Kantian Deontology.

In regard to Deontology, remember the name of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). This is an

ethical theory quite different from most others in that it requires one to seek to the right
thing (ones duty) regardless of the consequences. Now, this is not as cold-hearted as it
may sound. For it is not requiring us to disregard the outcome of our actions. Its not
saying that it doesnt matter whether our actions make more people happy or not. And
its not advising us to disregard the feelings of others or that pleasures, desires and other
goods we seek are irrelevant to our moral lives. But it is saying that they are irrelevant as
justifications for our moral judgments, actions, decisions and choices.
According to Kant, the moral worth or rightness of an action is determined by whether
the action is based on the pure motive of duty, & not based on more primitive motives
such as self-interest, pursuit of pleasure, or some other essentially selfish or ulterior
motives. Kant argued that moral actions must be based on that which is good in itself.
Now, the only thing that is good in itself is a Good Will, for all other goods are relative
goods and only have their value in relation to something other than themselves (e.g.,
money, pleasure, material possessions, personal delights, etc.; examine each and you will
find that they are considered good only because they are related to something else).* So,
the only absolute good or good in itself is the pure motive of acting on a Good Will (the
essential character of which his deduction shows to be duty). Thus he deduced the
following (as covered in the textbook):
Table of goods and their distinguishing properties.
Absolute Good
Good Will
Autonomous motives
1. good in itself (i.e., an end in itself),
2. self-justifying,
3. independent,
4. freedom preserving.
5. justified on the basis of
the C.I.* and are the ground
of perfect duties.
*C.I.= categorical imperative.

Relative Goods
money, food, drink, friendship,
pleasure, house, car, clothing, etc.
Heteronomous motives
1. not good in itself, but only good for
something else, i.e., a means to an end
2. dependent, contingent upon something
other than itself,
3. often only causally efficacious /.: only a
means to an end.
4. justified, if at all, on the basis of an H.I.*
and are the ground of imperfect duties.
*H.I.= hypothetical imperative.

Flowchart of Kants deduction.

Good Will (a good will is the only thing good in itself)
Pure Motive (one based on no ulterior motives)
Duty
Reverence (respect) for law
Categorical Imperative (of which there are 3 main formulations).

Kants Three Formulations of the Categorical Imperative.

Kant formulated the concept of law in terms of what he defended as the ultimate moral
principle, the Categorical Imperative (C.I.). The C.I. has three basic formulations that
are logically interrelated; they mutually imply each other such that you cant act
according to one without also acting in accordance with the others. Also, you cant deny
one without running into an inconsistency with the others.
I. Universalizability formulation. (This one stresses individual uniqueness & freedom.)
Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.
Paraphrase: Act according to the maxim which you can will to be a universal
law.
Note: A maxim is a particular rule specific to a given act, decision or choice you are
considering. This emphasizes the inherent moral worth of the individual human being as
a moral agent after all, you are the author of your maxim. Yet, insofar as it must be
universalizable, it implies our moral equality. By willing something, Kant does not
mean a wish, a want or a desire. He means to be able to rationally deliberate &
make a choice, & thereby will it; that is, to will something on the basis of a maxim that is
both internally consistent and which if all other people followed would not be
inconsistent with your following it.
I must stress that consistency is essential to a laws being universal; for were
your maxim inconsistent, it would either be or eventually imply a contradiction which is
a necessary falsehood. Kants point is that any maxim of genuinely positive moral worth,
one that is justifiable, would entail no exceptions, hence would be a universal law.
Exceptions to the C.I. such as acting on ulterior motives or special interests or causal
factors (e.g., blindly following urges or mere desires, psychological conditioning [mere
habits], or social fads and mere political conventions & trends) are out! At best, the latter
can only muster the tentative support of an H.I.
II. Personal Dignity formulation. (This one emphasizes our equality as moral peers.)
Act in such a way that you can always treat humanity whether in your own
person or the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the
same time as an end.
Paraphrase: Always treat yourself and others as ends in themselves, never merely as
means to an end (or as mere extensions of yourself, mere tools to be used).
Were you to reduce another to a mere means to an end, to just use others or abuse
yourself, your action would be denying their rational personhood. To reduce a person to a
mere means is to make an exception of that person, to exempt them from being covered
by moral law, and therefore to violate the universalizability condition summarized above.
It is likewise to exempt oneself from the moral law, to put oneself above the moral law, &
thereby render ones decisions, choices, actions etc. immoral (morally unjustified); e.g. a
person who sets him/herself up as ruler, one who lords it over others (in worse cases as a
tyrant or dictator) even an elected official who usurps your freedom & your
responsibility for your own actions.

