Kantian ethicsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on

Immanuel Kant

People

George Berkeley

 

René Descartes

 

Fichte

Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi

 

G. W. F. Hegel

David Hume

 

Arthur Schopenhauer

Baruch Spinoza

 

African Spir

Johannes Tetens

Major works

Critique of Pure Reason

 

Prolegomena

What Is Enlightenment?

Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

Critique of Practical Reason

Critique of Judgment

Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason

Metaphysics of Morals

Kantianism and Kantian ethics

Transcendental idealism

 

Critical philosophy

Sapere aude

 

Schema

A priori and a posteriori

Analytic-synthetic distinction

 

Noumenon

Categories

 

Categorical imperative

Hypothetical imperative

 

"Kingdom of Ends"

Political philosophy

Related topics

German idealism

 

Schopenhauer's criticism

Neo-Kantianism

V

 

T

 

E

Kantian ethics is a deontological ethical theory first proposed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The

theory, developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, is based on the view that the only intrinsically

good thing is a good will; therefore an action can only be good if its maxim, the principle behind it, is duty to

the moral law. Central to Kant's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which acts on all

people, regardless of their interests or desires. Kant formulated the categorical imperative in various ways.

His principle of universalisability requires that, for an action to be permissible, it must be possible to apply it

to all people without a contradiction occurring. His formulation of humanity as an ends in itself requires that

humans are never treated merely as a means to an end, but always also as ends in themselves. The

formulation of autonomy concludes that rational agents are bound to the moral law by their own will, and

Kant's Kingdom of Ends requires that people must act as if the principles of their actions establish a law for

a hypothetical kingdom of ends. Kant also distinguished between perfect and imperfect duties. A perfect

duty, such as the duty not to lie, always holds true; an imperfect duty, such as the duty to give to charity,

can be made flexible and applied in particular times and places.

American philosopher Louis Pojman has cited Pietism, political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the

contemporary debate between rationalism and empiricism, and the influence ofnatural law as influences on

the development of Kant's ethics. Other philosophers have argued that Kant's parents and his

teacher, Martin Knutzen, influenced his ethics. Those influenced by Kantian ethics include

philosopher Jürgen Habermas, political philosopher John Rawls, andpsychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.

German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel criticised Kant for not providing specific enough detail in his moral

theory to affect decision-making and for denying human nature. German philosopher Arthur

Schopenhauer argued that ethics should attempt to describe how people behave and criticised Kant for

being prescriptive. Michael Stocker has argued that acting out of duty can diminish other moral motivations,

such as friendship; Marcia Baron has defended the theory by arguing that duty does not diminish other

motivations. The Catholic Church has criticised Kant's ethics as contradictory and regards Christian

ethics as more compatible withvirtue ethics than Kantian ethics.

The claim that all humans are due dignity and respect as autonomous agents means that medical

professionals should be happy for their treatments to be performed upon anyone, and that patients must

never be treated merely as useful for society. Kant's approach to sexual ethicsemerged from his view that

humans should never be used merely as a means to an end, leading him to regard sexual activity as

degrading and to condemn certain specific sexual practices.Feminist philosophers have used Kantian

ethics to condemn practices such as prostitution andpornography because they do not treat women as

ends. Kant also believed that, because animals do not possess rationality, we cannot have duties to them

except indirect duties not to develop immoral dispositions through cruelty towards them. Kant used the

example of lying as an application of his ethics: because there is a perfect duty to tell the truth, we must

never lie, even if it seems that lying would bring about better consequences than telling the truth.

Contents

  [hide] 

1   Outline

o 1.1   Categorical imperative

1.1.1   Universalisability

1.1.2   Humanity as an end in itself

1.1.3   Formula of autonomy

1.1.4   Kingdom of Ends

o 1.2   Perfect and imperfect duties

2   Influences on Kantian ethics

3   Significance of Kantian ethics

o 3.1   Influenced by Kantian ethics

3.1.1   Jürgen Habermas

3.1.2   John Rawls

3.1.3   Jacques Lacan

o 3.2   Contemporary Kantian ethicists

3.2.1   Onora O'Neill

3.2.2   Marcia Baron

o 3.3   Critics of Kantian ethics

3.3.1   G.W.F Hegel

3.3.2   Arthur Schopenhauer

3.3.3   Friedrich Nietzsche

3.3.4   John Stuart Mill

3.3.5   Virtue ethics

3.3.6   Catholic Church

4   Applications

o 4.1   Medical ethics

o 4.2   Sexual ethics

o 4.3   Animal ethics

o 4.4   Lying

5   References

6   Bibliography

Outline[edit source | edit beta ]

Portrait of Immanuel Kant, who developed the ethical theory

Although all of Kant's work develops his ethical theory, it is most clearly defined in Groundwork of the

Metaphysic of Morals, Critique of Practical Reason and Metaphysics of Morals. As part of the

Enlightenment tradition, Kant based his ethical theory on the belief that reason should be used to

determine how people ought to act.[1] He did not attempt to prescribe specific action, but instructed that

reason should be used to determine how to behave.[2]

