Kant and the Categorical Imperative

How should one be?

Kant’s Theory of the Good Will

A good will is the only trait that is good without qualification.

Something is good without qualification when it is intrinsically good and continues to be

intrinsically good, regardless of what it is paired with.

To have a good will is to do what is morally obligatory, because it is morally obligatory.

All action must proceed from some will.

Actions have moral worth only if they proceed from a good will, that is, actions have moral worth
only if we do them because they are the right thing, not because we desire certain consequences

The Intuitive Picture

Morality is a question of following certain rules.

Kant gives a general rule that can be applied in the all cases. A simplified version of that rule is
the Golden Rule—“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Kant’s Big Picture

Morality is categorical
Morality is a priori
Morality stems from rationality, through a good will

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

Categorical Imperative: Do X. X has intrinsic value.

Hypothetical Imperative: Do X in order that you may achieve Y. X has instrumental value.

Kant’s claim is that the fundamental rules of morality are of the categorical sort.
The Essence of the Moral Standard—The Categorical Imperative

Three Formulations of the CI:

1. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law.”
2. “Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of
nature.”
3. “So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in the person of another, as an end
withal, never as a means only.”

An action is right if and only if it is in accordance with the Categorical Imperative.

The Rationality Requirement—More than the Golden Rule

It is not simply willing, but rational willing. Proper willing (in accordance w/GW)

What is rational willing? It is not irrational willing!

1. Willing a contradiction (A and not-A)

2. Willing A and B where, given the world, you cannot have both.
3. To will A, when everyone, provided they are rational, wills not-A.

Example:
Maxim: When in distress, I will make a promise with the intention of not keeping it.

Generalized: When anyone is in distress, they should make a promise without the intention of
keeping it.

The Test: Imagine such a world. Would a promise made in times of distress ever be accepted?

Conflicting Desire: When I am in distress and make a promise, I want to be believed.

Example 2:
Maxim: Whenever I am well off and others are in need, I’ll not help them.

Generalized: Whenever anyone is well off and others are in need, s/he does not help them.

Conflicting Maxim: When I am in need and others are well off, they help me.
Means-End version of the CI.

Mere thingsInstrumental Value

PersonsIntrinsic Value

Person = Rational Agents

What of potential persons?
Animals?
Aesthetic objects?

What does it mean to treat someone solely as a means?

Maybe—A treats B solely as a means if and only if A treats B in such a way that B
would not consent to if he knew of it.
Why have bars on prisons.

Objections or Concerns

The Case of the Inquiring Murderer

How specific do we need to get regarding the rules?

Kant’s response: If you lieMorally responsible for the outcome.

 “…if you accept any considerations as reasons in one case, you must also accept them as reasons
in others cases.” (EMP, p128)

How rational are people in general?

Will all people, insofar as they are rational, will the same thing?
Don’t consequences matter?
Does this give us a motivation to be moral?

Kant’s Answer to the Euthyphro Question

“Moral laws can be right without any commander, promulgator, obligator.”

“God wills all that is morally good and proper and His will is, therefore, holy and perfect.”

1. If what was moral depended on God’s willing it, then what is morally right would not be
categorical.
2. What is morally right is categorical.
3. Therefore, morally right does not depend on God’s willing it.