Class Notes

Search

SearchSearch

Deontology - Categorical Imperative and Conditional Deontology

Categorical imperative

Immanuel Kant put forward the most prominent deontological theory called the categorical imperative. Unlike the other deontological theories, it asserts that moral laws should only come from reason and not from any external authority (e.g., God, and nature).

It claims that generous actions with moral worth are not prompted by natural inclinations. Moral principles would not be consistent if it was founded on human inclinations, desires, or nature—because these things vary for each person; thus, would entail that moral standards would also be different per individual. Moreover, the theory views morality as a necessity that does not require other things for it to exist; in other words, it is not contingent.

Kant contends that our rational will (or reason) solely underlies morality, independent of empirical observation. Consequently, he claims that our moral knowledge comes before human experience, and as such, moral reasoning is based on reason alone—even without even the aid of human experience.

The good will

Kant believes that morality is necessary, absolute, and universal; therefore, its value is not derived from nonmoral goods like happiness (it is inherently valuable).

For Kant, the highest good is one that is intrinsically valuable—which he referred to as moral good—as opposed to the derived nonmoral good found in utilitarianism.

Besides this, he also claimed that good will is the only thing good in itself.1 For this reason, he argued that the only good actions are the ones performed with a good will: if a person does a generous action for a motive besides moral duty, they are acting with the wrong motive.

The idea that good will is the only thing good in itself implies that other virtues—such as happiness, knowledge, and power (nonmoral goods)—are only instrumental goods, thereby having the potential to be evil when used by an evil will. As a result, only good will is essential in determining whether a particular action is morally valuable or not.

Acting from Duty

According to Kant, for an action to be good, it has to come with a good will; in other words, it is done for the right reason. This means that a good person is one whose actions are motivated by their duties or their respect for the moral law itself. Good people act from duty and not in accord with duty; they do not do good because it is convenient to do so, rather, they do it because it is their duty.

Acting from duty implies that it is not done due to desires, feelings, or natural inclinations. As such, good deeds instigated by feelings of pity will grant no moral points. Kant stresses that if the feelings or desire disappear, the actions will as well; thus, if we govern ourselves through our reason, we control our desires and foster the nobler parts of ourselves.

In order to determine what our moral duties are, Kant formulated the categorical imperative.

The Categorical Imperative

Through nonempirical reasoning, we can arrive at absolute moral truth and discover our moral duties. Hence, we do not need to use empirical data to determine which actions are right and which ones are not.

Moral duties can be translated into the language of imperatives or commands; as a consequence, we can say that they have imperative force. Kant categorized these imperatives into two types:

  1. Hypothetical imperative (or conditional imperative) - possesses the formula:
    • If you want , then do
  2. Categorical imperative (or unconditional imperative) - possesses the formula:
    • Do

Our moral duties are categorized as categorical imperatives; hence, we are required to accomplish them regardless of the consequences or its effects on our desires.

Three ways in which the categorical imperative may be formulated

There are three different general principles that explain the conditions an acceptable moral rule should meet:

  1. Principle of Universal Law
  2. Principle of Ends
  3. Principle of Autonomy

Rules Must Be Universal

Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

The Principle of Universal Law contends that moral rules should be impartial and universal. Therefore, a valid maxim (or general rule of conduct) is suitable for everyone to live by.

This principle highlights the importance of acting rationally; instead of just focusing on one’s own self-interest, they also view it from the perspectives of others. If a rule is not consistent—like when it does not equally apply to everyone or when it can be broken when it suits our immediate interests—it is meaningless.

Besides this, Kant believed that moral judgments should be logically consistent and free from internal contradictions.

Summary

Three important things to note in this principle according to Wall (2003):

  1. The categorical imperative does not provide us with a list of concrete rules, instead it provides us conditions that any rule must satisfy. In terms of form, all moral rules should be universalizable.
  2. Morality should be impartial, meaning that it treats everyone equally.
  3. No exceptions can be applied to the universalizable moral maxims (to prevent any contradictions).

Treating Persons as Ends

So act as to treat humanity, whether in your person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never as merely a means.

The Principle of Ends, also known as the Principle of Respect for Person, is the second formulation of the categorical imperative. This formulation emphasizes humanity’s inherent value due to their sheer possession of rationality. Even those who do not act rationally are still unconditionally valuable because of their capacity of achieving a good moral character. 2

Because rational beings are intrinsically valuable, Kant believes that it is immoral to use them as merely means to an end—it violates their inherent worth. Even if using them will benefit society, it is still not morally permissible to do so because it disrespects their dignity, rights, and autonomy—we are treating them like objects (things that only have instrumental worth).

Note

  • Kant is not necessarily saying that treating people as means is wrong, but that we should we value people’s consent or autonomy. Thus, we can use others as means if they permit it.
  • Besides treating them as means, we ought to also treat them as an end; this entails that we respect their autonomy, rights, and dignity.

This principle does not only apply to others but also ourselves. Kant stresses the moral significance of respecting one’s own rights and dignity. For this reason, one cannot justify being a slave by stating that they consented to it because it violates their dignity.

The Will as Universal Lawgiver

So act as if you were always through your maxims a law-making member of the kingdom of ends 3

The third formulation, also known as the Principle of Autonomy, claims that we only act in good will when we have convinced ourselves that the moral law that governs us are our duties. It implies that we follow a rule not because of any external authority but because our reasoning ability tells us to. Nonetheless, we should ensure that the personal maxims we legislate are both universalizable and respectful towards people’s dignity and rights.