In his combined works, Kant constructed the basis for an ethical law from the concept of duty.[3]Kant began

his ethical theory by arguing that the only virtue that can be unqualifiedly good is a good will. No other

virtue has this status because every other virtue can be used to achieve immoral ends (the virtue of loyalty

is not good if one is loyal to an evil person, for example). The good will is unique in that it is always good

and maintains its moral value even when it fails to achieve its moral intentions.[4] Kant regarded the good

will as a single moral principle which freely chooses to use the other virtues for moral ends.[5] For Kant, an

moral action is only praiseworthy if it is performed out of duty. This means that, if an agent motivated to

perform a moral action by any other desire, then it is not morally praiseworthy.[6]

Categorical imperative[edit source | edit beta ]

The primary formulation of Kant's ethics is the categorical imperative,[7] from which he derived four further

formulations.[8] Kant made a distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives. A hypothetical

imperative is one we must obey if we want to satisfy our desires: 'go to the doctor' is a hypothetical

imperative because we are only obliged to obey it if we want to get well. A categorical imperative binds us

regardless of our desires: everyone has a duty to not lie, regardless of circumstances and even if it is in our

interest to do so. These imperatives are morally binding because they are based on reason, rather than

contingent facts about an agent.[9] Unlike hypothetical imperatives, which bind us insofar as we are part of a

group or society which we owe duties to, we cannot opt-out of the categorical imperative because we

cannot opt-out of being rational agents. We owe a duty to rationality by virtue of being rational agents;

therefore, rational moral principle apply to all rational agents at all times.[10]

Universalisability[edit source | edit beta ]

Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative was that of universalisability:[11] The first is:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal

law.—Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)[12]

When someone acts, it is according to a rule, or maxim. For Kant, an act is only permissible if one is willing

for the maxim that allows the action to be a universal law by which everyone acts.[12] Maxims fail this test if

they produce either a contradiction in conception or a contradiction in the will when universalised. A

contradiction in conception happens when, if a maxim were to be universalised, it cease to make sense.

For example, if the maxim 'it is permissible to break promises' was universalised, no one would trust any

promises made, so the idea of a promise would become meaningless; the maxim would be self-

contradictory because, when universalised, promises cease to be meaningful. The maxim is not moral

because it is logically impossible to universalise—we could not conceive of a world where this maxim was

universalised.[13] A maxim can also be immoral if it creates a contradiction in the will when universalised.

This does not mean a logical contradiction, but that universalising the maxim leads to a state of affairs that

no rational being would desire. For example, Driver argues that the maxim 'I will not give to charity'

produces a contradiction in the will when universalised because a world where no one gives to charity

would be undesirable for the person who acts by that maxim.[14]

Kant believed that morality is the objective law of reason: just as objective physical laws necessitate

physical actions (apples fall down because of gravity, for example), objective rational laws necessitate

rational actions. He thus believed that a perfectly rational being must also be perfectly moral because a

perfectly rational being subjectively finds it necessary to do what is rationally necessary. Because humans

are not perfectly rational (they partly act by instinct), Kant believed that humans must conform their

subjective will with objective rational laws, which he called conformity obligation.[15] Kant argued that the

objective law of reason is a priori, existing externally from rational being. Just as physical laws exist prior to

physical beings, rational laws (morality) exist prior to rational beings. Therefore, according to Kant, rational

morality is universal and cannot change depending on circumstance.[16]

Humanity as an end in itself[edit source | edit beta ]

Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative was to treat humanity as an ends in itself:

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always

at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.—Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)[17]

Kant argued that rational beings can never be treated merely as a means to an ends; they must always

also be treated as an ends themselves, requiring that their own reasoned motives must be equally

respected. This derives from Kant's claim that reason motivates morality: it demands that we respect

reason as a motive in all beings, including other people. A rational being cannot rationally consent to being

used merely as a means to an end, so they must always be treated as an end.[18] Kant justified this by

arguing that moral obligation is a rational necessity: that which is rationally willed is morally right. Because

all rational agents rationally will themselves to be an end and never merely a means, it is morally obligatory

that they are treated as such.[19][20][21] This does not mean that we can never treat a human as a means to an

end, but that when we do, we also treat them as an end in themselves.[18]

Formula of autonomy[edit source | edit beta ]

Kant's Formula of Autonomy expresses the idea that an agent is obliged to follow the Categorical

Imperative because of their rational will, rather than any outside influence. Kant believed that any moral law

motivated by the desire to fulfill some other interest would deny the Categorical Imperative, leading him to

argue that the moral law must only arise from a rational will.[22] This principle requires people to recognise

the right of others to act autonomously and means that, as moral laws must be universalisable, what is

required of one person is required of all.[23][24][25]

Kingdom of Ends[edit source | edit beta ]

Main article: Kingdom of Ends

Another formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative is the Kingdom of Ends:

A rational being must always regard himself as giving laws either as member or as sovereign in a kingdom

of ends which is rendered possible by the freedom of will.—Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, §2[26]

This formulation requires that actions be considered as if their maxim is to provide a law for a hypothetical

Kingdom of Ends. Accordingly, people have an obligation to act upon principles that a community of

rational agents would be accept as laws.[27] In such a community, each individual would only accept maxims

that can govern every member of the community without treating any member merely as a means to an

end.[28] Although the Kingdom of Ends is an ideal—the actions of other people and events of nature ensure

that actions with good intentions sometimes result in harm—we are still required to act categorically, as

legislators of this ideal kingdom.[29]

