Jurisprudence (3) Kant
Government is justified because it is required by our nature as free and rational beings
- Hobbes started from liberal premises ; address to all why they should submit to absolute sovereign ; but people are
incapable of alienating decision making power in the way Hobbes requires them do (self-preservation)
- Kant argue that we enter the contract because you are free.
- Kant held that every rational being had both an innate right to freedom and a duty to enter into a civil condition
governed by a social contract in order to realize and preserve that freedom.
• People enter into social contract because we are free.
• Government is justified because it is required by our nature as free and rational beings
• As a matter of right, each person is entitled to be his own own master, where one is not subordinated to the choice
of any other particular person.
Whereas Hobbes argued the people enter into the social contact with each other as a means of escape from the state of
nature and for self-preservation reasons, Kant, on the other hand argues that we enter into the social contract because
we are free.
Kant’s on Moral Philosophy
Kant argues that certain things must be true for us to experience anything about the world. We use the transcendental
argument to discover presuppositions about our experiences by pure reason, which is safe from the the fallibility of
experience. For instance, we say that the book is on the table because it is presupposed that we have the concept of
space to make the initial statement. This does not prove the existence of space itself, but it tells us what we believe or
not believe, given what we believe.
- Before Kant, philosophers tried to explain things with the aid of experience.
• The period of Enlightenment is based on the premise that we can think about the world through observation and
our experiences. Much of Enlightenment thought took the same view: observation is key
• Empiricism was revolutionary, but Kant was struck by its serious limitations
a. Experience is fallible (‘is this a dagger which I see before me?’, capable of being wrong)
b. Experience is variable/subjective (Trump: ‘I’m doing a great job!’)
- Is there anything we can say about the world without relying on experience?
• Yes! The very possibility of experience depends on certain presuppositions
• Kant argues that we cannot build a perception of the world through experiences.
- We don’t have to rely on experiences, certain things must be true for us to experience anything at the first place —
presuppositions.
• Unless certain things were true, we won’t be able to experience anything about the world.
• We discover these presuppositions by pure reason, which safe from fallibility of experience
- The transcendental argument that tries to uncover the presuppositions of experiences or intuitions we have (certain
concepts ‘transcend’ experience/intuition)
• Example : To say ‘the book is on the table’ I must have the concept of space.
- We start from experience (book on table); we go back to its necessary suppositions (space)
- We go forth to general claims (there is space).
- This does not prove that there is space, but it tells us what we must believe (there’s space) or what we cannot
believe (no space), given what we believe.
- This shows the necessary presuppositions of a point of view of the world — what you believe is given what
you believe
FROM PURE REASON TO FREE WILL
If a being has reason, that being is free, free from the dictatorship of experience. If we have no reason, we would just
merely be responding to external stimuli. Hence, we are free when we are governed by reason.
- Kant uses transcendental argument to uncover necessary presuppositions of our beliefs about ourselves, the role of
the state etc.
• We always start from things we believe, and uncover the necessary presuppositions and uses these to revise our
beliefs.
• Descartes : What if there was a devil deceiving you on everything? There is reason to doubt everything
• We know that our beliefs could be true or false, and we can differentiate true from false via reason. This
proposition is true transcendentally = independently of experience
Page 1 of 30
, • A being that takes itself to have thoughts must take itself to have reason
- We can tell ‘is’ from ‘seems’ (we know our beliefs could be true or false)
- But we couldn’t tell true from false if we lacked reason
- This proposition is true transcendentally = independently of experience
- If we have reason, we are free.
• The content of what we think is not caused by what the environment is giving us.
• If we don’t have reason, we are just responding to stimuli from external world.
- If a being has reason, that being is free (reason → freedom)
• If all our thoughts had an external cause, we would be simply acted upon
- The content of what we think is not caused by what the environment is giving us.
- If we don’t have reason, we are just responding to stimuli from external world.
- This is what freedom means, freedom from the dictatorship of experience. We can have thoughts that go against
our experience; because we can intend to have these thoughts or we have reason.
• ‘Reason must think of itself as free’ (of experience; desires; ext. effects)
- When we are governed by reason, we are free.
• Freedom of will = the ability to choose ends + means to achieve them
FROM FREE WILL TO MORALITY
The essence of freedom lies in the ability to choose principles to guide our actions. A good principle is one that
connects desires to action. This hypothetical imperative explains daily actions, but not morality. Moral actions are good
independently of our desires. Morality must be based on principle that’s good to have whatever our desires — ‘the
categorical imperative’ — the principle of having a good will. Morality can only be based on the quality of the good
will that is motivating that action.
