Could this maxim become a universal law? No, says Kant. If it did, people would no longer believe each other and nobody would lend money. Such a maxim, therefore, would be self-defeating. Kant argued that lying was always wrong. We would not reasonably want lying to become a universal law – people would quickly learn not to trust anybody and there would be chaos. If a lie is to become successful, people must believe that others are telling the truth; so the success of a lie depends on there not being a ‘universal law’ permitting it.
Kant argues that it is never right to treat people as mere means to an end. We are always ends in ourselves, and because of this we are all holy. For Kant, human reason is the key and by making laws for ourselves based on reason we become ‘law-abiding members of a kingdom of ends’ – a community in which the laws adopted by all the individuals will be in harmony, with disagreements sorted out by reasoned argument.
Kant’s theories have helped shape our legal system and out sense of moral law. Certain political conclusions follow from Kant’s ethical theories. Kantian ethics require individual liberty, since each member of a society should be as free as possible to choose for himself or herself. Each member of a community, too, should consider himself or herself a member of the moral community – a community shared by others with equal moral rights and equal moral responsibilities.
Kant focused on the individual’s right to choose for himself or herself. What distinguishes human beings from other animals or other objects is their dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and humans have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose. Of course, many different but related rights exist besides this basic one; for example, the right to truth; the right of privacy; the right not to be injured; the right to what is agreed.
Kant argued that the moral status of an action is not determined by its consequences. We are not morally obligated to seek the best overall outcome by out actions, but rather we are obligated to perform those actions that accord with our moral duty – the fundamental demand that we should treat others, and ourselves, in a manner consistent with human dignity and worth.
This theory is a deontological theory, which is; what you do in your action and the nature of the action itself determines its moral status; rights and duties are justifiable regardless of consequential values. So rights and duties are ‘fundamental’, ‘inalienable’. It is unlike utilitarianism, as Kant is not interested in the consequences of an action.
Kant has many assumptions or reasoning…..
- The universe is fair.
- All human beings desire and seek happiness.
- All human beings ought to be moral and do their duty.
- The Summum Bonum (highest good) represents the combination of virtue and happiness.
- Everyone seeks the Summum Bonum.
- What is sought must be achievable because the universe is fair.
- The Summum Bonum is not achievable in this life.
- So it is necessary to postulate a life after death which the Summum Bonum can be achieved.
- And it is necessary to postulate a god to guarantee fairness.
“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiring and awe…the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”
Kant believed in an objective moral law that can be known through reason. This moral law is binding and does not refer to situations or consequences.
For Kant moral statements are a priori synthetic…. Knowable through reason, not experience, and may or may nor be true.
So Kant is saying if an action is right for me then it is right for everybody, treat humans as ends in themselves – you should never use humans for another purposes. We have a duty to develop our own moral, physical and intellectual capabilities. We should act as if we live in a kingdom of ends – We should act as if we were through our maxim a law – making member of a kingdom of ends.
“Kant’s understanding of universal maxims cannot be defended” Discuss.
Kant's universal maxims can be defended in the way it sees people as equal, which is the main aim of every human regardless of colour, race, and religion. Motivation is valued over consequences, which are beyond our control. An immoral motive cannot be justified by unforeseen good consequences, but a good motive is, in itself, worthy of value. It is a humanitarian principle in which all people are considered to be of equal value and worthy of protection. Justice is always an absolute, even if the majority does not benefit. It recognises the value of moral absolutes which do not change with time or culture. It provides objective guidelines for making moral decisions, without the need for lengthy calculation of possible outcomes. Kantian ethics is simple, it sees people as equals, its similar to Jesus’ teachings, it’s logical, it’s straight to the point, its moral, and it has justice, the categorical imperative prohibits acts that would normally be considered immoral such as rape, murder and theft. Justice is always an absolute even if the majority does not benefit. There are also weaknesses of Kantian ethics. These are such things as; Moral obligations appear arbitrary or inexplicable except by reference to duty. In reality our decision-making is influenced by many more factors than these, and it is indeed questionable whether duty is as good as motive as Kant suggested. When taken to its logical extreme the principle of universalisability is absurd. Not all things if universalised would be moral: ‘every person wearing black shoes should tie the left lace first’ could be universalised, but it does not make it a moral command. Anything could technically be universalised; hence the principle is exposed to a reduction ad absurdum. ‘All men called Joe who are unemployed should rob a bank on Tuesday’ is in theory universablisable, but clearly fails Kant’s test in all other ways. Kantian ethics is harder to understand than other theories. It steals free will. It doesn’t take consequences into account. Kant refuses to allow expectations places big restrictions in different situations. Universalisability generalises different but similar dilemmas. To compare Kantian ethics to utilitarianism; utilitarianism is a teleological approach, instead of a deontological approach. A teleological approach is what you achieve by your action determines the moral status of that action (consequences); justification for recognizing certain rights and duties is dependant upon their utility (usefulness) in achieving a maximization of value. If an act is right or wrong in utilitarianism it is dependant on the greatest good, for the greatest number being produced. It is a posterior argument which is based on evidence or experience. The ends justify means, it has the principle of utility, which is whether the greatest good for the greatest number can be ‘argumented’ or least good ‘diminished’. Overall, Kant’s understanding of Universal, maxims can be looked at positively or negatively. It confuses situations but also offer a good resource when making morale decisions.