III. Kingdom of Ends formulation. (This one brings together

Paraphrase only: Act according to that maxim by which you and all others
are preserved as a self-legislating member in a Kingdom of Ends. In such
a kingdom of rational agents, each person (end in itself) would be both a law
giver and subject to the law a kingdom wherein, given the first formulation, the
rationally self-legislated laws of each member would harmonize with all others.
This formulation pulls together the first two formulations of the C.I. As self-legislating
agents, the emphasis is on our individual autonomy (personal freedom) & thus our
personal responsibility expressed through a rational will. Yet, it also preserves our
moral equality through our companionship with other rational moral agent in a moral
community.

In such a kingdom of rational agents, each would be both a law giver and
subject to the law.
It is a kingdom wherein, given the first formulation, the rationally self-legislated
laws of each member would harmonize with all others.
Special Note: If you think about it, if one follows the C.I., and since it is
universal, ones own interests are taken into account. Therefore, ones rational
self-interest is thus taken into account in your moral decision. In this way, the aim
of ethical egoism is automatically accounted for by the C.I.

A point of clarification that distinguishes the Categorical Imperative from

Hypothetical Imperatives: Not all of our choices and decisions carry the same moral
weight or any moral weight at all; (1) some are morally neutral, (2) some are morally
significant but not especially serious or weighty, and (3) others was indeed very serious
& weighty.
(1) E.g., a morally neutral choice would be something such as deciding whether to wear a
coat today or just a sweater. Or again, deciding to wear jeans and a T-shirt rather than a
suit to a job interview with the CEO of a major corporation. Yet again, if you want a good
job, you will have to choose whether to go to college or trade school. If you make a poor
choice in these cases you would be judged to have made only a mistake, or even been
foolish, but you would not judged to have done something immoral or worthy of moral
condemnation. No serious blame attaches to such choices. Kant points out that these are
issues over means to an end, and can be decided on the basis of Hypothetical Imperatives
(& do not call for the weight of the Categorical Imperative).
Hypothetical Imperatives are not binding on all (i.e., cannot be universally required) &
have the form: If _____ then _ _ _ _. E.g., If I want a good job based on skills and the
ability to use heavy machines, then I should go to trade school. Or again, If I want a
good job that combines a background in history and a bit of science, then I should go to
college and major in archaeology. In such cases, whichever choice you make, it has no
direct moral significance; either choice is just fine & dandy. Its up to your interests,
talents and abilities.

(2) Others are morally significant and might even have undesirable consequences if
neglected, but still are not so serious that you would be judged immoral if you indeed
neglected to make the smart choice. These Kant classifies as Impure Duties. E.g., Kant
points out that we need to look after our health and self-improvement, such as losing
weight, exercising, reading fine literature & elevating books, being sociable and polite.
These also are based on Hypothetical Imperatives; e.g., If I want to improve my
vocabulary and thereby my intellect, I should read fine literature and elevating books.
Again, If I want to maintain or even improve my health, then I ought to adopt a better
diet and exercise 3 times mornings each week. Of course, if you fail at any of these, you
have not done something immoral; perhaps you are being foolish or imprudent, but not
immoral and certainly not evil.
(3) The Categorical Imperative pertains to the Pure Duties, the truly serious moral
duties such as preserving the truth, keeping promises (e.g., contracts, in the business
context), and preserving innocent life. Again, the C.I. is universally binding, i.e., it is
absolute and brooks no exceptions. The C.I. has the form of a self-imposed command
upon your act, i.e., For all cases___ do _ _ _. To fail at these entails that what one has
done (lying, making false promises, and attacking or failing to defend innocent life, etc.)
is indeed immoral and worthy of moral censure.
[One after-thought: Had Kant lived and wrote after Mill, Id bet a years wages that he
would not have said that the utilitarian theory fails not because it talks of happiness,
pleasure, balance of desirable over undesirable consequences and the P.U. is absolutely
irrelevant to the moral life. (He would have criticized the PU on these grounds, but he
would not have rejected it for taking into account the consequences of an act). Rather,
he would have argued against them that in selecting utility as their ultimate moral
principle, they stopped short in their thinking and mistook a lower-order, conditioned
criterion of decision making to be an ultimate and unconditional moral principle. At best,
utilitarianism only has the tentative support of a hypothetical imperative, an H.I.]