Module 6: Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential thinkers of the enlightenment and is foundational to modern political philosophy. His three most significant philosophical works are the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Critique of Pure Reason, and the Metaphysics of Morals.

However, Kant came to philosophy late in life and he only published the first of his influential works, Groundwork, at the age of 57. His earlier academic work included publications on astronomy, mathematics, and geology. So how did Kant come to be so foundational to political philosophy?

Kant was motivated by the work of David Hume, stating Hume’s work had woke him from his ‘dogmatic slumbers’ and that his most influential work, the Critique of Pure Reason, was the solution to the ‘Humean problem’ of scepticism towards inductive reasoning. Hume’s scepticism of inductive reasoning influenced his position on morality and can be seen in his promotion of an early form of ‘emotivism’ which argues we cannot know objective moral facts but only our reaction to situations. This means that moral statements are really statements about our personal reaction to situations. Kant struggled with Hume’s sentimentalism, and as he sought an answer to the question of what gives an act moral worth, he moved further and further away from Hume’s position.

However, in order to facilitate an easier discussion of this tension, let us move from Hume to someone we have already discussed and who built on Hume’s ideas: Jeremy Bentham. To review: Bentham’s Utilitarianism is consequentialist, determining whether an action or policy is good, moral, or just based on its outcomes. If an action or policy produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, it is good, moral, and just. Kant, on the other hand, sought to discover the supreme principal of morality and believed that it could be found through reason.

Hence his reaction to Hume! He did not argue that humans do not feel pleasure and pain, but he does deny Bentham’s assertion that pleasure and pain are our sovereign masters. Instead, he posits that humans are not merely animals; we are not necessarily slaves to our desires. Humans are rational beings with the capacity to use reason and therefore have the capacity to act and to choose freely. Kant thus argues reason can be our sovereign master and that with its application we can discover moral law. In the process of doing so, Kant also stakes some pretty strong claims on individual rights. He argues, as rational beings, every individual is worthy of dignity and respect. Every individual deserves to be treated not as an object, nor as a means to some end that another wants. Rather, every individual, in having absolute value, deserves to be treated as an end in and of themselves. As we will see in the final section, this has some important implications for universal human rights. But how do we get from Kant’s view of humanity to answer the question of what gives an act moral worth? To get that answer, we need to look at two pieces of the puzzle. First, we will look at Kant’s view of freedom and morality. We will then look at his argument on the categorical imperative. Using these two sections, we will conclude with a brief look at Kant’s take on justice.

In order for Kant to answer the question of what gives an act moral worth, he needs to work through the concepts of freedom and morality. This is our goal in this section. So, what does Kant mean by freedom? For most people, freedom means that we are ‘free’ to get what we want. That there are no obstacles between us and what we desire. But Kant has a different take. If I am acting on my desires, I am not free. I am being compelled by appetites. I am a slave to animalistic urges. I am acting according to natural necessity. For Kant, we are more than this. We can rise above the ‘pig philosophy’ of acting on our desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain.

For Kant, freedom is by definition the opposite of necessity. Freedom is to act autonomously. Autonomy is the capacity to deliberate, to reason, to choose freely without compulsion. If I am driven to act by the laws of nature, feel compelled to act by social norms, or even seek pleasure/avoid pain, I am not acting autonomously, I am not acting freely. Rather I am acting on inclination and Kant calls this heteronomy. He defines this is the opposite of autonomy. When I am acting according to heteronomy, I am choosing a means to a given end. I am choosing to eat a steak in order to satiate my hunger. I am choosing to not smoke in a restaurant in order to avoid social approbation. I am choosing to use another human being in order to feel pleasure. I am choosing to not run a marathon to avoid pain. In all of these examples, I am choosing a means to an end. In contrast, Kant argues autonomy is to act according to a law I give myself; to choose the end itself and for its own sake. And this is something he believes that only a rational being can do, only a human can do.

By linking freedom to human will, we see Kant beginning to pivot to morality. When acting autonomously, we are exercising our capacity for reason. Our capacity to reason sets us apart, and as such, indicates we are endowed with inherent worth and dignity. This inherent worth and dignity requires us to not treat ourselves nor others as simply means. We must treat ourselves and others as ends in and of ourselves. This is Kant’s critique of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is ok with any means as long as the ends increase happiness. If we must sacrifice the Christians to the lions to maximize societal happiness, so be it. The ends justify the means. But if each individual has inherent worth and is an end in and of themselves, it is impermissible to treat them as a means for the general happiness. We must respect human dignity. Further, it is the treatment that gives moral worth, not the consequences. It is not the consequences of sacrificing the Christians to the lions that needs to be assessed to determine its morality but the treatment of the Christians themselves, the motivation to sacrifice them. For Kant, moral worth is determined by motive, by intention, by the quality of the will. This requires not only doing the right thing but to do the right thing for the right reason.