This principle underscores the value of choosing our own moral rules—we live by our moral laws because of our sheer respect for them. Doing so will allow us to live true to our nature as rational beings. 4

The opposite of this principle is heteronomy; it characterizes actions which are motivated by external authority (e.g., religion, the state, and culture).

Following this principle entails that we cannot impose our morals into others because we have to recognize their autonomy as rational persons.

Criticisms

  1. It cannot resolve moral dilemmas. It is incapable of determining which duty should override the other because it views moral rules as absolute and exceptionless.
  2. It is too strict and unrealistic. The theory does not see the moral worth in actions not motivated by duty but feelings or natural inclinations.
  3. It has an incomplete view of humans. Critics say that humans are not purely composed of reason, but also consists of emotions and desires; thus, it should not be ignored when discussing our nature.
  4. Its view on moral personhood is biased towards mentally-healthy humans. It only considers a being as a person when they are capable of rational judgment and have a will to adhere to moral principles. This implies that mentally-impaired people have no moral standing, and thereby have no moral rights. In addition, it can disregard the moral rights of some animals.

Conditional deontology

An issue that the categorical imperative faces is that it is unconditional: it does not consider the consequences and does not accept any exceptions. While it makes morality impartial, it becomes problematic in situations where following a maxim results into great harm.

On the other hand, utilitarianism addresses this issue by focusing on the consequences instead of the rules followed; hence, generating the maximum amount of aggregate welfare. Nevertheless, it still faces a concerning problem: it permits the violation of moral rights for the maximum aggregate welfare.

William David Ross attempts to resolve the issues both the categorical imperative and utilitarianism have by developing conditional deontology. This ethical theory holds that we should mainly focus on the performance of a moral duty when morally evaluating an act; however, unlike Kantian deontology, it also considers the act’s consequences. Furthermore, it also takes into account the relationships between people, actions a person has done to others, and actions others have done to a person.

In relation to utilitarianism, utilitarians think that relationships are only morally relevant when it involves a provider and recipient of benefits; however, W.D. Ross contends that there are other relationships that are also important. 5 These relationships serve as a basis for our moral duties.

In relation to the Kantian deontology, one way this theory differs is that the importance of a moral duty changes depending on the circumstance; one moral duty might prevail over another moral duty because their moral significance are relative and dependent on the factors of the situation.

Distinguishing between prima facie and Actual Duties

Ross claims that there are two types of duties: prima facie and actual (or concrete). The former pertains to the duties we immediately recognize as actions we are have to do—for example, if we hurt someone, we immediately think that it is our duty to make reparations or apologize to them. These type of duties, however, serve as a general guide and not necessarily the actions we should take.

An action becomes an actual duty when there are no conflicting prima facie duties. If, however, there are competing prima facie duties, we determine the actual duty by deducing which one is the most important or incumbent to us.

NOTE

Despite being relative to the circumstance, prima facie duties are not arbitrary. Each one of them are based on morally relevant factors of a particular situation. Ross categorized prima facie duties into different types:

  1. Duty of Fidelity - involves fulfilling contracts and promises, and avoiding deception.
  2. Duty of Reparation - involves making up for wrongdoings.
  3. Duty of Gratitude - involves repaying others for the benefits received from them.
  4. Duty of Justice - involves holding people morally accountable.
  5. Duty of Beneficience - involves improving the conditions of others or doing good to them.
  6. Duty of Self-Improvement - involves improving one’s conditions.
  7. Duty of Non-Maleficence - involves protecting others.

NOTE

Just because a prima facie duty overrides another and becomes the actual duty, it does not mean that the other prima facie duty ceases to be a duty. It only ceases to be the actual duty in this particular situation; given a different situation, the other duty could become the actual duty.

Determining Prima Facie and Actual Duties

Ross maintains that, in a particular situation, our prima facie duties are immediately clear and self-evident. Therefore, it does not need any justification or proof. Nonetheless, he still emphasizes the role of sufficient mental maturity in allowing us to do this—referring to the age where we already understand the nature of our actions.

Despite easily being able to identify prima facie duties, we still need to carefully examine the situation to accurately determine our actual duties. However, this can be difficult because Ross states that every moral situation is different; as a result, he cannot provide any guiding principle to properly weigh prima facie duties.

Conclusion

Although we can easily identify our prima facie duties, we still cannot resolve every problem with only a single principle; hence, we need to carefully analyze and consider the morally relevant factors of a particular situation to determine the actual duty.

Sources

  1. Ethics - Theories and Applications by Francis Evangelista and Napoleon Mabaquiao Jr. (Chapter 4)

Footnotes

  1. Will, in this context, pertains to intention or motive. ↩

  2. Rationality is valuable because it underlies morality. ↩

  3. The kingdom of ends pertains to the web of all rational beings that are tied by shared moral maxims. ↩

  4. Didn’t Aquinas said the same thing? (rationality is both in our nature and purpose as humans, that’s why we follow moral principles) ↩

  5. For example, the relationship between a child to a parent, wife to a husband, and friend to another friend. ↩

Graph View

Backlinks

  • No backlinks found