6. Kantian ethics 2015

“Kantian ethics is not a useful ethical theory.” Discuss.

SQA Higher Philosophy 2015

 

There are different ways of answering this question. You might give a quick overview of Kantian ethics to set the scene and then discuss the strengths and then the weaknesses (or vice versa) before summing up with a conclusion. However, this might lead to a somewhat fragmented essay that doesn’t ‘flow’. I have chosen to describe Kantian ethics and to use each piece of description as a peg on which to make some observation about a strength of the theory. I follow that by outlining some important criticisms. To help give the essay some structure the criticisms generally follow an order determined by the opening paragraphs but this isn’t adhered to rigidly. It would be possible to peg the weaknesses to the description and then follow with the strengths but since I knew that I was going to conclude by suggesting that, overall, Kantian ethics is not a useful theory it was better to have the criticisms leading into that conclusion. The conclusion doesn’t add anything new but does build on what has already been said earlier in the essay.

 

Exemplar answer.

1

Kantian ethics is deontological, i.e. it is based on duty. This is not a duty to others or to particular authorities it is the duty to follow the moral law within. This inner moral law is based on reason. The right thing to do is determined using reason and logic without making any reference to possible consequences. This idea of a moral duty fits with our intuition that morality is about obligations. From a human point of view if people are encouraged to focus on consequences they are likely to be influenced by whether or not they prefer a particular outcome. Consequences are also impossible to predict with certainty. Kantian ethics avoids both these problems. Its emphasis on reason also chimes with our idea that it is wrong to be guided by emotions. When we make a moral choice we should make it for the right reason.

The categorical imperative, the inner moral law, comes in a number of formulations but of the two most commonly cited the first is, ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of nature’. A maxim is your own personal rule, which may be a good rule or a bad rule. You can tell it is a good rule if it is possible to universalize the rule, i.e. if you can logically will it to be a rule for everyone. This is irrespective or whether, in practice, you can actually get everyone to follow the rule. This formulation captures another important feature of morality—moral rules should apply to everyone.  I may make personal choices such as to take more exercise but if something is a moral rule then it isn’t just a personal choice, it is something that everyone should do in those circumstances.
2 There is some flexibility built into the system for if trying to universalize the rule leads to a contradiction in conception, i.e. you cannot even imagine such a world for the attempt to universalize the maxim removes the conditions that are needed for the maxim to make sense, then you have a perfect duty not to perform the action. For Kant lying and making false promises would fall into this category. On the other hand, if universalizing the maxim led to a contradiction in the will you have an imperfect duty to do what you were trying to avoid. Kant’s example would be giving to charity—not giving to charity means willing others not to help you when you are in need, something you cannot rationally will, so you should help others to some extent some of the time.

The second formulation is, “So act as to treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means.” This certainly captures the idea that morality is about treating people with respect and not just using others.

Whilst it is easy to identify some significant strengths to Kantian ethics there are also some very significant weaknesses. It may be true that we cannot predict consequences with complete accuracy but in many areas of life where planning is required it is necessary to make reasonable predictions. Such planning is not irrational and so it is not obvious that a rational moral theory has to exclude a consideration of possible consequences.

If consequentialist theories have the problem that people might be skewed in the prediction of consequences due to wishful thinking Kantian ethics is little better for by carefully selecting the maxim it is possible to find a permissible course of action. If you wanted to drive faster than the speed limit then the maxim ‘break the law’ would lead to a contradiction in conception for if everyone did it the meaning of ‘law’ would disappear. However, ‘drive as fast as it is safe to do so’ leads to no such contradiction.
3

The first formulation also leads to counter-intuitive conclusions. Not only does it rule out lying to the pursuing murderer but it also requires you to avoid doing things that seem perfectly innocuous. Using your pvr to skip the adverts leads to a contradiction in conception for if everyone did it there would be no point in adverts as a way of funding programmes but it is difficult to see this as immoral. Rather, if everyone did it then the broadcasters would just have to find another way of funding their programming.

The emphasis on reason and ‘treating humanity’ seems to exclude animals from any kind of ethical consideration and this seems wrong. Morality is not just about how we treat humans.
4 Even taken on its own terms the categorical imperative leads to the wrong conclusion. ‘Punch someone in the face if you don’t like them’ would lead to a contradiction in willing. According to the system this means you have an imperfect duty. It cannot be right to say that when you don’t like someone you should avoid punching them in the face some of the time and to some extent!
5 The appeal of Kantian ethics depends on selecting particular examples that lead to the right answer. Every moral theory will look good when this is done. It is commendable to seek consistency but consistency does not mean never breaking a rule. It just means if it is OK for me to break the rule then it is OK for someone else to do so in the same circumstances. Kantian ethics does not have a monopoly on using reason. While it may remind us of some important aspects of morality consequentialist theories which combine the use of reason with experience are more likely to offer a better practical guide.

957 words

When you have limited time it is difficult to know what to include and what to leave out. I said very little about the second formulation but just enough in the first half for me to be able to include the criticism about it excluding appropriate consideration of non-human animals. There are plenty of other criticisms that I might have selected for example, torturing people to extract information in terrorist situations might plausibly pass the first formulation but fail the second. This would be a problem for Kant. When he gives his four examples (suicide, false promises, fostering your talents and helping the needy) it is clear that he expects both formulations to lead to the same answer. You don’t have to say everything you know—select the best bits for the essay you want to write.

  1. It is a good idea to start with the more general and basic concepts before getting into the detail.
  2. This paragraph is mainly description but I have made it evaluative by introducing it as an indication of flexibility. It is a necessary piece of description because I later want to include the criticism related to contradiction in willing. (See 4)
  3. Notice I just refer to the pursuing murderer. The examiner will know what this means and there is no time in this essay to tell the story. A weaker essay will use up a lot of the time/words on this. However, just mentioning it like this flags up that I know about the story. I get all the same credit but for very few words.
  4. See note 2
  5. It is important to answer the question. In this case the ‘question’ was an instruction to ‘discuss’ the quotation. Simply listing the strengths and weakness without coming to a conclusion would not be enough in an essay like this.