IMMANUEL KANT

Groundwork for metaphysics of morals

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Q. What is the moral worth of person A feeding a malnourished human? What makes this
action ‘morally good’? Does it come from approval of society? How do we know the end
result is morally good? Why this person may be helping this person?

Because if he does not help him when he sees him, he feels guilty. Is this morally good?

Kant: Utilitarian’s happiness principle contributes nothing whatever toward establishing

morality, since making a man happy is quite different from making him good and making
him prudent or astute in seeking his advantage is quite different from making his virtuous.
Basing morality on interests and preferences destroys its dignity. It doesn’t teach us how to
distinguish right from wrong, but only to become better at calculation.

This is a wrong way of looking at morality, rights or justice.

How are humans designed?

Humans are living in 2 rings:

(1) Sensible: ring of senses (physical: eyes/ears/nose)

(2) The area where I am un-free
(3) I’m not autonomous but heteronomous.
(4) The principles I want are not principles of morality.

Suppose Bill Gates comes up with principle he will donate X amount of money will make
him or society happy. His happiness lies in altruism, it is not chosen by him. His mind is
made up of such chemicals that he likes altruism, and therefore, he does it. But if you ask
him, why giving money makes him happy, there will be no answer except that he is so made
by nature. When you are operating in the sensible world, you are operating non-
autonomously. You don’t make choices. You do what you were inclined to do. What is ruling
is your inclinations and whatever you’re doing is for satisfaction of those inclinations.
 Heteronomy
To act according to the law that I have not chosen

Inclinations

Doing something because it gives benefit/pleasure

Hypothetical imperatives

The principles that I choose in a sensible realm

Absence of moral worth

Human beings have capacity to live in 2 worlds: not just sensible world but also intelligible
realm. We can live in world of body and world beyond body. When you operate in the
intelligible realm, your choices will not be governed by what your physical sensation
demands. Your choices will be autonomous choices. They will be free of controlling forces of
body. If you apply pure practical reasons, you use autonomous reasons because you feel you
have a duty to follow. You follow those choices because they are categorical imperative: they
are end in themselves, not stepping stones to achieve anything else. You are not trapped in
your body that you are incapable of enjoying something for the sake of doing it.

Choose principles, that your body does not decide, they don’t make you happy. Your pleasure
and pain demands are not governing your choice.

Autonomy
To act according to the law that I have given to myself

Duty
Doing something because it is right
 Intelligible realm
The area where I am capable of freedom

Categorical imperatives
The principles that I choose in intelligible realm

Presence of moral worth

Suppose you have a choice in various kinds of beverages. Your happiness is dependent on
exposure to various kinds of sensations. I like pink a lot, someone likes grey more. When we
choose according to these kind of tastes, they are not autonomous tastes. There is difference
between autonomy and heteronomy. If I’m giving money to someone b/c I’m feeling guilty,
that will make me happy. Did I choose that? No. we did not choose the mind-set, our own
inclinations. I like music not because I chose to do so, but I’m so designed. You’re not doing
it for the sake of doing, but the sake of happiness.

The difference in all of us is in the sensible realm, but not intelligible realm. When we make
choices in sensible realm, our body demands different things: different in sensible realm. If
we shed our sensible realm and apply pure practical reason, we are all the same. We will
choose the same categorical imperatives/moral principles. Our choice of what is good and
bad differs b/c of sensible realm and Utilitarians are not making us get out of that. They’re
making it what the majority finds happy.

This is the foundation of John Rawls theory.

What shall be those choices? What will be those categorical imperatives that shall have moral
worth?

We shall choose these 2 principles, if we go to that intelligible realm:

FIRST CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (not to achieve anything else, but it is an end to itself):
 Universalise your maxim

Whatever action we have to do, we have to test it on ‘universalising the maxim’. Are you OK
with the idea that everyone will do this activity?

Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law. Ask yourself, would you like your action be done by everyone else? E.g.
helping someone cheat: can it be universalised? Why can’t it become a universal maxim? If it
does, you are placing interest of 1 over others. Universalization of action is not utilitarian
(Mill writes it is nothing but utilitarian principle: scholars believe he wrongly read Kant).
Suppose I’m cheating in exam, 1st CI requires: if everyone cheats, will that be acceptable to
me? No. Mill would answer, if everyone cheats, value of system undermined. We will be
unhappy. To avoid the ultimate unhappiness, it is nothing but a utilitarian calculation.

I don’t have to look at it whether world will be happier or not. Am I placing myself at higher
pedastel than others? If I’m doing that, I’m undermining the worth of the other person: treat
human beings end in themselves.

Every human is an end to themselves: Different from Locke/Nozick/Utilitarians. This body is

a carier of humanity which is an end in itself. Human being capable of rationality, reaching to
level of pure reason (CI). When you use a human for purpose of benefitting oneself, you’re
not treating them as end in themselves. All humans are equal. When I torture someone to get
information to make others happy cannot be done. Categorical Imperative II demands:

SECOND CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:

Foundation of entire libertarian tradition

Treat persons as ends

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. They are
capable of and entitle to rights, prior to what is good for the society.

I cannot do on my own body what might give me happiness. E.g. killing myself is going to
make me happy/amputating my arm/donating my kidney. If I do that, I’m disrespecting the
humanity I am in. My right to life is not subject to the happiness of others. Kant does not
arrive at any specific rights but provides foundation for others to derive rights that are worthy
of protection.
You cannot place one person above any other person. Not even yourself. Shed all your
differences and are elevated to higher levels and the choices are the same, and they’re not
done by force, and hence they are autonomous choices and you are following them as a sense
of duty therefore, your action has moral worth. Moral worth comes only after following
categorical imperatives: they are truly universal choices.