Take John Stuart Mill for example. Contrary to Bentham’s logic, Mill might decide to not sacrifice the Christian to the lions because in so doing he would be violating higher pleasures and reducing aggregate happiness. But according to Kant, he is still not acting morally. He is not acting morally because he has the wrong intention. The right intention, the moral intention, is to treat the Christians as people with inherent worth, as an end in and of themselves. For Kant, it is important to not only conform to the moral law but to act for the sake of the moral law. So according to Kant, what makes an action morally good? In order to answer this question, it is important to note that Kant is not looking for an answer for him, or me, or you, individually. He is looking for an answer that applies to all rational human beings. He is looking for an answer grounded in first principles, a foundational position that cannot be deduced from another assumption. For Kant, the foundational principle of morality can be found through human reason. He argues that a moral act requires a good will, a good intention, a good motive. And that a person’s will is only good when they are motivated by duty. Kant contrasts duty with inclination. To act on inclination is to act on appetites, on natural laws. It is to choose a means to an end not determined by us. When we act from duty, we are willing the right thing out of respect for ourselves as rational law giving beings. It may even require doing so when it is against our self-interest. And in such cases, we clearly see the necessity of autonomy in acting morally. Here we see freedom and morality come together for Kant.

Kant’s take on freedom and morality are all well and good. But you may have noted a few potential issues with it in application. First, Kant is looking for a universal answer, a supreme principal of morality. This means it is applicable and knowable to everyone. But if morality is acting according to a moral law and it also means to act autonomously, how do we avoid morality being subjective? In other words, how can a moral law be universal? Second, if the moral law has been determined, how do we know if a specific action or policy is moral? To answer these, lets revisit the last section, where we examined the concepts of freedom and morality. We saw that for Kant, the morality of an action is determined by motive, and specifically a motive of duty. Further, he argued a motive of duty was only possible when we are acting freely, or autonomously. Autonomy allows us to rise above our inclinations through our use of reason. The capacity for reason is universal amongst all human beings. Therefore, we can all arrive at a single supreme principal of morality since we all have the same capacity for reason.

For Kant, this answers the first question on the possible subjectivity of morality. These ideas are further developed in Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative. He argues that there are two types of reason: instrumental reason and pure practical reason. Each type commands the human will differently. Instrumental reason leads to a hypothetical imperative: if you want X you must do Y. It is a conditional imperative since Y is only produced on condition of doing X. For example, if I have no money but am in dire need of it, I must lie to my friend to get it. Pure practical reason leads to a categorical imperative: do Y because it is a good in and of itself. It is an unconditional imperative. For example, I tell the truth because it is the right thing to do. Kant argues only a categorical imperative can be an imperative of morality.

In his writing, Kant gives several formulations of the categorical imperative, but we are going to look a two here which build on the arguments introduced so far. The third formulation will be discussed in the next section. The first formulation of the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.

When Kant says ‘maxim’, he means a fundamental rule or principal. So if we take a principle of action and universalize it, is it sustainable? For example, is it morally permissible to lie? Is it morally permissible to lie in dire need? To test this position, we should universalize the maxim of telling a lie. If everyone lies, truth would become unknowable and lies would no longer serve a purpose. The universalization of the maxim would render the act of telling a lie meaningless and unsustainable. It therefore fails the test. The second formulation of the categorical imperative: “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.”

Remember, Kant is looking for a supreme principal of morality, a universal understanding of morality. This means we cannot base moral law on particular people and circumstances. So what can we base moral law on? Kant believes that humanity, as constituted by rational beings, has absolute value. Therefore, we can not treat a person as a relative value, as a means to achieve our particularistic ends. Everyone has the capacity to reason, and therefore is due dignity. Consequently, we must respect people universally, we must treat people as ends in and of themselves. Let us apply this to our example of telling a lie in dire need. This failed the test of the first formulation of the categorical imperative, how about the second? If we tell a lie to advance our own interests, we are using others as a means to do so. We have not respected their humanity, their dignity. We have put our interests above others. Telling a lie, even in dire need, thus fails the second formulation of the categorical imperative. If we put these two formulations of the categorical imperative together, we see that according to Kant, an act is only moral if it can be universalized and if we treat humanity as ends.

