Kant developed deontological ethics, which judges actions based on their motives rather than consequences. He aimed to find a precise moral principle based on ordinary moral judgments. Kant argued against consequentialism by noting we can't control consequences but can control motives through our will. For an action to have moral worth, it must stem from duty as expressed through universalizable maxims and treating humanity as an end in itself. Kant formulated categorical imperatives of universality and humanity to determine if actions align with the moral law.

1. Deontological Approach
Week 3, IPHI5111
S01, 2022

2. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• One of the most important
philosophers of all time, provided a
theory of ethics called
deontological ethics.
• He is also famous for his works on
epistemology and metaphysics

3. Kant’s reflections on the foundation of
morality
• Immanuel Kant’s key aim in his moral philosophy was to to come up with a
precise statement of the principle or principles on which all of our ordinary
moral judgments are based.
• The judgments in question are supposed to be those that any normal, sane,
adult human being would accept on due rational reflection.

4. Kant’s argument against Consequentialism
1 . It is possible that someone does something out of evil intention, but ends up bringing
good consequences to society.
2. It is also possible that someone does something out of good intention, but ends up
bringing about bad consequences.
3. The consequences of an action are not under our control.

5. Good will
4. We can only control our motives when
acting as a moral person.
5. Therefore the moral worth of an
action is given by our good will.

6. Kant’s attempt to find a foundation for
morality
• ‘For example, it is always a matter of duty that a dealer should not over
charge an inexperienced purchaser; and wherever there is much
commerce the prudent tradesman does not overcharge, but keeps a fixed
price for everyone, so that a child buys of him as well as any other. Men
are thus honestly served; but this is not enough to make us believe that the
tradesman has so acted from duty and from principles of honesty: his own
advantage required it;

7. Finding the right motive
• The right motive can be a motive
out of either:
• self-interest,
• sympathy (natural inclination), or
• a sense of duty (the voice of
conscience).
• Only the final motive, a sense of
duty, will count on Kant’s view

8. The Hypothetical Imperative
• Hypothetical imperative:
• What I ought to do if some
conditions hold.
• E.g., Maxim: I ought to attend the
lecture if I want to pass my
examination.
• The final goal in following a
hypothetical imperative in self-
interest

9. Categorical Imperative
• Categorical imperative:
• What I ought to do unconditionally.
• E.g., Maxim: I ought not to murder
no matter what goal I have.

10. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives.
The first formulation: Formula of Universality
• "Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time
will that it should become a
universal law.”

11. The Second Formulation: Formula of
Humanity
• “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.”

12. Formula of Humanity
• In Kant’s view, all moral imperatives are categorical imperatives.
• They are universally valid and have equal forces to equally free and rational
agents.

13. Therefore,
• If we want to find out if a command or a normative statement is aligned
with the Moral Law, we must examine whether it passes the two tests:
1. Test of Universality
2. Test of Humanity
• Examples

14. Think of an example: Lying
• Think of a person who seeks to
borrow money without intending
to pay it back. This is a
contradiction because if it were a
universal action, no person would
lend money anymore as he knows
that he will never be paid back.

15. Lets think of an example: Lying
• The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in
conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty).
• With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language.
• If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and
all truths would be assumed to be lies.
• The right to deceive could also not be claimed because it would deny the
status of the person deceived as an end in itself.

16. Objections to Kant’s Deontological Ethics
1. His principles are too vague to guide our actions
2. Our moral principles can sometimes conflict (The case of Gestapo at the
door)