You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Kantian ethics is a deontological (duty-based) moral theory developed by the German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), chiefly in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and the Critique of Practical Reason (1788). It is one of the most influential ethical systems in Western philosophy and, within AQA A-Level Religious Studies (7062), it is the named partner to Bentham's utilitarianism in the specification's explicit comparison of a deontological and a teleological approach to moral decision-making and their consistency with religious morality. Kant's core claim is that morality is grounded not in consequences, feelings or divine commands but in reason alone: the morally right action is the one performed out of duty in accordance with universal rational principles that any rational agent could legislate for all.
Kant's project is, in part, a response to the same Enlightenment situation as Bentham's, but his conclusion is the opposite. Where Bentham looked to consequences and pleasure, Kant was convinced that genuine morality must be unconditional and binding on all rational beings as such, quite independently of what anyone happens to desire or of how things turn out. A morality that depended on consequences would, he thought, be merely hypothetical — good advice for getting what you want — and so could never deliver the categorical "you must" that the moral "ought" plainly carries. The whole apparatus of the good will, duty and the categorical imperative is built to secure that unconditional, rational and universal character.
A word on Kant's method helps explain why his ethics looks the way it does. Kant was the great philosopher of a priori reasoning — knowledge that does not depend on experience — and he held that the supreme principle of morality, like the basic principles of mathematics, must be established by reason alone, not read off from observation of what people happen to do or desire. Empirical facts about human psychology (the kind Bentham started from) can only ever yield hypothetical, contingent rules; a categorical and necessary moral law must have a purely rational source. This is why Kant brackets feeling, consequence and even God when establishing the content of duty: the moral law is something every rational agent can, in principle, work out for themselves by reason, which is also what makes morality genuinely autonomous. Grasping this explains both the theory's grandeur — morality as the achievement of reason and freedom — and its characteristic abstraction.
Key term: Kantian ethics is a deontological theory holding that moral actions are those done from duty in accordance with the categorical imperative — universal, unconditional rational principles discoverable by reason alone, independent of consequences or inclination.
Kant opens the Groundwork with one of the most famous sentences in ethics: nothing in the world can be conceived as good without qualification except a good will. Intelligence, courage, wealth and even happiness can all be put to bad use; only the good will — the will that chooses to do what is right because it is right — is good in every circumstance. Its goodness does not depend on what it achieves: "even if … this will should wholly lack the power to accomplish its purpose … it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake."
Key term: A good will is the will to act out of duty — to do the right thing precisely because it is right, not for any reward, inclination or expected consequence. For Kant it is the only thing good without qualification.
Acting from a good will means acting from duty. Kant sharpens this with a crucial threefold distinction about motivation:
| Motivation | Description | Moral worth |
|---|---|---|
| From duty | Doing the right act because it is one's duty (the shopkeeper who is honest because honesty is right) | Has genuine moral worth |
| In accordance with duty | Doing the right act, but from self-interest or inclination (the shopkeeper who is honest only to protect his reputation) | No moral worth, though not wrong |
| Contrary to duty | Doing the wrong act | Morally wrong |
Only actions done from duty have moral worth. This yields Kant's most counter-intuitive claim: the person who helps others from natural sympathy or warm feeling, however admirable, is acting from inclination rather than duty, and so their action — though entirely correct — lacks distinctively moral worth. The agent whose action shines morally is the one who feels no inclination to help, perhaps is even cold by temperament, yet helps anyway because duty requires it. Kant's point is not that compassion is bad, but that moral worth must lie in the will's commitment to duty, since inclinations are contingent and not under our rational control. This is among the most heavily criticised features of the theory, and we return to it below.
It is important not to misread Kant here as recommending that we suppress our good feelings. His claim is about the test of moral worth, not a prescription for the emotional life: he is identifying what it is about an action that makes it specifically moral, and his answer is that it must be the will's determination by duty rather than by feeling, because only then is the action's rightness assured rather than accidental. A naturally kind person whose kindness happens to align with duty does nothing wrong; Kant simply observes that we cannot tell, from the kind act alone, whether such a person would still act rightly when kindness and duty came apart — and it is that steadfast commitment to duty, visible most clearly when inclination is absent, that constitutes moral worth.
An imperative is a command of reason about what one ought to do. Kant distinguishes two kinds. A hypothetical imperative commands an action as a means to some desired end: "if you want X, do Y." Its force depends entirely on your wanting the end; abandon the desire and the command lapses. A categorical imperative, by contrast, commands an action as objectively necessary in itself, unconditionally, without reference to any further end. Moral obligations, Kant argues, are categorical: "do not lie" does not mean "do not lie if you want to be trusted," but simply "do not lie," binding on all rational agents whatever they happen to want.
