Kant was, apparently, the most boring man to have ever lived. He wrote some good books, but he wrote them very badly. He is almost impossible to understand. He even wrote short guidebooks to his bigger books in the hope that his ideas would be more clear.
They’re not.
Still, Kant is one of the biggies. Here is my crude summary of his book Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. This summary is far less accurate than even the rest of my work. In an effort to make him comprehensible, I’ve changed him quite a lot. I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: don’t believe a word I say.
Groundwork
The only good thing is a good will. Intelligence, wit, courage and wealth can be abused. A good will cannot be abused. A good will shines like a jewel, even if bad luck foils the outcome. Imagine a girl wants to help a kitten but harms it instead. Everybody knows she did nothing wrong: she meant well. She had a good will. The consequences just do not matter.
Or, take another example, one I will use throughout this chapter. A young woman, Kathryn, wants to help at a soup kitchen on a weeknight. She volunteers there because it makes her happy to help other people. Kathryn also has a crush on a young man there. Many people take joy in being kind to others. They think that they are being good, and they congratulate themselves. I maintain that these people are simply selfish. They are not being good at all. That this woman is volunteering in a soup kitchen does not make her any less selfish than someone who takes no joy in these actions. Again, the intent matters, not the outcome.
Since we should not focus on consequences, we should focus on the reasons we act. The reasons (which I call ‘maxims’) are what make actions right or wrong, not the consequences. A maxim is a rule governing an action. Kathryn’s mother, for instance, might forbid her daughter to go out on a school night. If she does so out of love and respect for her child, her maxim might be ‘It is a duty to ensure one’s child gets a good education’.
Everything in nature works according to laws. Rational beings can act according to their conception of laws—that is, they can act according to principles. That is what having a will means. We can decide to act according to principles instead of being forced to act by natural laws like animals must. Practical reason is the faculty that allows us figure out what to do given those general principles.
It goes like this, then:
- There are universal laws. Practical reason figures out how we should act according to those laws.
- The will makes us do what we ought to
- This process of going from a universal law to an ‘ought’ is making imperatives.
Imperatives are these commands of reason. Imperatives are objective. Everyone agrees on them. However, sometimes our wills are weak, and sometimes we choose how to act out of selfishness or shortsightedness instead of doing what is rational. Nonetheless, it is clear what should have been done.
“Honour thy father and thy mother” may be a universal law (I will have more to say about this later). While deciding whether to go out and volunteer, Kathryn should deduce from this universal law that tonight she ought to stay home and do homework, as her mother insists. Kathryn sees that the commandment applies to her and that it applies tonight. She ought to stay home—this is the command of reason, or, in other words, the imperative.
There are two kinds of imperatives: categorical and hypothetical. Hypothetical imperatives are of this kind: if x then y. X is the goal. Y is the step to take. If you want a good job, go to school is an example of a hypothetical imperative. Categorical imperatives are ‘good in themselves’. They are the commands of the will in accordance with reason, which in turn is in accordance with the universal and objective laws. “Be good to your mother” is a categorical imperative. There’s something disgusting about saying “If you want a cookie, be good to your mother”. Everyone should always be good to their mothers.
If we could figure out exactly what would make us all happy, and if we could find the precise path to happiness, then we could create perfect hypothetical imperatives to follow. But when we try to do this, it is rather like the genie and the three wishes: wish for riches and you can have them, but the price will be the envy of your friends; wish for a long life, and you can have it—only it will be a long life of misery. It follows that these hypothetical imperatives cannot really command action at all. We might see the goal, but we cannot be certain which path will take us there.
A categorical imperative must be totally a priori. We must be very careful that we do not confuse hypothetical imperatives (like “If you don’t want to get in trouble later, don’t lie now”) with true categorical imperatives (like “Don’t lie”).
By definition, a categorical imperative applies to everyone and cannot be contradicted. If it cannot be contradicted and applies to everyone, there is only one categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
All duties can be derived from this law. Here are a few:
1. A man would like to kill himself because his life is miserable. His maxim is this: “I should kill myself when life is more unpleasant than pleasant”. This cannot be a law of nature, though. Pleasantness stimulates life. It cannot both stimulate and destroy life. That is a contradiction.
2. A man would like to borrow money and not repay it. His maxim will be: I can break promises. This cannot be a universal law: a promise like this would not be a promise. That is a contradiction.
3. A woman would like to play Nintendo instead of being a contributing member of society. Her maxim: I will neglect my natural gifts. This cannot happen because a rational being wills that her gifts are developed.
4. A rich man does not want to give to charity. His maxim is this: let everyone keep what they make and make the best of it. But this cannot be a universal law; if he were poor, he would want someone to help him.
Some actions cannot be thought of as universal laws without leading to contradictions. That does not stop anyone from wanting an exception now and then. We want to get away with something we know is wrong. When we do, there is a contradiction in our own wills: we want the law, but do not want it for ourselves.
All rational things are ends-in-themselves. Nobody should be used as a means or a stepping stone to some other goal. Irrational beings, like logs or stones may have value as means. That is why they are called ‘things’. Rational beings, though, have absolute worth. They are not things. They are rational beings.
Every person thinks of herself as an end and worthy of respect. And every other rational being thinks the exact same thing. This, then, is an objective principle, just like the categorical imperative. Nobody disagrees with it. Accordingly, we can come up with a corollary of the categorical imperative. I call it the practical imperative. It is this: So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only. In short, treat everyone as an end, never as a means. Do not ever use someone else as a stepping stone to your own advantage.
If we look back on other ethical philosophies, it it easy to see why they failed. They all thought that people were bound by laws. They did not see that the only laws that people are bound to are the ones they make themselves. Every person must choose to follow these objective, categorical laws. In other words, every person must be her own lawmaker. But, as the laws are derived from the categorical imperative, they will be objective. In other words, everyone will agree to the laws. This results in a systematic union of common, objective laws. It results in a kingdom of ends. Of course it is only an ideal, not reality.
Still, when a woman is a member of the kingdom of ends, she gives laws, and she is subject to them at the same time. She is a queen who chooses to be a subject… subject to the laws. This is what freedom of will allows. Freedom of will lets us be lawmakers and law-followers at the same time.