Perfect and imperfect duties[edit source | edit beta ]

Applying the categorical imperative, duties arise because failure to fulfil them would either result in a

contradiction in conception or in a contradiction in the will. The former are classified as perfect duties, the

latter as imperfect. A perfect duty always holds true—there is a perfect duty to tell the truth, so we must

never lie. An imperfect duty allows flexibility—beneficence is an imperfect duty because we are not obliged

to be completely beneficent at all times, but may choose the times and places in which we are.[30] Kant

believed that perfect duties are more important than imperfect duties: if a conflict between duties arises, the

perfect duty must be followed.[31]

Influences on Kantian ethics[edit source | edit beta ]

Philosopher Louis Pojman has suggested four strong influences on Kant's ethics. The first is

the Lutheran sect Pietism, to which Kant's parents subscribed. Pietism emphasised honesty and moral

living over doctrinal belief, more concerned with feeling than rationality. Kant believed that rationality is

required, but that it should be concerned with morality and good will. Second is the political philosopher

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose work, The Social Contract, influenced Kant's view on the fundamental

worth of human beings. Pojman also cites contemporary ethical debates as influential to the development

of Kant's ethics. Kant favoured rationalism over empiricism, which meant he viewed morality as a form of

knowledge, rather than something based on human desire. Natural law (the belief that the moral law is

determined by nature) and intuitionism (the belief that humans have intuitive awareness of objective moral

truths) were, according to Pojman, were also influential for Kant.[32]

Biographer of Kant, Manfred Kuhn, suggested that the values Kant's parents held, of "hard work, honesty,

cleanliness, and independence”, set him an example and influenced him more that their Pietism did. In

the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Michael Rohlf suggests that Kant was influenced by his teacher,

Martin Knutzen, himself influenced by the work of Christian Wolff and John Locke, and who introduced

Kant to the work of English physicist Isaac Newton.[33]

Significance of Kantian ethics[edit source | edit beta ]

Influenced by Kantian ethics[edit source | edit beta ]

Jürgen Habermas[edit source | edit beta ]

Photograph of Jurgen Habermas, whose theory of discourse ethics was influenced by

Kantian ethics

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has proposed a theory of discourse ethics that he claims is a

descendant of Kantian ethics.[34] He proposes that action should be based on communication between

those involved, in which their interests and intentions are discussed so they can be understood by all.

Rejecting any form of coercion of manipulation, Habermas believes that agreement between the parties is

crucial for a moral decision to be reached.[35] Like Kantian ethics, discourse ethics is a cognitive ethical

theory, in that it supposes that truth and falsity can be attributed to ethical propositions. It also formulates a

rule by which ethical actions can be determined and proposes that ethical actions should be

universalisable, in a similar way to Kant's ethics.[36]

Habermas argues that his ethical theory is an improvement on Kant's ethics.[36] He rejects

thedualistic framework of Kant's ethics. Kant distinguished between the phenomena world, which can be

sensed and experienced by humans, and the noumena, or spiritual world, which is inaccessible to humans.

This dichotomy was necessary for Kant because it could explain the autonomy of a human agent: although

a human is bound in the phenomenal world, their actions are free in the intelligible world. For Habermas,

morality arises from discourse, which is made necessary by their rationality and needs, rather than their

freedom.[37]

John Rawls[edit source | edit beta ]

The social contract theory of political philosopher John Rawls, developed in his work A Theory of Justice,

was influenced by Kant's ethics.[38]Rawls argued that a just society would be fair. To achieve this fairness,

he proposed a hypothetical moment prior to the existence of a society, at which the society is ordered: this

is the original position. This should take place from behind a veil of ignorance, where no one knows what

their own position in society will be, preventing people from being biased by their own interests and

ensuring a fair result.[39] Rawls' theory of justice rests on the belief that individuals are free, equal, and

moral; he regarded all human beings as possessing some degree of reasonableness and rationality, which

he saw as the constituents of morality and entitling their possessors to equal justice. Rawls dismissed

much of Kant's dualism, arguing that the structure of Kantian ethics, once reformulated, is clearer without it

—he described this as one of the goals of A Theory of Justice.[40]

Jacques Lacan[edit source | edit beta ]

French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan linked psychoanalysis with Kantian ethics in his works The Ethics of

Psychoanalysis and Kant avec Sade and compared Kant with the Marquis de Sade.[41] Lacan argued that

Sade's maxim of jouissance—the pursuit of sexual pleasure or enjoyment—is morally acceptable by Kant's

criteria because it can be universalised. He proposed that, while Kant presented human freedom as critical

to the moral law, Sade further argued that human freedom is only fully realised through the maxim of

jouissance.[42]

Contemporary Kantian ethicists[edit source | edit beta ]

Onora O'Neill[edit source | edit beta ]

Philosopher Onora O'Neill, who studied under John Rawls at Oxford University, is a contemporary Kantian

ethicist who supports a Kantian approach to issues of social justice. O'Neill argues that a successful

Kantian account of social justice must not rely on any unwarranted idealisations or assumption. She notes

that philosophers have previously charged Kant with idealising humans as autonomous beings, without any

social context or life goals, though maintains that Kant's ethics can be read without such an idealisation.