Key term: A hypothetical imperative is a conditional command — "if you want X, do Y" — whose authority depends on desiring the end. A categorical imperative is an unconditional command binding on all rational beings regardless of their desires.
| Feature | Hypothetical imperative | Categorical imperative |
|---|---|---|
| Conditional on a desire? | Yes | No |
| Applies to whom? | Only those with the relevant goal | All rational beings, unconditionally |
| Example | "If you want to be healthy, exercise" | "Do not make a lying promise" |
| Moral status | Prudential advice | Genuine moral obligation |
The supreme principle of morality is the categorical imperative, which Kant expresses in several formulations. He regarded these as different ways of stating one and the same fundamental principle, each illuminating a different facet of it. Three are essential for the exam.
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
A maxim is the personal principle on which you act ("I will make a promise I do not intend to keep whenever it gets me out of difficulty"). To test it, universalise it: imagine it as a law that everyone follows. If the universalised maxim either (a) cannot even be conceived without contradiction, or (b) cannot be willed without contradicting something you must rationally will, the maxim is impermissible.
Key term: A maxim is the subjective principle or rule on which a person actually acts; the test of its morality is whether it can be consistently universalised.
This distinction between perfect duties (whose violation is a contradiction in conception — e.g. never lie, never break a promise) and imperfect duties (whose neglect is a contradiction in the will — e.g. help others, develop your talents) is worth knowing and deploying.
"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means."
Rational beings have an intrinsic worth — dignity, not mere price — because they are ends in themselves, capable of setting their own ends and legislating moral law. To treat someone merely as a means is to use them as a tool while bypassing their rational agency and autonomy. Kant does not forbid using people as means in the ordinary sense — the customer uses the shopkeeper as a means to buy bread — but forbids treating them merely as means, without regard for their own consent and rational ends.
Key term: To treat someone as a mere means is to use them purely as an instrument for one's own purposes while disregarding their dignity, autonomy and rational agency. Persons must always also be treated as ends in themselves.
Deception and coercion are the paradigm violations: a lie treats its target merely as a means because it manipulates their reason — they cannot rationally consent to a deception they do not know is happening. This formulation is widely regarded as Kant's most attractive, supplying a powerful philosophical foundation for human rights and the prohibition of slavery, manipulation and exploitation.
"Act according to the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends."
Combine the first two formulations and you arrive at the idea of a kingdom of ends: a systematic union of all rational beings under common moral laws that they each legislate and to which they are each subject, every member being treated as an end. Kant asks us to act only on maxims fit to be laws in such an ideal moral community. This expresses the autonomy at the heart of his ethics — moral agents are not subject to laws imposed from outside (by God, society or desire) but bind themselves by laws their own reason legislates — and it underlines the social and egalitarian dimension of the theory.
The notion of autonomy is so central that it deserves its own treatment. Kant contrasts autonomy (self-legislation: the will giving the moral law to itself through reason) with heteronomy (being governed by something other than one's own rational will — by desire, by social pressure, by the command of an external authority, or by the pursuit of reward). For Kant, only autonomous action has genuine moral worth, because only then is the will determined by reason itself rather than by some alien influence. This has a striking implication for religious ethics: an action done merely because God commands it, or merely out of hope of heaven, would be heteronomous and so lack moral worth. Kant does not thereby reject God — as the postulates show — but he insists that the authority of the moral law comes from reason, not from divine command. This is one of the sharpest points of contact, and friction, between Kantian and religious ethics, and it is precisely the territory of the ethics-and-religion dialogue.
Key term: Autonomy is the self-governance of the rational will, which legislates the moral law for itself; heteronomy is determination of the will by anything external to reason (desire, reward, external authority). Only autonomous action has moral worth for Kant.
Although Kant grounds morality in reason rather than religion, his ethics nonetheless makes room for God. In the Critique of Practical Reason he argues that three things, while not provable by theoretical reason, must be postulated — assumed — if morality is to make sense. These are the postulates of practical reason.
Key term: The postulates of practical reason are three assumptions Kant holds we must make for morality to be coherent: freedom (we are free, since "ought implies can"); immortality (the soul persists, since perfecting the will is an endless task); and God (whose existence guarantees the eventual union of virtue and happiness in the summum bonum).
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.