Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Apologies once again for being slow with the marking, I was in Toronto and without internet for a good part of the week.  I hope everyone is alright with my posting comments on here rather than on individual quizzes, it saves me quite a lot of time doing it this way, rather than pointing out the common mistakes on each one.

It seems to me that Kant is giving many of you problems--the Categorical Imperative was generally poorly understood in the quizzes.  I'm not terribly surprised, since Kant is a very difficult read.  I marked the quizzes far more charitably that I have in the past, and overlooked some of the more common mistakes.  However, it is important that you have a reasonably solid grasp of Kant's ethics, so I'll do my best to clarify some of the main problems here from Section 2.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative is concerned with moral laws that could rationally be willed by all people.  This is not a kind of hypothetical consensus that people could potentially come to, but rather Kant wants to insist that it is unethical to make yourself an exception to any universalizable rule.  So, in the case of stealing, many of you had the idea of some post-apocalyptic Hobbesian state of nature emerging if we were to universalize the rule of "stealing is permissible".  There were also many answers that made reference to economies collapsing, and general mayhem ensuing.

This was not Kant's point.

Consider his example of making a promise to pay back a loan, even though you know that you will not be able to pay it back.  If it were a universal moral law that it is permissible to promise to repay loans when you know you cannot possibly pay it back, then what becomes of the idea of a "promise"?  Isn't a promise meant to morally bind you to keeping your word?  So we have a morally binding obligation to keep your word, juxtaposed with a universal moral law permitting promise breaking.  Clearly contradictory, and logically impossible.  Therefore, it cannot be a universal moral law.

So what about stealing?  Kant was NOT worried about collapsing economies or the coming of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse if stealing were made morally acceptable.  Rather, if I were permitted to take your property and you were permitted to take mine, then in what sense are we "stealing" from each other?  It sounds to me like we are just sharing in a big communal pot of stuff.  Therefore, it is illogical to universalize a moral law that stealing is permissible.  

The second formulation of the categorical imperative is a derivation of the first.  An answer to the quiz question that goes something like, "Stealing is unethical because it is using someone as a means to your ends." does not explain a whole lot, and consequently is not a good one.  I was wildly permissive with the answers to this question, and most people at least got some marks here.  

This formulation is more than simply "respecting people".  Kant wants to establish moral principles that universalize respect for rational humanity.  Recall in the first formulation, Kant insisted that you cannot make yourself an exception to a moral rule, or else that rule is not universal.  Well, this is an echo of that sentiment.  Acting by principles that you could rationally will everyone to act by is another way of treating rational humanity (re: other people) as an ends in itself, because rational humanity would live by laws which are universalizable.  If I am treating you in a way which considers these universalizable laws, then I am treating you, as a rational being, as an ends rather than merely a means to my own particular interests.  Confusing? Maybe a little.  

Consider what it would mean to use someone as a "means only".  Stealing something from you certainly serves my particular interests, but as we saw in the first formulation, it is not something that is universalizable.  Thus, I am not respecting your rational faculties which lead you to live by universalizable laws (i.e., don't steal from me), rather I am making an exception of myself by using you for my own particular interests.

Well, I hope that clears it up a little. Kant is certainly not the easiest read, but as I mentioned way back in September in this very blog, his ideas are very influential.  They will come up again and again, so it is worth it for you to take some time now to wrap your head around it.  His ideas will hopefully become clearer when we move into applied ethics.

Which brings me to my last point.  Prof. Sismondo has given me the opportunity to teach a class when we get back from reading week, and it will be on Applied Ethics.  I chose to do this class because it is related to my own work, and I hope that I can share with you some of the ideas and insights that I have stumbled upon in pursuing applied ethics as it applies to global poverty.  Also, it should be an interesting topic because it is a gateway from some of these more esoteric philosophical theories into some more "real world" applications for philosophy such as bioethics, business ethics and international development.

I have an idea where I will be going with the lecture, but if you have any burning questions that you would like me to address with respect to applied ethics, please feel free to email me.

Have a great reading week!

JSY