Kant Notes

 

Maxim: A personal policy for acting. For example, "I always give money to panhandlers," "I never beat my children," "I only help my relatives, not other people," "I never help anyone," etc.

Imperative: An order or demand.

Hypothetical Imperative: An imperative that applied to you only under certain conditions, such as "Study hard if you want a good grade." This requires nothing of a person who is not concerned about grades.

Categorical Imperative: An imperative that applies to everyone (every rational being), no matter what he or she wants.

Categorical imperative, Version 1: The maxim test: Act in such a way that the maxim on which you are acting could be rationally chosen by you to become a universal law of nature, that is, be chosen to be the way everyone acts, since it is built into their nature.

Categorical imperative, Version 2: End-in-itself: Treat every one (even yourself) as an end in him/herself, never a means only. Treating people as ends in themselves means treating them in a way that they could agree to as a rational beings. This excludes exploiting, cheating, murdering, deceiving them, etc.

 

Some maxims discussed by Kant, and Kant's take on whether they can be universalized (willed to become a universal law of nature).

 

I.          I make lying promises to get of a jam. (no)

II.         Solely out of my natural inclination to do what benefits me, I will kill myself when it looks like life will be miserable for me (no)

III.        I never help anyone (no)

IV.        I don't develop my talents (no)

 

You cannot universalize any of these, but the reasons in the first two cases are different from those in the last two. In the first case, it is impossible for there to be a universal law of making lying promises, because people would stop making and accepting promises, once they realize that no one keeps them. But you can't make a lying promise if you can't make a promise at all, so the situation described by the universal law is impossible. It is irrational to will the impossible, so it is immoral to act on the maxim. In the second case also it is impossible to universalize the maxim, since it is impossible to make the natural inclination to look out for yourself also a motivation to kill yourself.

When it is impossible to make your maxim a universal law, you have a strict obligation not to act on that maxim. A strict (moral) obligation is one with no exceptions. Thus you are never morally permitted to commit suicide just because you life has become miserable or to making a lying promise. Not making a lying promise might not amount requiring that you never lie at all ("I really like your hairdo") and it might not mean that it is never morally permissible to break a promise you have made sincerely.

            In the third and forth cases, universalizing the maxim is possible, but still not rational. It is possible to have a world in which no one helps anyone, but it is not rational to will it, since you would then will that no one help you. This is not merely a selfish calculation. If you will that no one help you, you treat yourself as unworthy of their help, which means not treating yourself and an end in yourself. In the forth case, it is also possible to have a world full of couch potatoes, but it is not rational to will this, since you would will that you yourself do not have the benefit of your own talents and those of others. In the case where the universal law is possible but not rational to will, you have a beneficent (non-strict) obligation not to act on the maxim.

 

Some other maxims, and Weston's opinion (which admittedly doesn't count for much) as to whether it is rational to will that maxim become a universal law:

  1. I kill every one I can (no-strict obligation)
  2. I kill every one who tries to kill me (no)
  3. I kill very one who I have to kill in order to keep them from killing me or some third person (yes)
  4. I use all necessary force in order to try to prevent a great injustice which is going on in front of me (yes) ("The Mockingbird" case?)
  5. I kill your brother when you kill mine (no)
  6. As a doctor, I give my patients an overdose of sleeping pills if they are in pain and they ask for it (no)
  7. As a doctor, I perform abortions on healthy fetuses, if they mother requests it. (hard to say--is a fetus a rational being?)

 

Freedom and Autonomy: Since, Kant says, the categorical imperative is a command that reason gives to all rational beings, it is not imposed on you from outside, but by your own nature as a rational being. When you act according to rules that you give yourself, you are acting autonomously (in a "self-legislating" manner). Morality does not come from some authority, like the government or a religion, but from you own rational nature. Therefore acting morally is an expression of your nature, which means that you are acting freely (and autonomously) when you do something just because it is right. If you do a good thing because your enjoy it or help out someone because you like them, or to be well-thought of, then you are acting in accord with your moral duty but not from the motive of moral duty. Kant thinks that you are not acting freely when you do something out of love, for example, because your are then controlled by you emotions, not your reason. Only acts done just because they are the right thing have true moral value, but doing the right thing for some other reason is still to be praised and encouraged, if that is the best that can be got.