Kant

Deontology: ethical systems that are based on duties or obligations are deontological
systems

Deontology involves the denial of consequentialism: the consequences of an action have

nothing to do with its moral relevance. Instead, it is the motive underlying an action that
matters; the motive must be that the action is done with regard to duty.

[A] A good will and the concept of duty

The will, for Kant, is the ability to act in accordance with a law. Our actions do not
always result in the outcomes we’d like them to result in, so our actions can only be good
if circumstances co-operate. This is why Kant says that only a good will can be
“considered good without limitations” – we can control our will and so act in accordance
with a moral law (when we do, our will is good).

All other things that we normally call good (e.g. understanding, wit, judgment, power,
riches, honor) are only good if they are accompanied by a good will. If they are not
accompanied by a good will, all of these things can be used for bad ends (goals).
Because of this, Kant says that “a good will seems to constitute the indispensable
condition even of worthiness to be happy” (p. 354).

A good will is not good because of what it attains or accomplishes, but because of what it
is. Even if, due to circumstances beyond our control, we are not able to act on our will, a
good will “like a jewel…would still shine by itself, as something that has its full worth in
itself” (p. 355).

Kant says that we can understand more about the meaning of “a good will” if we
understand the concept of duty.
- actions in accordance with duty (can be self-seeking)
- VS
- actions motivated by duty
We have to do the right thing for the right reason (and the right reason is that it is the
right thing to do…). Note that Mill explicitly denies this (drowning man example).

[C] The categorical imperative

Imperatives can be either hypothetical or categorical

- A hypothetical imperative is only necessary if you want to achieve a certain
end (e.g. if you want to do well, you have to study)
- A categorical imperative “represent[s] an action as objectively necessary of
itself, without reference to another end” (p. 359).

Kant says that there is one (and only one) categorical imperative (though Kant gives
several versions of it):
 Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time
will that it become a universal law. (Formulation 1)
Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of
nature. (Formulation 2)
It is our duty to follow the categorical imperative

But following the categorical imperative is a pretty abstract command, so Kant follows
with some examples of specific duties that are required by the categorical imperative

1. suicide example
2. promise-keeping example
3. example of developing your talents
4. example of helping those in need

He says that the first two examples are examples of “perfect duties” – they specify things
that we should not do. Note that Kant says that we can’t because if we willed each of
those acts to become universal laws, we would be willing something impossible. For
example, if we could will that everyone broke their promises when it suited them, then
the idea of making promises would make not make sense any longer.

The second two examples are examples of imperfect duties. These duties are duties to do
something, and are less clear-cut than the prohibitions given in imperfect duties. We may
want to develop our talents, but it’s not entirely clear how best to go about that. Also,
there may be limits to our imperfect duties; we have an imperfect duty to assist others in
need, but this doesn’t mean that we always and constantly have to do so.

[C] The third formulation

The third formulation of the categorical imperative seems to be very different from the
other two:
So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means. (p. 362).

For Kant, the fact that human beings are rational creatures is very important. He says
that: “Everything in nature works in accordance with laws. Only a rational being has the
capacity to act in accordance with the representation of laws – that is, in accordance with
principles – or has a will” (p. 359). Because we’re rational, we can be aware of the laws
that we follow and, in the case of moral laws, choose whether or not to follow them.

But because human beings are rational, we have moral duties toward them. Only rational
beings can be “ends in themselves.” We can use, for example, inanimate objects, or
living things that aren’t as means to an end – I can break eggs in order to make an omelet,
or cut down trees in order to build a house. But we can’t use people (only) as means to
an end…we have to treat them as beings that have their own moral worth.
Kant conclude by going through the same four examples, above, and showing how this
formulation of the categorical imperative applies to them.

Study questions

1. What is deontology?
2. How is deontology different from consequentialism?
3. Why does Kant say that a good will is the only thing that is “good without limit”?
4. Explain the difference between actions that are motivated by duty and those that are
simply in accord with duty.
5. What is the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical
imperative?
6. What is Kant’s categorical imperative (either the first or the second formulation)?
7. What is a perfect duty? Give an example.
8. What is an imperfect duty? Give an example.
9. What is the third formulation of the categorical imperative?
10. What does it mean to treat someone as means to an end?