Kant says maxims are subjective rules that guide action. All actions have maxims such as, never lie to your friends, never act in a way that would make your parents ashamed of you, and it’s ok to cheat if you need to.
Examples of maxims from Kant:
Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity.
Always treat humanity, whether in yourself or in other people, as an end in itself and never as a mere means.
Always act in such a way that you would not be embarrassed to have your actions described on the front page of the newspaper.
Kant’s theory rests on a distinction between the ways we use the word ought using two types of imperative.
In some cases ought is used in the non moral way such as:
“ I ought to go running if I want to run a marathon.”
This is called the hypothetical imperative, which is something you ought to do however you are under no obligation to do so, so you don’t have to do it. It is basically what we ought to do to fulfill our wishes.
Kant stated that moral obligations don’t depend on wishes so he says that wishes or desires are irrelevant in this case. Categorical imperatives are the product of reason and you ought to do such and such, regardless of what you want. It is an absolute duty that ignores our emotions.
To illustrate this imperative you could imagine a person needing to borrow money, and promising to repay it even though they know they cant. The maxim for this would be:
“Whenever you need money borrow it and promise to repay it even though you know you cant.”
This rule couldn’t be universalized because if it was, people wouldn’t believe anyone and nobody would ever lend money, even to people who may repay the money. Kant says this rule doesn’t work because of the bad consequences but instead he simply says it doesn’t work. Lying is an ethical dilemma because sometimes it may bring out more good for a greater number of people than if the lie was not told.
He says that lying is always wrong because it couldn’t be universalized. There would be no trust between anyone and if a lie is to be successful then it must be believed to be true, so if there was a universal law it would never work anyway.
Kant also says:
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
The above quote gives us a few things to look at when deciding upon a moral rule:
What rule should we be following, and should it always be done in every situation?
If it can be done in every situation then it universalizable. He simply says, if it is universalizable then do it, if it isn’t, then don’t.
He says that duty is “the rational persons ‘will’ and having a good intention is morally good regardless of the consequences.
“Act so you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means.”
Kant says we should never use each other or anybody as a means to an end but instead as an end in themselves. He says to treat everyone equally, respect their rights, treat others well and never use them to achieve our own purposes no matter how much good will is achieved. So everyone is an end in themselves and never a means.
Kant does not however mention emotions that humans have and he ignores the fact we have different desires to one and other.
He fails to recognize that consequences do matter.
A good example of a conflicting imperative to back some of the criticisms is if two people were drowning.
“What if two people were drowning and both were 6 meters from a person on the edge of the water. Who do you save?”
Kant would probably say the person easiest to get to. But then imagine one of those people was your mother. Even if she was further away in the water, it is natural instinct for a human to go and save their mother. Kant ignores the fact we have emotions and this is obvious because he thinks all human life is equal. I don’t know how he can say that he would save the person closest to him no matter who the people were. He thinks we are almost robots.
He also says that consequences do not matter but the act of a rational person is based upon the consequences that the act produces. So how can he ignore consequences and have a totally duty based theory. He contradicts himself.
For example if a CRAZY gunman wants some friends of mine and they are hiding in my cellar, what do I do if the gunman knocks on my door? Do I tell the truth like a rational person and let them die or do I tell a lie to save lives? Well, Kant says that if I tell a lie, no matter what the consequences are, I am not rationale. So telling the truth and letting them die is the rational thing to do.
Kant wants the world to be perfect and wants everyone to follow his theory, and in an imperfect world, his theory sound unconvincing when we look at some dilemmas.
His theory is great but not in practice.