So far, we have looked at Kant’s views on duty, autonomy, morality, and how they come together in the categorical imperative. We now turn to the implications of his thoughts on justice. And it is important to note we are speaking of implications. Kant’s writing is impressive and has been foundational for many thinkers that have followed him.  However, he has not systematically treated the concept of justice specifically. That being said, his particularly stringent definitions of freedom, duty, morality, and his statements on the categorical imperative have significant implications to the definition and operationalization of justice both domestically and internationally. We will see this specifically when we discuss Kant’s third formulation of the categorical imperative also known as the ‘Kingdom of Ends’. However, we need to lay a little ground work before we get there. The first bridge between Kant’s take on what constitutes a moral act and a broader discussion of justice goes back to his first principles of morality. For Kant, if we are building a political philosophy to be used as the guiding principles of a just society, it should be based on a constitutional framework that works for everyone.

It should not privilege particular groups, particularly constitutionally, over others as this would fail to respect the right of individuals to pursue their own ends. It would be based on particularistic notions of happiness, welfare, and justice. On the other hand, Kant is seeking a universal constitutional framework which creates space for, and mitigates tension between, individual freedom. For this reason, Kant introduces an interesting take on the social contract. A social contract is some form of agreement between members of a political community, where most often some trade-offs between individual freedom and governmental protection are agreed to. It is a statement of reciprocal rights and obligations between citizens and the state.

This idea of the social contract is closely associated with Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Kant’s social contract is a bit different. The above authors generally conceive of such a contract as having been negotiated and agreed to by real people; between citizens and state representatives. For Kant, this is neither practical nor welcomed. In terms of practicality, think of Canada. Who agreed to our constitutional arrangements? Was it ‘the Founding Fathers’ in 1867? The British North America Act was more a rule sheet for a British Dominion. Was it via the Treaty of Westminster in 1931 whereby sovereignty more fully came to rest in Ottawa? Or was it not until 1982 and the patriation of the Constitution by the Liberal Government of Pierre Trudeau?

And whatever date/person you pick, why should we be obligated to their vision of the ‘good life’? Now, try a similar exercise for San Marino, a city state in Italy that has been independent since 301 AD. However, more importantly for Kant, the moral principles which underpin such constitutional arrangements cannot legitimately be based on the desires of individuals or even communities. A moral and just constitution can only be based on an ‘idea’ of reason, whereby every piece of legislation should be framed so as to be logically consistent with ‘the united will of a whole nation’. He calls this the idea of collective consent. Just as he sought universality in conceptualizing the supreme principal of morality, Kant sought universality in the social contract and believed this discoverable through reason. We can get a glimpse of what Kant meant by this through his third formulation of the categorical imperative: the Kingdom of Ends. (Sometimes also called the Realm of Ends) This third formulation of the categorical imperative states: ‘all maxims as proceeding from our own lawmaking ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends as a realm of nature.’ This formulation of the categorical imperative again stresses the autonomy of the individual, demanding that we regard ourselves as law-giving. It has been suggested that Kant is reacting to Rousseau’s ideal society whereby each citizen is both sovereign and subject; whereby each citizen is both the source of law and subject to the law.

For Kant, this third formulation of the categorical imperative means that we must think of the political community as being collectively constituted by rational human beings. That in this political community, we must be governed by laws that all could arrive at because of our universal capability for reason. This links Kant’s idea of autonomy to acting collectively in society. It also suggests an interesting thought experiment. What would a kingdom of ends look like? If all members of the community both personally abide by the first two formulations of the categorical imperative and use these formulations in drafting legislation, what would it look like? Where all actions are based on universalizable principles. Where all actions treat are fellow members as worthy ends in and of themselves. These are goals and limitations which we autonomously seek and impose on ourselves. Kant believes this would constitute a righteous society. Now consider the limitations of that political community? Since Kant believes it is based on the universal capability of all human beings to reason, there is no political limitation to the community. This raises the question, according to Kant, what are our obligations to others in the global community? When discussing both the moral basis and practicality of world peace, or as he states Perpetual Peace, Kant posits the ultimate moral community is co-terminus with the world community; it includes everyone. He argues the ideal political order would be a federation or league of nations with each upholding the third formulation of the categorical imperative. Thus, we can infer that for Kant, justice is connected to the supreme principal of morality and based on both personal and collective action that observed the categorical imperative.

