This concept about the Good Will can be explained using the example of the ‘Burning House’.
‘A man whose neighbours are due to come back home in a few hours after a long holiday, goes into his neighbours house and turns on the gas fire. This, he thinks, will make the house nice and warm for when his neighbours arrive. However, by the time his neighbours reach home, the gas fire has burnt the house down.
Kant argues that even though the man accidentally burnt the house down, his action was morally worthwhile because he did it out of good will. Kant argues that any action done out of a good will is a right action. Conversely, Kant’s theory suggests that even if an action performed out of an immoral motivation brings about good consequences, it is still a wrong action
Take for example a shopkeeper. Suppose a shopkeeper is trying to decide whether to cheat her customers. She may decide to cheat them whenever she can get away with it. This, we instinctively know, is morally wrong. Suppose however, that the shopkeeper decides not to cheat her customers because if she gets caught, then she will make no more money. One may argue that this is a sensible decision but Kant would argue that even if the shopkeeper is not cheating her customers the action is still morally wrong because she is only doing it to achieve good consequences for herself. So, what if the shopkeeper does not cheat her customers simply because she likes them too much? Kant would argue that although this a nice thought it would still not be a morally praiseworthy action because the shopkeeper is only doing what she likes doing.
Kant then puts forward his own three reasons for doing something, which he thinks would always lead to a morally right action. These are:
- Your action is moral only if you act from a sense of duty.
- Your action is moral only if you act on the basis of principle, or maxim
- It is your duty to act out of reverence for the moral law.
So if the shopkeeper decided not to cheat her customers because she though that it was not right and that it was not right because she would not want anyone to cheat her out of her own money, then that would be a morally right action.
This is the fundamental starting point to Kant’s theory of morality, that we are the agents of our own destinies and there should be a good motive acting as a fundamental component of any action we decide to do, if it is to be called morally worthwhile.
Kant believed that a ‘good’ or ‘pure’ motive is dependent on the autonomous decision of an individual to commit him/herself to a universal moral law, which is binding on every human. Kant expresses this universal moral law as the ‘categorical imperative’. The categorical imperative is a law that is absolute and universally valid. It must be obeyed at all times; not because it would bring us fame, or enhance our reputation for doing so, but because it has intrinsic value meaning we must abide by it because it is the universal rational law. This is in contrast to the ‘hypothetical imperative’, which is not absolute. The hypothetical imperative is characterised by the word ‘if’ ‘IF you want to gain praise, you should help people’ whereas the categorical imperative is characterised by the word ‘ought’ ‘you OUGHT to follow the categorical imperative because it is the moral law’. The categorical imperative is not dependent on anyone’s desire to make it an imperative; it is binding not just in some situations and for certain people, but always, for everyone.
There are three formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative.
The first is ‘The Formula of Universal Law’. This states ‘Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law’ (Fundamental Principles, page 38) that is to say, whatever moral law we choose to guide our actions, the law must make rational sense when universalised. In this case we can use the example of ‘The False Promise’. A man is forced to take out a loan. He knows he will not be able to repay it but he knows that he will not get the loan if he does not promise to repay the money. He does not know whether to take the money and lie, or tell the truth and not be able to take out a loan. Suppose he decides to lie. The maxim he has acted by is as follows: whenever I need money, I will borrow it and promise to repay it, even if I know I cannot pay it back. This may benefit one’s future welfare but it is not morally right as, if this law was universalised, it would be self-contradictory. If everyone made promises they could not keep, then the act of ‘promising’ itself would be impossible, as no one would believe your promise and laugh at any such utterances as vain pretences. Kant believes we should only live by those maxims that would still make sense when universalised, to include all people.
The second formulation is known as ‘The Formula of the End in Itself’ ‘So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only’ (Fundamental Principles, page 47)
This means you should always treat people with the respect they deserve and treat yourself with the same respect you would treat others. Kant argues that we should all respect each other because we are free and rational agents who should abide by our own maxims if those maxims have been tested against the moral law. This means that we should never treat other humans as a means but always as an end in themselves. We should regard all humans as having intrinsic value and so, any form of exploitation of people or treating them as anything less than autonomous individuals must be condemned. This underpins the Human Rights Act, which suggests that all humans have intrinsic worth simply because of our freedom and rational nature.