- How does a free will work? Free is not the same as arbitrary
• It is not free is a sense that we are able to do whatever you want.
• The essence of freedom is the ability to choose principles for yourself (maxims or laws).
• Making yourself free is tying yourself down to laws/guiding principles and these are binding.
• The same goes to autonomy = auto + nomos
- Autonomy means making laws for yourself — Kant thinks that we are free when we are self-governing.
- What principles to choose for yourself?
• What makes a good principle? Usually, that it connects desire to action.
- Ex. ‘If I want to make an omelette, I’d better break some eggs’.The principle is hypothetical; it relies on my
desire for an omelette
• Kant notices that the hypothetical imperative explains our daily actions, but it doesn’t explain morality.
- We don’t say we shouldn’t kill other people because we don’t feel like killing other people. Morality doesn’t
work like this.
- After all, we take moral action to be good independently of our desires.
• We keep our promises even though we don’t feel like it.
- The distinguishing factor of moral actions is that it is a good thing to do regardless of our desires. How do we explain
this consistently with our freedom?
• It must be based on principle that’s good to have whatever our desires
• Is there a categorically good principle? Yes ‘categorical imperative’
- This is the principle of having a good will.
• If we argue that a person of good will is always doing morally right things, the consequence of our actions
doesn’t matter, the crucial part is that you have the good quality of will.
- All other principles liable to abuse
• Example : ‘be courageous’ can support ‘I found the courage to steal her laptop’ ; ‘be charitable’ can support
‘I gave to charity to divert suspicion’, etc
• Goodness of will is the only safe ground for calling an action morally good.
• So: morality of action turns on its guiding principles, not its consequences. When we assess certain
decisions, we should look at the quality of the will that is motivating these decisions, not the consequences.
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
The essence of the having a good will is that we don’t make a special case for ourselves.
- Kant gives 3 formulations of this categorical imperative : If you want to have a good will imagine I am the law
maker, and I am going to imagine that everybody accepts the law, do people like the result? If yes, apply the law.
(i) ‘Act only on a maxim that you can will to become universal law’ — What if everyone thought like you?
Page 2 of 30
, (ii) ‘Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature’ — govern
yourself as if your policy would govern the world
(iii) ‘Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as a end and never
merely as a means’ — act on policies that treat humans as intrinsically valuable
- Kant never says “Don’t do X because X is wrong. Instead, don’t do X if X is not allowed by a principle you’d want
everyone to act on
• Examples: breach of a promise; murder; theft; bans on sexist speech
• Note : Kant is not trying to prove that morality exists. He is trying to uncover the necessary presuppositions of
moral claims as we understand them.
• [Critique] : what if someone just doesn’t fancy the categorical imperative?
CRITIQUE : PARFIT ON ‘KANTIANISM’
Kant claims that when we asses the moral worth of an action, we focus on its guiding principles.
Parfit argues that the moral worth of an action does not depend on guiding principles. For instance, the act of an
individual with self-inflated ego rescuing a drowning baby cannot be said to be morally wrong. The correct
characterisation is that the individual’s action is morally right, but the rightness does not depend on the individual’s
reasons for saving the baby.
- Kant’s guiding principle of morality is that nobody is special.
• Kant says that is the only kind of policy that can qualify as identifying a good will no matter what they desire.
• To have a good will means that you don’t make a special case for yourself.
• The practical consequence of this is that when we assess the moral worth of an action, we focus on its guiding
policies.
• Ask why did that person do that, what policy were they guided by rather than asking the consequences of that
action.
- Is this true? Parfit does not agree.
• Maybe the morally worth of an act doesn’t always rely on guiding policies.
• For example, I rescued the baby that was drowning because I have an inflated ego, does this mean that my action
is morally wrong? It doesnt seem so, the proper thing to say is that my action is morally right, but its rightness
does not turn on my reasons of why I saved the baby (the rightness does not depend on guiding policy). It is right
because it is important to save the person when I don’t impose danger to myself.
• Kant suggests a similar distinction when he claims that, to fulfil some duties of virtue, we must not only act
rightly, but also act with the right motive.
• In this case, the egoist may never fulfil this duties of virtue, since he may never have the right motive.
- Note that we also have duties of justice, which we can fulfil by doing what is morally required, whatever our
motive.
- When the egoist saves the child, he is acting on this egoistic maxim, which he could not rationally will to be
universal.