 

This module has sought to introduce the ideas of Immanuel Kant and explore their applicability to issues of justice. Kant is not an easy thinker to get a grasp on. Part of this is due to the black and white nature of his writing. Such firm positions make it seem untenable in a world that is seemingly shrouded in shades of grey. Part of this is due to the goal of his writing. Kant is responding to the emotivism of his time. He is trying to discover and elucidate first principles in order to define the supreme principal of morality. That being said, it is worth struggling with. Kant is one of the most influential enlightenment thinkers and is foundational to modern political philosophy. In this module, we looked at his ideas in relation to justice. Much of Kant’s work sought to discover the supreme principal of morality. In reaction to many of his contemporaries who looked to human emotion and a utilitarian logic of pain and pleasure as sovereign masters, Kant sought a more universal answer. He believed that such an answer could be found in the universal human capacity of reason. Kant posits that humans are not merely animals; we are not necessarily slaves to our desires. Humans are rational beings with the capacity to use reason and therefore have the capacity to act and to choose freely. tO rise above our animal desires. Kant thus argues reason can be our sovereign master and that with its application we can discover moral law as defined by duty. Perhaps the most important of Kant’s conclusions is the categorical imperative. Through the three formulations of the categorical imperative that we looked at, Kant argues that to live a righteous life in a righteous society: we must universalize the maxims of our action; we must always treat our fellow humans as ends and never as means; we must apply these processes when drafting the laws applicable to all citizens. But Kant is also critiqued. His definitions are very stringent. His views are very rigid, very black and white. Think of the thought experiment of Kant’s Ax. Kant argued you can not lie, even if in so doing you may think you are protecting a significant other from a man standing at the door with an ax. He argues that if you lie and harm still comes to your significant other, you would be morally responsible. If you tell the truth, you are not morally responsible even if harm occurs because you are responsible for your intentions not outcomes. Finally, while Kant is not directly speaking to the issue of justice, his insight on living a righteous life gives us much to consider. It also gave others much to consider, such as John Rawls who will be introduced in the next module.

The common usage of freedom means that we are ‘free’ to get what we want. Kant disagrees. If I am acting on my desires, I am not free. I am being compelled by appetites or according to natural necessity. For Kant, we are more than this. We need not be slaves to our desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain. For Kant, freedom is by definition the opposite of necessity. Freedom is to act autonomously. Autonomy is the capacity to deliberate, to reason, to choose freely without compulsion. If I am driven to act by the laws of nature, feel compelled to act by social norms, or even seek pleasure/avoid pain, I am not acting autonomously. Rather I am acting on inclination and Kant calls this heteronomy. He defines this is the opposite of autonomy. When I am acting according to heteronomy, I am choosing a means to a given end. I am choosing a means to an end. In contrast, Kant argues autonomy is to act according to a law I give myself; to choose the end itself and for its own sake. And this is something he believes that only a rational being can do, only a human can do.

For Kant, the morality of an action is determined by motive, and specifically a motive of duty. Further, he argued a motive of duty was only possible when we are acting freely, or autonomously. Autonomy allows us to rise above our inclinations through our use of reason. This capacity for reason is universal amongst all human beings. Therefore, we can all arrive at a single supreme principal of morality since we all have the same capacity for reason. For Kant, this answers the first question on the possible subjectivity of morality.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Kant argues that to live a righteous life we must apply this imperative to our actions. It is a test of the morality of our actions. If we take the principle of our action and universalize it, is it sustainable? For example, is it morally permissible to lie? Is it morally permissible to lie in dire need? To test this position, we should universalize the maxim of telling a lie. If everyone lies, truth would become unknowable and lies would no longer serve a purpose. The universalization of the maxim would render the act of telling a lie meaningless and unsustainable. It therefore fails the test.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative: “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 is looking for a supreme principal of morality, a universal understanding of morality. This means we cannot base moral law on particular people and circumstances. So what can we base moral law on? Kant believes that humanity, as constituted by rational beings, has absolute value. Therefore, we can not treat a person as a relative value, as a means to achieve our particularistic ends. Everyone has the capacity to reason, and therefore is due dignity. Consequently, we must respect people universally, we must treat people as ends in and of themselves. Let us apply this to our example of telling a lie in dire need. If we tell a lie to advance our own interests, we are using others as a means to do so. We have not respected their humanity, their dignity. We have put our interests above others. Telling a lie, even in dire need, thus fails the second formulation of the categorical imperative.

The Kingdom of Ends is also sometimes also called the Realm of Ends. It is based on the third formulation of the categorical imperative: ‘all maxims as proceeding from our own lawmaking ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends as a realm of nature.’ This formulation of the categorical imperative again stresses the autonomy of the individual, demanding that we regard ourselves as law-giving. It has been suggested that Kant is reacting to Rousseau’s ideal society whereby each citizen is both sovereign and subject; whereby each citizen is both the source of law and subject to the law. For Kant, this third formulation of the categorical imperative means that we must think of the political community as being collectively constituted by rational human beings. That in this political community, we must be governed by laws that everyone could arrive at because of our universal capability for reason. This links Kant’s idea of autonomy to acting collectively in society. Kant believes this would constitute a righteous society.