Don’t look at whether others are happy or not, but whether you are treating them less than
themselves. E.g. shopkeeper knows child is innocent and doesn’t know how to count money.
While giving change, he gives it correctly. Ask the motive of the shopkeeper: suppose he
thinks if I cheat I’ll be richer, but chances are that someone will discover. If discovery made,
the word is spread I’m dishonest and business will come down. If this is the reason behind
not cheating, shopkeeper is not conforming to CI 2. He’s using the child to spread the
message that he is honest. He is not treating him an end in himself.

Same was tried by Rawls in his thought experiment.

Why should I treat person ends in themselves?

We cannot achieve the ends of humanity, that is, the fullest employment of our humanity-
defining power, our rationality.

How do we know that human beings are capable of pure reason (and not just an ordinary
human reason)?

It is not only a requirement of the utmost necessity in respect of theory, where our concern is
solely with speculation, but is also of utmost practical importance [the principles that we
arrive at out of pure reason will be universally acceptable, not any end that any community
will want to pursue, it is practically important to have a liberal society] to draw these
concepts and laws from pure reason. This becomes foundation of Rawls veil of ignorance.

How do we now that we are free in the intelligible world?

Freedom, however, is a mere idea its objective validity can in no way be exhibited by
reference to law of nature and consequently cannot be exhibited in possible experience; a
necessary presupposition of reason in a being who believes himself to be conscious of a will
that is, of a power distinct from mere application.
We do not know we are free. It is a necessary pre-supposition. He is trying to convince us
that these 2 principles are the most just principles. This was done more convincingly done by
Rawls.

Our knowledge is limited to sensible realm.

Assumptions:

1. There are essential ends of humanity we are capable of achieving.

2. Humans are capable of pure reason (and not just an ordinary human reason).
3. There is an intelligible world that the self inhabits.
4. We are free in intelligible world.

What utilitarian discovered was never duty, but only the necessity of acting from a certain
interest. Utilitarian principle could not possibly serve as moral law.

Summary:

1. I exist at 2 levels: sensible and intelligible.

2. I have reason that makes me understand my dual existence.
3. In the intelligible world I am capable of making free choices
4. The choices of everyone in the intelligible world shall be the same: CI
5. Since I make the law (CI) I am duty bound to follow the same (and so is everyone
else).
6. When I follow the law (CI) as a matter of duty (irrespective of consequences) my
action is morally worth action.

Legislatures should make such laws that make human being end in themselves.

CI is the highest level of abstraction. Your legislation should conform to the abstraction. E.g.
preventive detention should conform to the abstraction.

Laws should be made in such a manner that everyone has consented (not contractarian). This
was lifted by Rawls.
Freedom: contingent to who you are: you consider yourself free, but not free, driven by sense
of helping others, guilt, you’re using that person as means to satisfy your guilt. It has to be
such that you are so designed by nature that you act by impulse.

When will moral content come?

Helping humanity residing in that person and not putting that person above anyone else is the
driving force to help, when you are shedding your inclinations. Freedom doesn’t mean
multiple choices, but shedding them due to your inclinations.

Difficulty: theory is a moral theory, and not a theory of law. We find that other subsequent
political theories are derived from this theory.

Can we justify pension scheme?

Sir is not sure. Maybe, this theory is so abstract to apply to all circumstances.

Idea of human rights can be justified from this theory (fair procedure, absolute duties).

Separate from Mill’s superior pleasures: pleasures from sensible world.

Liberty is an intermediate conception of good and allows equal and competing goods to
flourish in the society. Libertarians do not have any target to reach, ensure basic thin good for
everyone and let it flourish.

Why do we count motive in the shopkeeper theft example?

Motive gives moral worth in action.

Cases:

1. Casual sex
2. Homosexuality
3. Prostitution
4. Sale of organs
5. Suicide
6. Torture

Bentham: maximisation of happiness: where happiness is located.

Nozick: no legislation, per se part of overall freedom.

Rawls: no.

Difference in all libertarians:

 Nozick and locke: consent justifies transactions subject to something/nothing. Locke:

consent justifies, state justified provided it is for greater good of the society, not of
promoting morals: life, liberty and property.
 Rawls: he is more concerned with laying down structure of governance. His is the
same as Locke: equal basic liberty. Many things can be justified on the basis of
consent.
 Kant: consent cannot justify. You cannot consent to do something which betrays
humanity in you. Why do you want to have sex? If it gives you pleasure, no moral
worth in it. But if you’re doing it for respect and an end in itself, then it is alright.
Even if procreation is the reason for sex, not morally worthy.

Torture

Torture cannot be justified from Kant’s point of view but general libertarian point of view.
Locke answers this by fair procedure (well known, neutral judges and executives, well-
known laws, legislation so designed to enhance L,L,P of others) and that it makes everyone’s
life more secure.

Kant: you cannot use a person for benefit of others. You cannot extract information or feed
information or deceive them.

Communitarianism

Charles Taylor – after virture

Alsdiar MacIntyre- sources of the self: the making of modern identity

Michael Sandel – liberalism and limits of justice & unencumbered self

All of them agree to criticise Rawls on difference principle.

Communitarians: we accept that I cannot have moral claim over what I have in my life, but
others do. If I did not morally deserve what I have, how can you say others have a share on
what I have?

Unless I have some kind of tie, how can others claim something over me? There is something
wrong in us believing over who we are.