of Kantian ethics, including Kant’s ideas about the importance of duty and the categorical imperative, playing particular attention to the idea of universalisability.

AO2 (15 marks)

• Here you need to think about whether Kant’s theory works in practice when making ethical decisions.
• You may argue that Kant’s theory is abstract and not easily applied to ethical situations.
• You may consider that Kant’s approach does not consider outcomes, that there are conflicts between duties and that there is no room for emotions.
• On the other hand, you may consider that Kant’s theory of universalisation can provide a good basis for ethical decision making as it gives clear criteria to know which actions are moral, it respects human life and the idea of duty means that we will always do what is right and not be swayed by emotions and feelings. They may say that his rules are fair as they apply to everyone, and so universalisability does give a sound basis for making ethical decisions.
• In considering these issues and reaching a conclusion you might also argue that utilitarianism, which does consider consequences but cannot be universalised to everyone, is a better approach.

Further possible questions

• Critically assess Kant’s defence of an absolute morality.
• ‘Kant’s theory of ethics has serious weaknesses.’ Discuss.
• To what extent is doing one’s duty the most important part of ethics?

Normative ethical theories

12 Kantian ethics

What you will learn about in this chapter

The OCR checklist

What is Kant’s theory of ethics?

Kant’s Copernican Revolution

Kant’s moral theory

Freedom

Good will

Duty

Kant

The hypothetical imperative

The categorical imperative

1 Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

2 So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, never solely as a means but always as an end

3 Act as if a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends

4 Any action that ignores the individual dignity of a human being in order to achieve its ends is wrong

Thought point

The three postulates of practical reason

Strengths of Kant’s theory of ethics

Weaknesses of Kant’s theory of ethics

The theory of W.D. Ross

Prima facie duties

Actual duties

Review questions

Terminology

Do you know your terminology?

Summary

Examination questions practice

Sample exam-style question

Further possible questions

Further reading