• Hence, Kant’s formula mistakenly implies that when this man saves the child, he is not doing his duty, but acting
wrongly
Page 3 of 30
Government is justified because it is required by our nature as free and rational beings
- Hobbes started from liberal premises ; address to all why they should submit to absolute sovereign ; but people are
incapable of alienating decision making power in the way Hobbes requires them do (self-preservation)
- Kant argue that we enter the contract because you are free.
- Kant held that every rational being had both an innate right to freedom and a duty to enter into a civil condition
governed by a social contract in order to realize and preserve that freedom.
• People enter into social contract because we are free.
• Government is justified because it is required by our nature as free and rational beings
• As a matter of right, each person is entitled to be his own own master, where one is not subordinated to the choice
of any other particular person.
Whereas Hobbes argued the people enter into the social contact with each other as a means of escape from the state of
nature and for self-preservation reasons, Kant, on the other hand argues that we enter into the social contract because
we are free.
Kant’s on Moral Philosophy
Kant argues that certain things must be true for us to experience anything about the world. We use the transcendental
argument to discover presuppositions about our experiences by pure reason, which is safe from the the fallibility of
experience. For instance, we say that the book is on the table because it is presupposed that we have the concept of
space to make the initial statement. This does not prove the existence of space itself, but it tells us what we believe or
not believe, given what we believe.
- Before Kant, philosophers tried to explain things with the aid of experience.
• The period of Enlightenment is based on the premise that we can think about the world through observation and
our experiences. Much of Enlightenment thought took the same view: observation is key
• Empiricism was revolutionary, but Kant was struck by its serious limitations
a. Experience is fallible (‘is this a dagger which I see before me?’, capable of being wrong)
b. Experience is variable/subjective (Trump: ‘I’m doing a great job!’)
- Is there anything we can say about the world without relying on experience?
• Yes! The very possibility of experience depends on certain presuppositions
• Kant argues that we cannot build a perception of the world through experiences.
- We don’t have to rely on experiences, certain things must be true for us to experience anything at the first place —
presuppositions.
• Unless certain things were true, we won’t be able to experience anything about the world.
• We discover these presuppositions by pure reason, which safe from fallibility of experience
- The transcendental argument that tries to uncover the presuppositions of experiences or intuitions we have (certain
concepts ‘transcend’ experience/intuition)
• Example : To say ‘the book is on the table’ I must have the concept of space.
- We start from experience (book on table); we go back to its necessary suppositions (space)
- We go forth to general claims (there is space).
- This does not prove that there is space, but it tells us what we must believe (there’s space) or what we cannot
believe (no space), given what we believe.
- This shows the necessary presuppositions of a point of view of the world — what you believe is given what
you believe
FROM PURE REASON TO FREE WILL
If a being has reason, that being is free, free from the dictatorship of experience. If we have no reason, we would just
merely be responding to external stimuli. Hence, we are free when we are governed by reason.
- Kant uses transcendental argument to uncover necessary presuppositions of our beliefs about ourselves, the role of
the state etc.
• We always start from things we believe, and uncover the necessary presuppositions and uses these to revise our
beliefs.
• Descartes : What if there was a devil deceiving you on everything? There is reason to doubt everything
• We know that our beliefs could be true or false, and we can differentiate true from false via reason. This
proposition is true transcendentally = independently of experience
Page 1 of 30
, • A being that takes itself to have thoughts must take itself to have reason
- We can tell ‘is’ from ‘seems’ (we know our beliefs could be true or false)
- But we couldn’t tell true from false if we lacked reason
- This proposition is true transcendentally = independently of experience
- If we have reason, we are free.
• The content of what we think is not caused by what the environment is giving us.
• If we don’t have reason, we are just responding to stimuli from external world.
- If a being has reason, that being is free (reason → freedom)
• If all our thoughts had an external cause, we would be simply acted upon
- The content of what we think is not caused by what the environment is giving us.
- If we don’t have reason, we are just responding to stimuli from external world.
- This is what freedom means, freedom from the dictatorship of experience. We can have thoughts that go against
our experience; because we can intend to have these thoughts or we have reason.
• ‘Reason must think of itself as free’ (of experience; desires; ext. effects)
- When we are governed by reason, we are free.
• Freedom of will = the ability to choose ends + means to achieve them
FROM FREE WILL TO MORALITY
The essence of freedom lies in the ability to choose principles to guide our actions. A good principle is one that
connects desires to action. This hypothetical imperative explains daily actions, but not morality. Moral actions are good
independently of our desires. Morality must be based on principle that’s good to have whatever our desires — ‘the
categorical imperative’ — the principle of having a good will. Morality can only be based on the quality of the good
will that is motivating that action.
