Kant then continues to make a further distinction, between analytic statements and synthetic statements. An analytic statement, he claims, is one that by its very nature is necessarily true, as the predicate is included within the definition of the subject. For example, “all squares have four sides” is an analytic statement, as the predicate, i.e. the square having four sides, is part of the definition of the subject, “square”. As well as being necessarily true, an analytic statement is purely explicative, as it tells us nothing new about the subject. By contrast, a synthetic statement is one in which the predicate is not included in the definition of the subject and thus is not necessarily true. A synthetic statement also tells us something new the subject.
Prior to Kant, it was widely accepted that there were only two types of statement: a priori analytic and a posteriori synthetic. Kant accepted these two statements although believed there to be a third: a priori synthetic statements. These are statements that are known independent of experience, that may or my not be true.
Kant claimed that it is these a priori synthetic principles, which are inherent within us, that form the basis of all moral decision making.
Having established this fact, Kant now seeks to establish a universal principal under which we should always act in relation to morality.
To do this, Kant identifies two imperatives or commands under which we act: hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is something that we do as a means to an end, for example “do x to achieve y”. A categorical imperative, Kant holds, is one that is an end in itself and takes the form “do x”. It is a call to duty, an action done for its own sake.
Kant then introduces the idea that we should act as lawmakers when making moral decisions; “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. What Kant means by this is that we should only perform a moral action if we are willing for that action to become a universal law for everybody to follow.
Kant then introduces the practical imperative, which in summary runs as follows: “ 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”.
Kant believed that a person with a good will is someone who acts wholly rationally, someone who disregards their selfish inclinations and acts out of a sense of duty in accordance with the categorical imperative. He believed that any fully rational moral agent would follow this theory.
To sum up Kant’s approach to ethics, the following quote is useful:
“So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends”.
Q: “The use of the categorical imperative makes no room for compassionate treatment of women who want abortions”. Discuss.
The categorical imperative is a strictly deontological approach to ethics and so exceptions in individual cases are ruled out. However, this is not to say that abortion cannot be permitted.
To illustrate the application of the categorical imperative, an example is needed. Consider for example, the case of someone who contemplates relieving a financial crises by borrowing money from someone else, promising to repay it in the future while in fact having no intention of doing so. The maxim of this action would be that it is okay to borrow money under false pretences if you really need it. However, Kant would argue, making this maxim into a universal law would be clearly self-defeating. The entire practice of lending money on promise presupposes at least the honest intention to repay; if this condition were universally ignored, the (universally) false promises would never be effective as methods of borrowing. Since the universalised maxim is contradictory in and of itself, no rational person could will it to be law, and as a result Kant would argue that we have a perfect duty not to act in this manor.
However, the case of abortion is far less obvious. For example, if there were a case in which a mother wanted an abortion because she couldn’t afford to look after the child, the maxim would be that it is permissible to have an abortion if you cannot financial sustain the resulting child. It may be argued that no direct contradiction would result from the universalization of such law and thus we would have no perfect duty to avoid acting in such a way. However, it may be argued that no rational person could consistently will that it became a universal law, as there is always the chance of the mother obtaining the financial means. If this were accepted, then we would have an imperfect duty not to act in this way.
However, if the act of abortion is regarded as killing, then the resulting duty may change. Killing other human beings, Kant would argue, is clearly contradictory, and thus we have a perfect moral duty not to do it. Referring back to the previous example, the new maxim would become “it is permissible to kill someone if you do not have the financial means to support them”. Because the maxim of “killing” has already been established to be self contradictory (if universalised), then the maxim of killing someone because you cannot financially support them would also be considered contradictory, and we would therefore have a perfect moral duty not to do it.
Once established, the duties arrived at under the categorical imperative are absolute. However, as can be seen, establishing what are duties are is not always straightforward.