[43] O'Neill prefers Kant's conception of reason as practical and available to be used by humans, rather than

as principles attached to every human being. Conceiving of reason as a tool to make decisions with means

that the only thing able to restrain the principles we adopt is that they could be adopted by all. If we cannot

will that everyone adopts a certain principle, then we cannot give them reasons to adopt it. To use reason,

and to reason with other people, we must reject those principles that cannot be universally adopted. In this

way, O'Neill reached Kant's formulation of universalisability without adopting an idealistic view of human

autonomy.[44] This model of universalisability does not not require that we adopt all universalisable

principles, but merely prohibits us from adopting those that are not.[45]

From this model of Kantian ethics, O'Neill begins to develop a theory of justice. She argues that he

rejection of certain principles, such as deception and coercion, provides a starting point for basic

conceptions of justice, which she argues are more determinate for human beings that the more abstract

principles of equality or liberty. Nevertheless, she concedes that these principles may seem to be

excessively demanding: there are many actions and institutions that do rely on non-universalisable

principles, such as injury.[46]

Marcia Baron[edit source | edit beta ]

In his paper The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories, philosopher Michael Stocker challenges

Kantian ethics (and all modern ethical theories) by arguing that actions from duty lack certain moral value.

He gives the example of Smith, who visits his friend in hospital out of duty, rather than because of the

friendship; he argues that this visit seems morally lacking because it is motivated by the wrong thing.

[47] Marcia Baron has attempted to defend Kantian ethics on this point. After presenting a number of

reasons that we might find acting out of duty objectionable, she argues that these problems only arise

when people misconstrue what their duty is. Acting out of duty is not intrinsically wrong, but immoral

consequences can occur when people misunderstand what they are duty-bound to do. Duty need not be

seen as cold and impersonal: one may have a duty to cultivate their character or improve their personal

relationships.[48] Baron further argues that duty should be construed as a secondary motive—that is, a

motive that regulates and sets conditions on what may be done, rather the prompts specific actions. She

argues that, seen this way, duty neither reveals a deficiency in one's natural inclinations to act, nor

undermines the motives and feelings that are essential to friendship. For Baron, being governed by duty

does not mean that duty is always the primary motivation to act; rather, it entails that considerations of duty

are always action-guiding. A responsible moral agent should take an interest in moral questions, such as

questions of character. These should guide moral agents to act from duty.[49]

Critics of Kantian ethics[edit source | edit beta ]

G.W.F Hegel[edit source | edit beta ]

Portrait of G.W.F. Hegel, who presented objections to Kant's ethical theory

German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel presented two main criticisms of Kantian ethics. He first argued that

Kantian ethics provides no specific information about what people should do because Kant's moral law is

solely a principle of non-contradiction.[2] He argued that Kant's ethics lack any content and so cannot

constitute a supreme principle of morality. To illustrate this point, Hegel and his followers have presented a

number of cases in which the Formula of Universal Law either provides no meaningful answer or gives an

obviously wrong answer. Hegel used Kant's example of being trusted with another man's money to argue

that Kant's Formula of Universal Law cannot determine whether a social system of property is a morally

good thing, because either answer can entail contradictions. He also used the example of helping the poor:

if everyone helped the poor, there would be no poor left to help, so beneficence would be impossible if

universalised, making it immoral according to Kant's model.[50] Hegel's second criticism was that Kant's

ethics forces humans into an internal conflict between reason and desire. For Hegel, it is unnatural for

humans to suppress their desire and subordinate it to reason. This means that, by not addressing the

tension between self-interest and morality, Kant's ethics cannot give humans any reason to be moral.[51]

Arthur Schopenhauer[edit source | edit beta ]

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer criticised Kant's belief that ethics should concern what ought to

be done, insisting that the scope of ethics should be to attempt to explain and interpret what actually

happens. Whereas Kant presented an idealised version of what ought to be done in a perfect world,

Schopenhaur argued that ethics should instead be practical and arrive at conclusions that could work in the

real world, capable of being presented as a solution to the world's problems.[52] Schopenhaur drew a

parallel with aesthetics, arguing that in both cases prescriptive rules are not the most important part of the

discipline. Because he believed that virtue cannot be taught—a person is either virtuous or is not—he cast

the proper place of morality as restraining and guiding people's behaviour, rather than presenting

unattainable universal laws.[53]

Friedrich Nietzsche[edit source | edit beta ]

Existentialist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche criticised all contemporary moral systems, with a special

focus on Christian and Kantian ethics. He argued that all modern ethical systems share two problematic

characteristics: first, they make a metaphysical claim about the nature of humanity, which must be

accepted for the system to have any normative force; and second, the system benefits the interests of

certain people, often over those of others. Although Nietzsche's primary objection is not that metaphysical

claims about humanity are untenable (he also objected to ethical theories that do not make such claims),

his two main targets—Kantianism and Christianity—do make metaphysical claims, which therefore feature

prominently in Nietzsche's criticism.[54]

Nietzsche rejected fundamental components of Kant's ethics, particularly his argument that morality, God

and immorality can be shown through reason. Nietzsche cast suspicion on the use of moral intuition, which

Kant used as the foundation of his morality, arguing that is has no normative force in ethics. He further

attempted to undermine key concepts in Kant's moral psychology, such as the will and pure reason. Like