- How does a free will work? Free is not the same as arbitrary
• It is not free is a sense that we are able to do whatever you want.
• The essence of freedom is the ability to choose principles for yourself (maxims or laws).
• Making yourself free is tying yourself down to laws/guiding principles and these are binding.
• The same goes to autonomy = auto + nomos
- Autonomy means making laws for yourself — Kant thinks that we are free when we are self-governing.
- What principles to choose for yourself?
• What makes a good principle? Usually, that it connects desire to action.
- Ex. ‘If I want to make an omelette, I’d better break some eggs’.The principle is hypothetical; it relies on my
desire for an omelette
• Kant notices that the hypothetical imperative explains our daily actions, but it doesn’t explain morality.
- We don’t say we shouldn’t kill other people because we don’t feel like killing other people. Morality doesn’t
work like this.
- After all, we take moral action to be good independently of our desires.
• We keep our promises even though we don’t feel like it.
- The distinguishing factor of moral actions is that it is a good thing to do regardless of our desires. How do we explain
this consistently with our freedom?
• It must be based on principle that’s good to have whatever our desires
• Is there a categorically good principle? Yes ‘categorical imperative’
- This is the principle of having a good will.
• If we argue that a person of good will is always doing morally right things, the consequence of our actions
doesn’t matter, the crucial part is that you have the good quality of will.
- All other principles liable to abuse
• Example : ‘be courageous’ can support ‘I found the courage to steal her laptop’ ; ‘be charitable’ can support
‘I gave to charity to divert suspicion’, etc
• Goodness of will is the only safe ground for calling an action morally good.
• So: morality of action turns on its guiding principles, not its consequences. When we assess certain
decisions, we should look at the quality of the will that is motivating these decisions, not the consequences.
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
The essence of the having a good will is that we don’t make a special case for ourselves.
- Kant gives 3 formulations of this categorical imperative : If you want to have a good will imagine I am the law
maker, and I am going to imagine that everybody accepts the law, do people like the result? If yes, apply the law.
(i) ‘Act only on a maxim that you can will to become universal law’ — What if everyone thought like you?
Page 2 of 30
, (ii) ‘Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature’ — govern
yourself as if your policy would govern the world
(iii) ‘Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as a end and never
merely as a means’ — act on policies that treat humans as intrinsically valuable
- Kant never says “Don’t do X because X is wrong. Instead, don’t do X if X is not allowed by a principle you’d want
everyone to act on
• Examples: breach of a promise; murder; theft; bans on sexist speech
• Note : Kant is not trying to prove that morality exists. He is trying to uncover the necessary presuppositions of
moral claims as we understand them.
• [Critique] : what if someone just doesn’t fancy the categorical imperative?
CRITIQUE : PARFIT ON ‘KANTIANISM’
Kant claims that when we asses the moral worth of an action, we focus on its guiding principles.
Parfit argues that the moral worth of an action does not depend on guiding principles. For instance, the act of an
individual with self-inflated ego rescuing a drowning baby cannot be said to be morally wrong. The correct
characterisation is that the individual’s action is morally right, but the rightness does not depend on the individual’s
reasons for saving the baby.
- Kant’s guiding principle of morality is that nobody is special.
• Kant says that is the only kind of policy that can qualify as identifying a good will no matter what they desire.
• To have a good will means that you don’t make a special case for yourself.
• The practical consequence of this is that when we assess the moral worth of an action, we focus on its guiding
policies.
• Ask why did that person do that, what policy were they guided by rather than asking the consequences of that
action.
- Is this true? Parfit does not agree.
• Maybe the morally worth of an act doesn’t always rely on guiding policies.
• For example, I rescued the baby that was drowning because I have an inflated ego, does this mean that my action
is morally wrong? It doesnt seem so, the proper thing to say is that my action is morally right, but its rightness
does not turn on my reasons of why I saved the baby (the rightness does not depend on guiding policy). It is right
because it is important to save the person when I don’t impose danger to myself.
• Kant suggests a similar distinction when he claims that, to fulfil some duties of virtue, we must not only act
rightly, but also act with the right motive.
• In this case, the egoist may never fulfil this duties of virtue, since he may never have the right motive.
- Note that we also have duties of justice, which we can fulfil by doing what is morally required, whatever our
motive.
- When the egoist saves the child, he is acting on this egoistic maxim, which he could not rationally will to be
universal.
• Hence, Kant’s formula mistakenly implies that when this man saves the child, he is not doing his duty, but acting
wrongly
Page 3 of 30
