Kant’s Moral Law

Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

3349

Abstract

ly by virtue of the volition that is the good in itself and considered by itself. When we look at the coldness of a villain, what makes the villain so dangerous to us and abominable in our eyes is that that villain lacks good will. It is not so much what the villain does as it is that lack of good will, that lack of sensing the moral law, that is evil.</p><p id="99fa">Kant says that the good will must always be directed toward doing one’s moral duty to the moral law. Kant’s morality is usually referred to as a “deontological” system, from the Greek word <i>dion</i>, which means “duty.” This proposition is not in addition to the good will because it is in no way separate from the concept of the good will. We have, Kant says, a universal moral duty. We have many specific moral duties; for example, we have a duty to preserve life, including our own life. Kant said it is wrong to commit suicide because it is a duty to preserve your own life no matter what the circumstances. That type of thinking is an example of the duty we have to the moral law that is at the heart and core of being moral. Will and duty are inseparable within Kant’s system. It is only willingly acting out of duty and respect for the moral law that makes an act good, not the consequences of an act.</p><p id="32e6">Respect for the moral law is a rational necessity. We know there’s a moral law. We know we have a duty to the moral law. We know that the moral worth of any action is because we act out of duty. There is no other rational choice but to respect and follow the moral law. Kant combines all of these ideas into the categorical imperative. That imperative can be expressed as follows: “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” (<i>Metaphysic of Morals</i>, 1.19)What Kant is arguing is that if there is a universal moral law, and of course there is, then I should act not just according to that moral law but I should respect the moral law in such a way that my will and my duty combine so that I will that my maxim is a universal law. This looks a little bit like circular reasoning, but sometimes circular reasoning isn’t a logical fallacy; sometimes it’s because the concepts are connected with each other. The ideas in Kant of a moral law, a good will, and a sense of duty combine into the categorical imperative of <i>always</i> acting so that will, duty, and universality are all one.</p><p id="234d">The main reason Kant is arguing this way is to get away from what he calls the “hypothetical imperative.” We’re very used to the hypothetical imperative even if we’re not really aware of how aware we are of the hypothetical imperative. The hypothetical imperative is the if–then statement. If I can get away with it, I will break the rules; or if other people don’t obey the rules, I won’t either; or if it doesn’t do too much harm, I will bend the rules a little. It’s a very human way of thinking, but it’s a very wrong way of human thinking, according to Kant. If morality has any meaning, it should be something that we respect and to which we feel a duty. Our entire will should be behind following the moral law. Kant thinks that hypotheticals lack respect because they are about making excuses, trying to find a way around the moral law. Or it’s saying that I have an inclinati

Options

on to follow the law and sometimes do what’s morally right. Kant is calling your bluff on this. He’s saying something like this: “Look, if it’s a universal moral law, then it universally applies; that’s what “universal” means. Your will should follow the universal law <i>always</i>.” That is why Kant says it’s a <i>categorical</i> imperative not a hypothetical imperative.</p><p id="e812">We also have a duty to other people in terms of treating them always as an end in themselves and never as only a means to another end. The plain language version of this is to not use other people. Slavery is wrong because what you’re doing is using other human beings to gain something from them. We all know about manipulating or tricking people, and we all have a sense that that is wrong. Kant says that you should never use a person as a means to an end because human beings are moral agents. They are rational beings with a soul. They are human beings, not inanimate objects, so it’s morally wrong to use or manipulate people for your own ends. That doesn’t forbid us from interacting with other people to accomplish our own goals. For example, we interact with a cashier at the store to purchase our goods, but that’s not using them <i>only</i> as a means. We need to recognize that the cashier is a person who deserves our respect, who is a moral actor just like we are. So when you’re doing a transaction, be kind, be generous; that’s your duty anyway. Kant says that we have a duty to act lovingly toward each other. If the only reason you are kind to other people is because you want to get something out of it, that is not moral. Morality is the good will plus duty to the moral law, so if you are acting kind to someone simply because you want something in return, or because you want to be recognized as a kind person, or for some sort of heavenly or earthly reward, then that’s not acting out of a sense of duty.</p><p id="1b98">Kant believes that we are moral legislators and moral agents, and that means we have autonomy. We are most free and autonomous when we are acting in a sense of moral duty and our will is united to the moral law. When you unite your will with the moral law, then you are contributing to the moral law, and you can see yourself as the author of the moral law. This isn’t just a mental trick. When we act from duty and respect for the moral law, then we are fully existing as an autonomous being. Kant is not a Stoic, but he is expressing a similar idea that when we unite our will with how things are, then our will and necessity are united, and we are free.</p><div id="e614" class="link-block"> <a href="https://readmedium.com/kants-copernican-revolution-b0d9dda69175"> <div> <div> <h2>Kant’s Copernican Revolution</h2> <div><h3>Moving the center of epistemology to the active mind</h3></div> <div><p>medium.com</p></div> </div> <div> <div style="background-image: url(https://miro.readmedium.com/v2/resize:fit:320/1*fPE3x0AJCtMNIfdPaWcYYw.jpeg)"></div> </div> </div> </a> </div><figure id="ff24"><img src="https://cdn-images-1.readmedium.com/v2/resize:fit:800/1*aTCRsUHDfaqTOqUFGKKPPQ.png"><figcaption></figcaption></figure></article></body>

Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative

Kant’s moral theory in some ways connects with the rest of his philosophy but mainly stands apart from it. Kant took seriously Hume’s critique of epistemology, but he dismissed Hume’s contention that morality is based on feeling. For Kant, everything is about reason, and that includes morality. His basic assumption about all morality is that there is a rational, universal moral law. Kant put forward a moral system centered on the concept of moral duty. In some respects, Kant’s system can be understood as a post-Enlightenment version of the ancient command to obey the moral law.

