Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy: Ethics and Reason
Immanuel Kant’s Moral Philosophy
Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg, formerly Prussia, in 1724. He belongs to the Enlightenment. He was an advocate of the American War of Independence and the French Revolution, despite being regarded as a pacifist and against all exclusionary patriotism. His seminal works include “Critique of Pure Reason,” “Critique of Practical Reason,” and “Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason.”
Theoretical and Practical Reason
Kant’s ethical theory is called moral formalism because it only sets the standard, compared to material ethics that only see content. Formal Kantian ethics has been exposed in two books: “Critique of Practical Reason” and “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.” Kant distinguishes between theoretical reason, which refers to the knowledge of an object, and practical reason, which deals with moral knowledge and human behavior.
Formalism of Kant’s Moral Ethics
Before Kant, ethics had been material. For Kant, an event will be ethically good if we approach the supreme good and vice versa. Depending on the content, it advocates that there is a greater good that would be our ultimate goal, and once established, ethical rules or precepts are set.
Critique of Kant to Material Ethics:
According to Kant, material ethics have several shortcomings:
- First, they are empirical (extracted from experience), such as Epicurean ethics, where pleasure is the highest good of man because experience shows that as children, we seek pleasure and avoid pain.
- Second, precepts or imperatives are hypothetical (not the same meaning for each individual).
- Finally, material ethics are heteronomous; the moral subject receives the law from outside of reason.
Formal Ethics
A formal ethics, contrary to material ethics, does not look for any purpose. It must be a universal and rational ethic, not empirical but a priori (independent of experience). It must not be hypothetical in its imperatives (it must have categorical imperatives, absolute), and finally, it should not be heteronomous (it must be autonomous), meaning the moral subject should receive the law from within reason. A formal ethic must be empty of content.
The Formal Ethics of Duty
This shows us how we should act, which, according to Kant, is to act out of duty, submitting to a law not for its utility but out of respect for it. Kant distinguishes between three types of actions:
- Contrary to duty
- According to duty (law)
- Out of duty (moral)
The last two have moral value. Let us take Kant’s example: a merchant does not charge excessive prices. To avoid losing customers, this would be an action according to the law because it is looking for a particular purpose. However, if he does not charge excessively high prices out of duty, he is not looking for a particular purpose.
Categorical Imperative
Kant gives different formulations 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.” This formulation clearly shows its formal and universal nature because it does not give us any specific standard but only the form the norm must have.
- “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” Again, the formal character is universal, and the author adds the idea of order (humans).
Postulates of Practical Reason
A postulate is something unprovable but supposedly necessary for the existence of morality itself. The first postulate is freedom, which we possess for the existence of morality. But our virtue is rarely rewarded in our life, quite the opposite of what is necessary to reward virtue in another life. The second postulate, the immortality of the soul, states that if we were not carried out ethically in this life, we must act as if there would be another. Finally, the third postulate is the existence of God. To truly be compensated for right action, there has to be something, a being absolutely right to ensure a “trial” for our behavior. The existence of a moral order leads to the existence of God. The postulates are requirements of practical reason, but we do not have true knowledge, only rational faith. The assumptions do not allow us to say “I know” but if they credibly say “I love you.”
Critical Thinking
Kantian ethics goes against the senses and belittles the philosopher. We can only rely on reason; sympathy or hatred should not be expected to make a moral act. Russell criticized this, saying that it is simply a philosophical formulation of the moral rule. Moreover, the material ethics of values of Scheler, trying to overcome Kant’s formal ethics, believes that Kant made the mistake of confusing right and value. It proposes an ethics of value. Another criticism of Kantian ethics is the character that seeks to universalize all the rules, but any law or rule is specific: e.g., “do not kill” (it may be self-defense), for “no lies” is clearer. In the twentieth century, formal Kantian ethics has its continuation in the discourse ethics of Apel and Habermas. For them, a moral standard is acceptable when all the participants approve the rule.