Kant, Nietzsche developed a concept of autonomy; however, he rejected Kant's idea that valuing our own

autonomy requires us to respect the autonomy of others.[55] A naturalist reading of Nietzsche's moral

psychology stands contrary to Kant's conception of reason and desire. Under the Kantian model, reason is

a fundamentally different motive to desire because it has the capacity to stand back from a situation and

make an independent decision. Nietzsche conceives of the self as a social structure of all our different

drives and motivations; thus, when it seems that our intellect has made a decision against our drives, it is

actually just an alternative drive taking dominance over another. This is in direct contrast with Kant's view of

the intellect as opposed to instinct; instead, it is just another instinct. There is thus no self capable of

standing back and making a decision; the decision the self makes is simply determined by the strongest

drive.[56] Kantian commentators have argued that Nietzsche's practical philosophy requires the existence of

a self capable of standing back in the Kantian sense. For an individual to create values of their own, which

is a key idea in Nietzsche's philosophy, they must have be able to conceive of themselves as a unified

agent. Even if the agent is influenced by their drives, she must regard them as her own, which undermines

Nietzsche's conception of autonomy.[57]

John Stuart Mill[edit source | edit beta ]

Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill criticised Kant for not realising that moral laws are justified by a

moral intuition based on utilitarian principles (that the greatest good for the greatest number ought to be

sought). Mill argued that Kant's ethics could not explain why certain actions are wrong without appealing to

utilitarianism.[58] As basis for morality, Mill believed that his principle of utility has a stronger intuitive

grounding that Kant's reliance on reason, and can better explain why certain actions are right or wrong.[59]

Virtue ethics[edit source | edit beta ]

Virtue ethics is a form of ethical theory which emphasises the character of an agent, rather than specific

acts; many of its proponents have criticised Kant's deontological approach to ethics. Elizabeth

Anscombe criticised modern ethical theories, including Kantian ethics, for their obsession with law and

obligation. As well as arguing that theories which rely on a universal moral law are too rigid, Anscombe

suggested that, because a moral law implies a moral lawgiver, they are irrelevant in modern secular

society.[60] In his In his work After Virtue, Alasdair MacInyyre criticises Kant's formulation of

universalisability, arguing that various trivial and immoral maxims can pass the test, such as "Keep all your

promises throughout your entire life except one". He further challenges Kant's formulation of humanity as

an ends in itself by arguing that Kant provided no reason to treat others as means: the maxim "Let

everyone except me be treated as a means", though seemingly immoral, can be universalised.[61] Bernard

Williams argues that, by abstracting persons from character, Kant misreprents persons and morality and

Philippa Foot identified Kant as one of a select group of philosophers responsible for the neglect of virtue

by analytic philosophy.[62]

Catholic Church[edit source | edit beta ]

The Catholic Church has criticised Kantian ethics for its apparent contradiction, arguing that humans being

co-legislators of morality contradicts the claim that morality is a priori. If something is universally a priori

(i.e. existing unchangingly prior to experience), then it cannot also be in part dependent upon humans, who

have not always existed

The theory of the categorical imperative is, moreover, inconsistent. According to it the human will is the

highest lawgiving authority, and yet subject to precepts enjoined on it.—Kevin Knight, Catholic Encyclopedia [63]

Roman Catholic priest Servais Pinckaers criticised the modern desire for ethics to be autonomous and free

from the authorities such as the Church, a development he partially attributed to thinkers such as Kant.

Pinckaers saw this as potentially threatening to the legitimacy of theMagisterium, but maintained that the

link between the gospel and the moral law, and the shortcomings of human reason, leave a place for the

moral authority of the Church.[64] Pinckaers regarded Christian ethics as closer to the virtue ethics

of Aristotle than Kant's ethics. He presented virtue ethics as freedom for excellence, which regards freedom

as acting in accordance with nature to develop one's virtues. Initially, this requires following rules—but the

intention is that the agent develop virtuously, and regard acting morally as a joy. This is in contrast

withfreedom of indifference, which Pinckaers attributes to William Ockham and likens to Kant. On this view,

freedom is set against nature: free actions are those not determined by passions or emotions. There is no

development or progress in an agent's virtue, merely the forming of habit. This is closer to Kant's view of

ethics, because Kant's conception of autonomy requires that an agent is not merely guided by their

emotions, and is set in contrast with Pinckaer's conception of Christian ethics.[65]

Applications[edit source | edit beta ]

Medical ethics[edit source | edit beta ]

Kant believed that the shared ability of humans to reason should be the basis of morality, and that it is the

ability to reason that makes humans morally significant. He therefore believed that all humans should have

the right to common dignity and respect.[66] Margaret Eaton argues that, according to Kant's ethics, a

medical professional must be happy for their own practices to be used by and on anyone, even if they were

the patient themselves. For example, a researcher who wished to perform tests on patients without their

knowledge must be happy for all researchers to do so.[67] She also argues that Kant's requirement of

autonomy would mean that a patient must be able to make a fully informed decision about treatment,

making it immoral to perform tests on unknowing patients. Medical research should be motivated out of

respect for the patient, so they must be informed of all facts, even if this would be likely to dissuade the

patient.[68] Jeremy Sugarman has argued that Kant's formulation of autonomy requires that patients are

never used merely for the benefit of society, but are always treated as rational people with their own goals.

