Kant’s Moral Philosophy: Goodwill, Duty, and Imperative
Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason
Objective reality, the metaphysical questions: What is its nature and what features it has? This inappropriate use of reason leads to faulty reasoning.
- Cosmology: For Kant, the regulative idea of reason leads to directing the investigation as if the universe were a unit. When this idea becomes a regulatory order that is called “world”, it is full of contradictions.
- Theology: The regulative idea of reason leads us to believe that after the material and psychic reality, there is a transcendent reality that is the foundational condition of everything else, and we call it “God”. However, when this regulative idea becomes an object, it leads to the exploration of the proofs of the existence of God.
- Physico-teleological arguments: From world order, we conclude the existence of a God. However, Kant says that this step is illegitimate because a phenomenal issue cannot lead us to a transcendent and noumenal reality.
- Cosmological arguments: They are arguments that focus on noting that the world is contingent, so its existence necessitates that there be a necessary being, which is identified with God. This step is illegitimate.
- Ontological Argument: From the concept of existence, existence cannot be proven. Here, two planes are confused: the logical and the ontological.
In conclusion, we cannot set a priori synthetic judgments about the soul, the world, or God, because they are ideas of reason that transcend the world of phenomena. Kant does not deny their existence; he only limits himself to pointing out that we cannot prove that these ideas exist because they are not phenomena.
Goodwill (Kant)
Kant states that the only thing that can be considered good without restriction is goodwill. To determine whether an act is good, we must attend not to its consequences but to the intention that guides it.
This concept of goodwill has been criticized, as it is considered that Kant develops a moral of intentions and ignores the consequences. However, for Kant, goodwill involves the use of all means within the scope of oneself to achieve a particular purpose. Kant is aware that one can do everything possible to achieve an end and not make it, but morality is independent of reaching that end. Goodwill is what determines that an action has been good, and not its consequences.
Responsibility (Kant)
For Kant, “to act according to goodwill” or “to act out of duty” are equivalent concepts. It is precisely the concept of duty that will be expected to consider Kantian ethics as deontological ethics.
- To act out of duty is the opposite of acting out of interests. To act out of duty is to act in a selfless manner, although this action might cause negative consequences. The actions of a person who acts for their benefit, looking for a return, cannot be judged from a moral standpoint.
- Acting out of duty is not the same as acting according to duty. Acting out of duty means the duty is the sole motivation of the action, without thinking of the results: our aim is to fulfill the duty itself. The opposite is to be driven by interests. There may be instances in which an action done out of duty is indistinguishable from an action motivated by interests. Although in both cases the action is the same, for Kant, no actions should exist under an interest or an external motivation to yourself. Kant believes that actions that are merely in conformity with duty are not moral.
Categorical Imperative (Kant)
Kant said that acting out of duty means acting out of respect for moral law. For Kant, you can set an infinite number of rules of conduct, but they can all be summarized in one he calls the “categorical imperative”:
- It is imperative because the duty constrains the will: the duty is imposed.
- It is categorical, meaning that action, to be moral, cannot be regarded as a means, but as an end in itself. Otherwise, it would be a hypothetical imperative.
The categorical imperative is a mandate for action that is prescribed as necessary and good in itself, regardless of the consequences. The actions that are executed by the categorical imperative are qualified as good “in itself”. This imperative is the one that explains the actions of goodwill.
To act out of duty means to follow the dictates of the categorical imperative. Kant claims that there is only one imperative that can be formulated in different ways. Two of these formulations are:
- “Act so that your action may become a universal standard.” This imperative indicates how moral principles have to be: they must be universal principles. The universal rule of conduct guides an action so as to determine whether an action is good. Goodness disclaims any material and concrete content of the action. The goodness depends on the form of any such action. The good deed is one that can be universalized.
- “So you should treat humanity, both in yourself and in others, always as an end in itself and never as a means.” This formulation of the categorical imperative highlights the fundamental difference between humans and the rest of nature: their dignity. Dignity is defined as the fundamental quality of any person as an end in itself and cannot be used indiscriminately as a means to other things. For Kant, an action is moral if it is a consideration of the dignity of other people. Human beings cannot be subject to an external universal law. This means that the moral law, the categorical imperative, originates within the human being. The duty implicit in any moral action is self-imposed and determined by the will. The human will is, therefore, autonomous. This contrasts Kant’s autonomous ethics with heteronomous ethics, based on a principle external to man himself, such as happiness or God.