Kant did recognize what Hume meant by saying that we have an internal moral sense. For Kant, our inherent moral law is within us. Morality is not a matter of following a rule book like the Ten Commandments or the do’s and don’ts of etiquette. There is a moral law that we sense, but through reason not through emotion. The moral law is a transcendent, universal, objective part of reality. If someone violates the moral law, that does not affect the law. The universality lies in the law itself and not in a sense that all humans always act on it. Kant thus believed that there is a pure practical rationality for a science of morality just like there is a pure practical rationality for science and perception. People can sense the moral law and make pure rational moral judgments.

How do we know what is morally right and wrong? Kant said we cannot give a law that is true for each and every instance, but we can identify a basic axiom for moral behavior. The argument he gives makes sense; it’s internally consistent, tough, long, and complicated, like everything in Kant’s thought. It begins with a basic principle, an axiom that can be the ultimate principle of morality: the good will. Kant wrote that nothing can possibly be conceived in the world that can be called good without qualification except a good will. Every other positive aspect of humanity can contribute to the good, but the only thing that can be truly purely good is a good will. All of our other moral virtues, like courage, moderation, perseverance, and other qualities of the human psyche, could be good or bad only if they are so because it is the will that makes them good or bad. It is the will that makes use of other virtues and that constitutes the human character. The good will is good not because of what it performs or creates, nor by its aptness to attain some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition that is the good in itself and considered by itself. When we look at the coldness of a villain, what makes the villain so dangerous to us and abominable in our eyes is that that villain lacks good will. It is not so much what the villain does as it is that lack of good will, that lack of sensing the moral law, that is evil.

Kant says that the good will must always be directed toward doing one’s moral duty to the moral law. Kant’s morality is usually referred to as a “deontological” system, from the Greek word dion, which means “duty.” This proposition is not in addition to the good will because it is in no way separate from the concept of the good will. We have, Kant says, a universal moral duty. We have many specific moral duties; for example, we have a duty to preserve life, including our own life. Kant said it is wrong to commit suicide because it is a duty to preserve your own life no matter what the circumstances. That type of thinking is an example of the duty we have to the moral law that is at the heart and core of being moral. Will and duty are inseparable within Kant’s system. It is only willingly acting out of duty and respect for the moral law that makes an act good, not the consequences of an act.

Respect for the moral law is a rational necessity. We know there’s a moral law. We know we have a duty to the moral law. We know that the moral worth of any action is because we act out of duty. There is no other rational choice but to respect and follow the moral law. Kant combines all of these ideas into the categorical imperative. That imperative can be expressed as follows: “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” (Metaphysic of Morals, 1.19)What Kant is arguing is that if there is a universal moral law, and of course there is, then I should act not just according to that moral law but I should respect the moral law in such a way that my will and my duty combine so that I will that my maxim is a universal law. This looks a little bit like circular reasoning, but sometimes circular reasoning isn’t a logical fallacy; sometimes it’s because the concepts are connected with each other. The ideas in Kant of a moral law, a good will, and a sense of duty combine into the categorical imperative of always acting so that will, duty, and universality are all one.

The main reason Kant is arguing this way is to get away from what he calls the “hypothetical imperative.” We’re very used to the hypothetical imperative even if we’re not really aware of how aware we are of the hypothetical imperative. The hypothetical imperative is the if–then statement. If I can get away with it, I will break the rules; or if other people don’t obey the rules, I won’t either; or if it doesn’t do too much harm, I will bend the rules a little. It’s a very human way of thinking, but it’s a very wrong way of human thinking, according to Kant. If morality has any meaning, it should be something that we respect and to which we feel a duty. Our entire will should be behind following the moral law. Kant thinks that hypotheticals lack respect because they are about making excuses, trying to find a way around the moral law. Or it’s saying that I have an inclination to follow the law and sometimes do what’s morally right. Kant is calling your bluff on this. He’s saying something like this: “Look, if it’s a universal moral law, then it universally applies; that’s what “universal” means. Your will should follow the universal law always.” That is why Kant says it’s a categorical imperative not a hypothetical imperative.

We also have a duty to other people in terms of treating them always as an end in themselves and never as only a means to another end. The plain language version of this is to not use other people. Slavery is wrong because what you’re doing is using other human beings to gain something from them. We all know about manipulating or tricking people, and we all have a sense that that is wrong. Kant says that you should never use a person as a means to an end because human beings are moral agents. They are rational beings with a soul. They are human beings, not inanimate objects, so it’s morally wrong to use or manipulate people for your own ends. That doesn’t forbid us from interacting with other people to accomplish our own goals. For example, we interact with a cashier at the store to purchase our goods, but that’s not using them only as a means. We need to recognize that the cashier is a person who deserves our respect, who is a moral actor just like we are. So when you’re doing a transaction, be kind, be generous; that’s your duty anyway. Kant says that we have a duty to act lovingly toward each other. If the only reason you are kind to other people is because you want to get something out of it, that is not moral. Morality is the good will plus duty to the moral law, so if you are acting kind to someone simply because you want something in return, or because you want to be recognized as a kind person, or for some sort of heavenly or earthly reward, then that’s not acting out of a sense of duty.

Kant believes that we are moral legislators and moral agents, and that means we have autonomy. We are most free and autonomous when we are acting in a sense of moral duty and our will is united to the moral law. When you unite your will with the moral law, then you are contributing to the moral law, and you can see yourself as the author of the moral law. This isn’t just a mental trick. When we act from duty and respect for the moral law, then we are fully existing as an autonomous being. Kant is not a Stoic, but he is expressing a similar idea that when we unite our will with how things are, then our will and necessity are united, and we are free.