Kant argued that ethical statements are a priori synthetic- the idea that a statement is knowable before sense experience, but requires sense experience for verification. He believed that moral statements are a priori synthetic because ethical knowledge comes from pure reason (rather than empirical evidence), but may also be right or wrong. Kant noted that people are aware of a moral law at work within them. He did not regard this consciousness as a vague feeling of something being right or wrong. Rather, this consciousness was a direct experience of something powerful. In his book Critique of Practical Reason, he wrote ‘Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me’. From this quotation, it is clear that Kant believed morality was innate, and that reason (an intrinsic quality) helped to determine this morality.
Kant believed that he felt a moral obligation to act in a certain way, and tried to find some sort of explanation for it. He referred to this innate ‘moral obligation’ as his ‘duty’. We follow moral commands because we feel it is our duty to act in such a way that is ‘good’. Kant reasoned that, if a sense of duty is felt, it must be because the world is designed in such a way that it matters to act in one way rather than another. There must be some guarantee behind this sense of duty- a reward. He believed this reward does not appear in this world, yet it must exist, otherwise we would not have a sense of duty. Kant concluded that we must look beyond this life. He believed the experience of a sense of moral law leads to our awareness of freedom, which becomes apparent when we make moral choices. These moral choices are independent of any thought of consequence, and Kant believed acting morally to be an end in itself.
As Kant believed our duty was to make moral decisions and abide by moral law, he therefore believed duty not to be a means to an end, but an end in itself. Duty is an end that is known innately and instinctively. Kant therefore, came to the conclusion that ‘Duty should be done, simply because it is duty’, as duty is not a means to an end, but an end in itself.
b) ‘Categorical Imperatives allow no room for compassion in the treatment of women wanting abortions’. Discuss
The categorical imperative is the idea that one should ‘Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’- Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason. It is a command without conditions, and enforces that, for an action to be good it must stand up to the universal maxim test (above), and be suitably universalisable. For example, a man is desperately poor, and debt collectors and bailiffs threaten him. The man considers borrowing money from his friend. He knows that he cannot hope to repay his friend, but he also knows that the debt collectors will leave him alone if he can settle up with them. If he were to borrow from his friend, the maxim he would be applying would be: if you need money, lie about your financial status in order to borrow it. Kant strongly believed that this should not become a universal maxim, as no one would trust anyone, and no one would be prepared to loan money. Kant argued that lying is always wrong (a categorical imperative), and that there is no way lying could stand up to the universal maxim test.
‘Categorical Imperatives allow no room for compassion in the treatment of women wanting abortions’ is absolutely correct, for many reasons. Firstly, one of the three principles of the categorical imperative is that each person has an intrinsic value, a value beyond price. This is because humans are rational beings, and can make decisions, based on their ability to reason. As Kant believed human life to be so precious, there are absolutely no circumstances under which he would condone the termination of a human life. Kant would not prioritise any factor over the preservation of human life.
Kant wrote in his book Metaphysics of Morals, ‘Act that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other human being, never merely as a means, but always as an end.’ This means that a human being is the most important factor in any moral equation. A human being can never be allowed to be the means by which a goal or purpose is achieved. In the case of an abortion, one human (the mother) is using another human (the unborn child) as a means by which she can terminate her pregnancy and regain her life. This is using one human as a means to a desired end, and is strictly counter to the rules of the categorical imperative. Kant believed that the value of a human comes from their rational, reasonable being. The suffering, or in this case the end of the life of an individual, could never be justified by the fact that a greater number of people benefit. The implications of this principle are that any activity that denies the individual dignity of a human being in order to achieve its end is undeniably wrong.
The idea of abortion and the termination of human life are contradictory to the absolute fundamental points of the categorical imperative- that human life is priceless, and that humans should never be treated as a means to an end, as they are an end in themselves. The action of an abortion is denying a human life of all dignity, value, and is certainly treating humanity as a means to the end of a childless life. Kant, and the categorical imperative therefore show absolutely no room for compassion in the treatment of women wanting abortions, as, even though, for example, the mother may not be a suitable parent, or the child’s quality of life may be poor, under no circumstances, according to the principles of the categorical imperative, compassion can be allowed for women wishing to murder another human, denying them their worth, and using them as a means to an end.
