I will argue that Kant’s Deontological ethics is not a convincing account of what makes
actions morally right or wrong. I will discuss and reject the argument that deontology is a
rational theory which is credible because it eradicates biases and doesn’t allow for
favouritism. I will instead conclude by arguing that the lack of clear rules (for what we should
do) in the theory, as well as the ignorance of consequences and other valuable motivations,
makes Kant’s deontological ethics an implausible moral theory.
Kant’s moral theory is deontological, meaning that it relies on the idea that “duty is the
necessity of acting out of reverence for the law” as Kant believed that morality is based on
reason and duty alone. Moreover, deontology is an act-centred, normative theory which
states that consequences are irrelevant because it is an individual person’s intentions behind
an act that counts. In order to determine what actions are virtuous, Kant argues that we must
rely on the Good Will as our source of moral worth - acting out of duty for duty’s sake, rather
than acting out of desire or for a specific consequence. Furthermore, Kant believed, like
animals, humans are driven by desire and instinct, but what distinguishes us is that we can
also reason. Following this reason is to act morally, whereas following our desires is to act
immorally and out of self-interest. This conflict between reason and desires allows for the
concept of duty to exist. As imperfectly rational beings, we each have a duty to overcome
our desires and follow the moral law, which is summarised in Kant’s categorical imperative.
Kant believed that morality is experienced as an imperative - it tells us what we ought to do.
However, unlike hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional on personal desire or
motive, categorical imperatives are unconditional and absolute so can be defined as
commands you must follow, regardless of your desires or goals. For example, whilst a
hypothetical imperative would follow the formula “If you want X, then do Y”, a categorical
imperative commands that “you ought to do Y”. According to Kant, a genuine moral
imperative will be categorical, meaning it will follow the concept that, as a rational being, we
have an imperative to be logically consistent. There are three forms of the categorical
imperative, but it is the first one, the universal law formulation, that links into the core
principle of Kant's ethics - the idea that when we perform a particular moral action, we must
be able to consistently assert that everyone should act in that way too. Kant argues that any
moral law should be universal, and you can tell if a maxim (rule or law) is universal if it
passes the categorical imperative. He claims that we ought to “act in conformity with the
maxim and the maxim only, that you can will at the same time a universal law.”. Simply put,
you should only follow rules that you could wish everyone would follow. Acting on a rule that
does not apply to this is morally wrong. For example, you should follow the maxim “don’t
murder people” because even if you had the desire to murder someone, you would not want
everybody in the world to be allowed to murder each other. From this, we can see that Kant’s
theory promotes replacing preferences with purely universal terms. Some may argue that the
fact that his theory is objective (not based on an agent’s specific view point) and universal
(applies to all people) makes it more convincing because it does not allow for an agent to
have a particular bias towards another person, meaning that it allows for little discrimination
against age, race or class. Therefore, the universality of deontology suggests that humans
should be treated equally under the same ethical and justice system.
Nonetheless, I believe that whilst deontology seems logical and retains some important
elements of human rights, it is not a credible theory because the tests used to see whether a
maxim passes the categorical imperative are not completely secure and do not give us clear
actions morally right or wrong. I will discuss and reject the argument that deontology is a
rational theory which is credible because it eradicates biases and doesn’t allow for
favouritism. I will instead conclude by arguing that the lack of clear rules (for what we should
do) in the theory, as well as the ignorance of consequences and other valuable motivations,
makes Kant’s deontological ethics an implausible moral theory.
Kant’s moral theory is deontological, meaning that it relies on the idea that “duty is the
necessity of acting out of reverence for the law” as Kant believed that morality is based on
reason and duty alone. Moreover, deontology is an act-centred, normative theory which
states that consequences are irrelevant because it is an individual person’s intentions behind
an act that counts. In order to determine what actions are virtuous, Kant argues that we must
rely on the Good Will as our source of moral worth - acting out of duty for duty’s sake, rather
than acting out of desire or for a specific consequence. Furthermore, Kant believed, like
animals, humans are driven by desire and instinct, but what distinguishes us is that we can
also reason. Following this reason is to act morally, whereas following our desires is to act
immorally and out of self-interest. This conflict between reason and desires allows for the
concept of duty to exist. As imperfectly rational beings, we each have a duty to overcome
our desires and follow the moral law, which is summarised in Kant’s categorical imperative.
Kant believed that morality is experienced as an imperative - it tells us what we ought to do.
However, unlike hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional on personal desire or
motive, categorical imperatives are unconditional and absolute so can be defined as
commands you must follow, regardless of your desires or goals. For example, whilst a
hypothetical imperative would follow the formula “If you want X, then do Y”, a categorical
imperative commands that “you ought to do Y”. According to Kant, a genuine moral
imperative will be categorical, meaning it will follow the concept that, as a rational being, we
have an imperative to be logically consistent. There are three forms of the categorical
imperative, but it is the first one, the universal law formulation, that links into the core
principle of Kant's ethics - the idea that when we perform a particular moral action, we must
be able to consistently assert that everyone should act in that way too. Kant argues that any
moral law should be universal, and you can tell if a maxim (rule or law) is universal if it
passes the categorical imperative. He claims that we ought to “act in conformity with the
maxim and the maxim only, that you can will at the same time a universal law.”. Simply put,
you should only follow rules that you could wish everyone would follow. Acting on a rule that
does not apply to this is morally wrong. For example, you should follow the maxim “don’t
murder people” because even if you had the desire to murder someone, you would not want
everybody in the world to be allowed to murder each other. From this, we can see that Kant’s
theory promotes replacing preferences with purely universal terms. Some may argue that the
fact that his theory is objective (not based on an agent’s specific view point) and universal
(applies to all people) makes it more convincing because it does not allow for an agent to
have a particular bias towards another person, meaning that it allows for little discrimination
against age, race or class. Therefore, the universality of deontology suggests that humans
should be treated equally under the same ethical and justice system.
Nonetheless, I believe that whilst deontology seems logical and retains some important
elements of human rights, it is not a credible theory because the tests used to see whether a
maxim passes the categorical imperative are not completely secure and do not give us clear