The third formulation is entitled ‘The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends’ ‘Every rational being must so act as if he were by his maxims in every case a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends’ (Fundamental Principles, page 57) This formulation emphasises two things. Firstly, that we ought to regard ourselves as members of one community i.e. the universal kingdom and secondly, all members of the community deserve respect as autonomous, rational and free individuals i.e. ends in themselves. ‘In this kingdom nothing conflicts with reason, and the rational being is both subject and sovereign of the law which there obtains’ (Scruton, page 71)
The key strengths of Kant’s theory of ethics are as follows. Firstly, it is a deontological argument that does not concern itself with the consequences of an action but rather the motivation behind that action. Therefore as long as you have a good will behind your action it is morally worthwhile if it brings about good or bad consequences. This strength make Kant’s theory more favourable as it may take away the fear that many people may feel when deciding to do a controversial action for example.
As well this Kantian ethics is consistent as it deals with moral laws or maxims derived from reason and reason alone. This consistency leads to impartiality which means everyone is treated the same regardless of colour, looks or intellect. This comes about because the maxims, which Kant suggests we should live by, are universalised meaning they apply to everyone, anywhere, in any situation.
Also, Kant’s concept of Human Dignity is another key strength of his argument. All humans are seen as ends in themselves and have intrinsic value. If this was applied in reality then there would be no more cases of sexual abuse for example or even slavery. This notion of treating people as ends in themselves can be seen in much of modern ethics, in particular, as part of the Human Rights Act. Much of it is based upon Kant’s concept of all humans having intrinsic value due to their freedom and rational manner.
There are five key weaknesses in Kant’s argument.
Firstly, there is the weakness of ‘regrettable vagueness’. F. Coppleston and R. Walker say that the categorical imperative is ‘rather imprecise’ they argue that Kant does not specify the rules we humans are meant to universalise. However, supporters of Kant are quick to state that the categorical imperative is necessarily devoid of content and should not recommend a specific maxim. We, as the free and rational beings should make our own maxims. Kant only suggests we should test those laws against the moral law to see if it is right.
Secondly, there is the conflict of duties. In reality, some situations may come about when intrinsic values clash e.g. if you were hiding a Jewish man in your home and a nazi came and asked you if you had seen him. Do you lie and save the Jewish man’s life or do you tell the nazi the truth and cause the man to be killed. However to overcome this problem W.D. Ross constructed a hierarchy of duties entitled ‘Prima Facia’ which would enable the preservation of life principle to override the truth-telling principle.
Also there is the problem of the relationship between reason and emotion. Kant seems to lay absolute primacy on the faculty of human reason and as a consequence can seem to lack the ‘Emotion’ aspect of human nature which has led to his theory being dubbed as an elitist theory, meaning that only those people with enough intellectual intelligence can abide by Kant’s categorical imperative. As well as this Kant’s view of human reason can differ from others. David Hume believed that reason should be subordinate to emotions, wants and desires of the individual ‘reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them’ whereas for Kant, it is the other way around.
Another weakness is the difference between the absolute and relative position. Kant takes up the absolute position and does not consider the circumstances and how they can affect humans. He differs from Aristotle, who was interested in virtue ethics, which suggests that you should build on virtues and end up as a better person.
Lastly, John Stuart Mill argues that Kant does not have a concern for the consequences of an action and asks if something can really be classed as morally right if it results in the death of thousands of people even if the person thought he was acting out of good will.
In conclusion Kant’s principle is a humanitarian one. Kant argues that if we use reason to determine our actions then we are less likely to be swayed by conflicting circumstances. We would all be governed by the principles of ‘universal law’ and ‘the end in itself’ and shall treat others as human beings worthy of respect. Minorities would be respected, individuals’ valued, and whole populations ensured of their civil rights over and above the government’s political preferences. However, many argue that absolute moral laws have their advantages, but a truly mature moral theory must allow for some exceptions. I tend to agree with this last statement because, I believe, not all of life’s problems can be solved using a single-factor theory, as Kant seems to imply. I believe that Kant has elevated reason beyond all other human quality or characteristic, which leaves no room for traits such as kindness or virtue. I think ethics need to constantly adapt to fit the circumstances.
However, after 200 years, Kant remains an absolutely central figure in contemporary moral philosophy, one from whom we can learn much even when we disagree with him.