[69] Aaron Hinkley notes that a Kantian account of autonomy requires respect for choices that are arrived at

rationally, not for choices which are arrived at by idiosyncratic or non-rational means. He argues that there

may be some difference between what a purely rational agent would choose and what a patient actually

chooses, the difference being the result of non-rational idiosyncrasies. Although a Kantian physician ought

not to lie to or coerce a patient, Hinkley suggests that some form of paternalism - such as through

withholding information which may prompt a non-rational response - could be acceptable.[70]

In her work How Kantian Ethics Should Treat Pregnancy and Abortion, Susan Feldman argues

that abortion should be defended according to Kantian ethics. She proposed that a woman should be

treated as a dignified autonomous person, with control over their body, as Kant suggested. She believes

that the free choice of women would be paramount in Kantian ethics, requiring abortion to be the mother's

decision.[71] Dean Harris has noted that, if Kantian ethics is to be used in the discussion of abortion, it must

be decided whether a fetus is an autonomous person.[72] Kantian ethicist Carl Cohen argues that the

potential to be rational or participation in a generally rational species is the relevant distinction between

humans and inanimate objects or irrational animals. Cohen believes that even when humans are not

rational because of age (such as babies or fetuses) or mental disability, agents are still morally obligated to

treat them as an ends in themselves, equivalent to a rational adult such as a mother seeking an abortion.[73]

Sexual ethics[edit source | edit beta ]

Kant viewed humans as being subject to the animalistic desires of self-preservation, species-preservation,

and the preservation of enjoyment. He argued that humans have a duty to avoid maxims that harm or

degrade themselves, including suicide, sexual degradation, and drunkenness.[74] This led Kant to

regard sexual intercourse as degrading because it reduces humans to an object of pleasure. He admitted

sex only within marriage, which he regarded as "a merely animal union". He believed that masturbation is

worse than suicide, reducing a person's status to below that of an animal; he argued that rape should be

punished with castration and that bestiality requires expulsion from society.

[75] Feminist philosopher Catharine MacKinnon has argued that many contemporary practices would be

deemed immoral by Kant's standards because they dehumanise women. Sexual harassment, prostitution

and pornography, she argues, objectify women and do not meet Kant's standard of human autonomy.

Commercial sex has been criticised for turning both parties into objects (and thus using them as a means

to an end); mutual consent is problematic because in consenting, people choose to objectify

themselves. Alan Soble has noted that more liberal Kantian ethicists believe that, depending on other

contextual factors, the consent of women can vindicate their participation in pornography and prostitution.[76]

Animal ethics[edit source | edit beta ]

Because Kant viewed rationality as the basis for being a moral patient—one due moral consideration—he

believed that animals have no moral rights. Animals, according to Kant, are not rational, thus one cannot

behave immorally towards them.[77] Although he did not believe we have any duties towards animals, Kant

did believe being cruel to them was wrong because our behaviour might influence our attitudes towards

human beings: if we become accustomed to harming animals, then we are more likely to see harming

humans as acceptable.[78]

Ethicist Tom Regan rejects Kant's assessment of the moral worth of animals on three main points: First, he

rejects Kant's claim that animals are not self-conscious. He then challenges Kant's claim that animals have

no intrinsic moral worth because they cannot make moral judgement. Regan argues that, if a being's moral

worth is determined by its ability to make a moral judgement, then we must regard humans who are

incapable of moral thought as being equally undue moral consideration. Regan finally argues that Kant's

assertion that animals exist merely as a means to an ends is unsupported; the fact that animals have a life

that can go well or badly suggests that, like humans, they have their own ends.[79]

Lying[edit source | edit beta ]

Kant believed that the Categorical Imperative provides us with the maxim that we ought not to lie in any

circumstances, even if we are trying to bring about good consequences, such as lying to a murderer to

prevent them from finding their intended victim. Kant argued that, because we cannot fully know what the

consequences of any action will be, the result might be unexpectedly harmful. Therefore, we ought to act to

avoid the known wrong—lying—rather than to avoid a potential wrong. If there are harmful consequences,

we are blameless because we acted according to our duty.[80] Driver argues that this might not be a

problem if we choose to formulate our maxims differently: the maxim 'I will lie to save an innocent life' can

be universalised. However, this new maxim may still treat the murder as a means to an end, which we have

a duty to avoid doing. Thus we may still be required to tell the truth to the murderer in Kant's example.[81]

References[edit source | edit beta ]

1. Jump up ̂  Brinton 1967, p. 519

2. ^ Jump up to: a  b Singer 1983, pp. 42

3. Jump up ̂  Blackburn 2008, p. 240

4. Jump up ̂  Benn 1998, pp. 101–102

5. Jump up ̂  Guyer 2011, p. 194

6. Jump up ̂  Johnson 2009, p.37

7. Jump up ̂  Hill 2009, p. 3

8. Jump up ̂  Wood 2008, p. 67

9. Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p. 83

10. Jump up ̂  Johnson, Robert (2008). "Kant's Moral Philosophy".

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 11 September 2013.

11. Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p. 87

12. ^ Jump up to: a  b Rachels 1999, p. 124

13. Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p. 88

14. Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, pp. 89–90

15. Jump up ̂  Kant, Immanuel (1785). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott,

ed.Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10 ed.). Project

Gutenberg. p. 39.

16. Jump up ̂  Kant, Immanuel (1785). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott,

ed.Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10 ed.). Project

Gutenberg. p. 35.

17. Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p. 90

18. ^ Jump up to: a  b Benn 1998, p. 95

19. Jump up ̂  Kant, Immanuel (1785). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott,

ed.Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10 ed.). Project

Gutenberg. p. 62.

20. Jump up ̂  Kant, Immanuel (1785). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott,

ed.Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10 ed.). Project

Gutenberg. p. 60.

21. Jump up ̂  Kant, Immanuel (1785). Thomas Kingsmill Abbott,

ed.Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (10 ed.). Project

Gutenberg. p. 61.

22. Jump up ̂  Kant & Paton 1991, p. 34

23. Jump up ̂  Kant 1788, Book 1, Ch. 1, §1

24. Jump up ̂  Kant 1785, Section 1, §17

25. Jump up ̂  Sullivan 1989, p. 165

26. Jump up ̂  Kant 1785, §2

27. Jump up ̂  Johnson, Robert (23 February 2004; substantive revision 6

April 2008). "Kant's Moral Philosophy". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved 1 April 2012.

28. Jump up ̂  Atwell 1986, p. 152

29. Jump up ̂  Korsgaard 1996, p. 24

30. Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p. 92

31. Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p. 93

32. Jump up ̂  Pojman 2008, p. 122

33. Jump up ̂  Rohlf, Michael (20 May 2010). "Immanuel Kant". Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

34. Jump up ̂  Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 53

35. Jump up ̂  Collin 2007, p. 78

36. ^ Jump up to: a  b Payrow Shabani 2003, p. 54

37. Jump up ̂  Payrow Shabani 2003, pp. 55–6

1. Jump up ̂  Richardson, Henry (18 November 2005). "John Rawls (1921—

2002)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 29 March 2012.

2. Jump up ̂  Freeman, Samuel (27 February 1996; substantive revision 20

December 2008). "Original Position". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved 29 March 2012.

3. Jump up ̂  Brooks & Freyenhagen 2005, pp. 155–156

4. Jump up ̂  Martyn 2003, p. 171

5. Jump up ̂  Scott Lee 1991, p. 167

6. Jump up ̂  O'Neill 2000, p. 75

7. Jump up ̂  O'Neill 2000, pp. 76-77

8. Jump up ̂  O'Neill 2000, p. 77

9. Jump up ̂  O'Neill 2000, pp. 78-79

10.Jump up ̂  Stocker 1976, p. 462

11.Jump up ̂  Baron 1999, pp. 120–123

12.Jump up ̂  Baron 1999, pp. 131–132

13.Jump up ̂  Brooks 2012, p. 75

14.Jump up ̂  Singer 1983, pp. 44–45

15.Jump up ̂  Manninon 2003, pp. 101–102

16.Jump up ̂  Janaway 2002, p. 88

17.Jump up ̂  Leiter, Briain (26 August, 2004). "Nietzsche's Moral and Political

Philosophy". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 9 July 2013.

18.Jump up ̂  Janaway & Robertson 2012, pp. 202-204

19.Jump up ̂  Janaway & Robertson 2012, p. 205

20.Jump up ̂  Janaway & Robertson 2012, p. 206

21.Jump up ̂  Ellis 1998, p. 76

22.Jump up ̂  Miller 2013 p. 110

23.Jump up ̂  Athanassoulis, Nafsika (7 July 2010). "Virtue Ethics". Internet

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 11 September 2013.

24.Jump up ̂  MacIntyre 2013, pp. 54-55

25.Jump up ̂  Louden 2011, p. 4

26.Jump up ̂  Knight, Kevin (2009). "Catholic Encyclopedia: Categorical

Imperative". Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2012.

27.Jump up ̂  Pinckaers 2003, p. 48

28.Jump up ̂  Pinckaers 2003, pp. 67–75

29.Jump up ̂  Eaton 2004, p. 39

30.Jump up ̂  Eaton 2004, p. 40

31.Jump up ̂  Eaton 2004, pp. 40–1

32.Jump up ̂  Sugarman 2010, p. 44

33.Jump up ̂  Engelhardt 2011, pp. 12-13

34.Jump up ̂  Kneller & Axinn 1998, pp. 265–266

35.Jump up ̂  Harris 2011, p. 15

36.Jump up ̂  Carl Cohen 1986, p. 865-69

37.Jump up ̂  Denis 1999, p. 225

38.Jump up ̂  Wood 1999, p. 2

39.Jump up ̂  Soble 2006, 549

40.Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p.97

41.Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p.98

42.Jump up ̂  Regan 2004, p. 178

43.Jump up ̂  Rachels 1999, p. 128

44.Jump up ̂  Driver 2007, p. 96

45.Atwell, John (1986). Ends and principles in Kant's moral thought.

Springer. ISBN 9789024731671.

46.Axinn, Sidney; Kneller, Jane (1998). Autonomy and Community: Readings in

Contemporary Kantian Social Philosophy. SUNY

Press.ISBN 9780791437438.

47.Baron, Marcia (1999). Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology. Cornell

University Press. ISBN 9780801486043.

48.Benn, Piers (1998). Ethics. UCL Press. ISBN 1-85728-453-4.

49.Blackburn, Simon (2008). "Morality". Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy(Second

edition revised ed.).

50.Brinton, Crane (1967). "Enlightenment". Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2.

Macmillan.

51.Brooks, Thom (2012). Hegel's Philosophy of Right. John Wiley &

Sons.ISBN 9781405188135.

52.Brooks, Thom; Freyenhagen, Fabian (2005). The Legacy of John Rawls.

Continuum International Publishing Group.ISBN 9780826478436.

53.Cohen, Carl (1986). "The Case For the Use of Animals in Biomedical

Research". New England Journal of Medicine 315 (14): 865–

69.doi:10.1056/NEJM198610023151405.

54.Collin, Finn (2007). Danish yearbook of philosophy 42. Museum Tusculanum

Press. ISSN 0070-2749.

55.Denis, Lara (April 1999). "Kant on the Wrongness of "Unnatural" Sex".History

of Philosophy Quarterly (University of Illinois Press) 16 (2): 225–248.

56.Driver, Julia (2007). Ethics: The Fundamentals. Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-

1154-6.

57.Eaton, Margaret (2004). Ethics and the Business of Bioscience. Stanford

University Press. ISBN 9780804742504.

58.Ellis, Ralph D. (1998). Just Results: Ethical Foundations for Policy Analysis.

Georgetown University Press. ISBN 9780878406678.

59.Engelhardt, Hugo Tristram (2011). Bioethics Critically Reconsidered: Having

Second Thoughts. Springer. ISBN 9789400722446.

60.Guyer, Paul (2011). "Chapter 8: Kantian Perfectionism". In Jost, Lawrence;

Wuerth, Julian. Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue

Ethics. Cambridge University Press.ISBN 9781139494359.

61.Hare, John (1997). The Moral Gap: Kantian Ethics, Human Limits, and God's

Assistance. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198269571.

62.Harris, Dean (2011). Ethics in Health Services and Policy: A Global Approach.

John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470531068.

63.Hill, Thomas (2009). The Blackwell Guide to Kant's Ethics. John Wiley &

Sons. ISBN 9781405125819.

64.Janaway, Christopher (2002). Schopenhaur: A Very Short Introduction.

Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280259-3.

65.Janaway, Christopher; Robertson, Simon (2013). Nietzsche, Naturalism, and

Normativity. Oxford University Press.ISBN 9780199583676.

66.Johnson, Robert N. (2009). "1: Good Will and the Moral Worth of Acting from

Duty". In Hill Jr, Thomas E. The Blackwell Guide to Kant's Ethics. Wiley-

Blackwell. ISBN 9781405125826.

Kant, Immanuel (1785).   Groundwork of the Metaphysics of

Morals.Wikisource.

Kant, Immanuel (1788).   Critique of Practical Reason. Wikisource.

Korsgaard, Christine (1996). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge

University Press. ISBN 978-0-52149-962-0.

Loewy, Erich (1989). Textbook of Medical Ethics.

Springer.ISBN 9780306432804.

Louden, Robert B. (2011). Kant's Human Being:Essays on His Theory of

Human Nature. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199911103.

MacIntyre, Alasdair (2013). After Virtue. A&C Black.ISBN 9781623565251.

Manninon, Gerard (2003). Schopenhauer, religion and morality: the humble

path to ethics. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 9780754608233.

Miller, Dale (2013). John Stuart Mill. John Wiley &

Sons.ISBN 9780745673592.

O'Neill, Onora (2000). Bounds of Justice. Cambridge University

Press.ISBN 9780521447447.

Payrow Shabani, Omid (2003). Democracy, power and legitimacy: the critical

theory of Jürgen Habermas. University of Toronto Press.ISBN 9780802087614.

Picnkaers, Servais (2003). Morality: The Catholic View. St. Augustine

Press. ISBN 978-1587315152.

Pojman, Louis (2008). Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Cengage

Learning. ISBN 9780495502357.

Rachels, James (1999). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (Third ed.).

McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-116754-4.

Regan, Tom (2004). The case for animal rights. University of California

Press. ISBN 978-0-52024-386-6.

Riedel, Manfred (1984). Between Tradition and Revolution: The Hegelian

Transformation of Political Philosophy. Cambridge University

Press. ISBN 9780521174886.

Singer, Peter (1983). Hegel: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University

Press. ISBN 9780191604416.

Soble, Alan (2006). Sex from Plato to Paglia: A Philosophical Encyclopedia 1.

Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313334245.

Stocker, Michael (12 August 1976). "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical

Theories". The Journal of Philosophy (Journal of Philosophy) 73(14): 453–

466. doi:10.2307/2025782.

Sugarman, Jeremy (2010). Methods in Medical Ethics. Georgetown University

Press. ISBN 9781589017016.

Sullivan, Roger (1994). An Introduction to Kant's Ethics. Cambridge University

Press. ISBN 9780521467698.

Sullivan, Roger (1989). Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. Cambridge University

Press. ISBN 9780521369084.

Taylor, Robert (2011). Reconstructing Rawls: the Kantian foundations of

justice as fairness. Penn State Press. ISBN 9780271037714.

Wood, Allen (2008). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge University

Press.ISBN 9780521671149.

Wood, Allen (1999). Kant's Ethical Thought. Cambridge University

Press. ISBN 9780521648363.