Ethics – Normative Ethics: Doing the Right Thing – Chapter 11 – The Kantian
Perspective: Fairness and Justice
Despite good results that may come from their actions, people who for example steal but
don’t get caught did wrong – or so we think. And the explanation of their immorality is
simple. What they did was unfair. Immanuel Kant thought this way. He remains perhaps
the most important voice of opposition to utilitarianism, and to its claim that the ultimate
point of morality is to improve well-being rather than do justice.
Consistency and Fairness
People are inconsistent to the extent that they treat similar cases differently. Our deep
opposition to unfairness, and the resulting importance we attach to consistency, are
revealed in two very popular tests of morality. Each takes the form of a question:
1. What if everyone did that?
2. How would you like it if I did that to you?
These basic moral challenges are designed to point out the inconsistency, and so the
immorality, of that person’s behavior. Consider the first question. It is basically the
following test: if disastrous results would occur if everyone did X, then X is immoral. The
test works easily for some cases, like cheating on your taxes. But the test fails for other
cases, like homosexual sex. The real problem for this test, apart from the fact that it
sometimes delivers mistaken verdicts, is that it makes the morality of an action depend
on how it is described. A very same action, like homosexual sex, could be both morally
wrong and morally acceptable, depending on how it is described. This test cannot do
what it was supposed to do – namely, identify which acts are immoral.
So what about the other test? This is a direct application to the golden rule, which tells
you to treat others as you would like to be treated. The golden rule is the classic test of
morality. Getting people to imagine what it would be like to switch places with their
intended victims is often a very effective way to convey a moral message. But the test is
unreliable, it cannot be correct. Kant himself identified the basic reason for this. The
golden rule make morality depend on a person’s desires. There are true believers out
there who are willing to suffer any harm in the name of their chosen cause. The golden
rule also fails to give us guidance on self-regarding actions (i.e., those that concern
only oneself). Because the golden rule sometimes gives the wrong answer to moral
questions, it cannot be the ultimate test of morality.
The Principle of Universalizability
His aim was to identify the ultimate principle of morality, one that would explain the
attraction of the two tests while correcting for their shortcomings. He thought he had
found it in the following standard, the principle of universalizability:
An act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable.
We need to understand two things: what a maxim is, and what it is for a maxim to be
universalizable. A maxim is simple the principle of action you give yourself when you
are about to do something. A maxim has two parts. It states what you are about to do,
and why you are about to do it. You dictate your own maxims. These are the rules you live
by. A maxim is nothing but a record of that intention and its underlying reason. Kant
thought that an action’s rightness depends on its maxim. And this leads directly to a very
important point. For Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to do with results. It has
everything to do with our intentions and reasons for action, those that are contained in
the principles we live by. This is a clear break with consequentialism. Even if the same
thing done by two people bring about identical results, one of the actions may be right
and the other may be wrong, since only one of the maxims may be morally acceptable.
This is something that act consequentialists cannot accept. It all depends, as we’ll see, on
,whether their maxims are universalizable. Many people agree with Kant’s view that the
morality of our actions depends not on their results, but on our maxims. Kant had a deep
reason for this: it is crucial that the morality of our actions depends entirely on what is
within our control. Results of our actions are often out of our hands and it is unfair to
assign credit or blame to things we can’t control.
We need a way to sort out the good maxims from the bad. That’s where universalizability
comes in. How can we tell whether a maxim is universalizable? Here is three-part test:
1. Formulate your maxim clearly – state your intent to do, and why you intend to do
it.
2. Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim.
3. Then ask: Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?
If the answer to the last question is yes, then the maxim is universalizable, and the action
is morally acceptable. This should strike a familiar note. The test of a maxim’s
universalizability clearly echoes the rule consequentialist’s test for optimific social rules,
and the what if everyone did that? test discussed above. Instead, Kant asks about
whether we could achieve our goals in that world (not if we are better off or something).
The importance for Kant is that this three-part test severs as the real way to determine
whether we are being consistent and fair. We are asking whether our aims could be
achieved if everyone shared them. If they can be, this shows that we are living by fair
rules. Were we making an exception to ourselves, our maxims wouldn’t be
universalizable.
(example of lying promise and why lying is immoral on page 165)
Morality and Rationality
Kant claimed that when we act on a maxim that can’t be universalized, we are
contradicting ourselves. We are being inconsistent. If follows that when we behave
immorally, we are reasoning badly. Mistaken assumptions and the inconsistent,
contradictory reasoning behind them, show that immoral conduct is irrational. But how
could Kant be right? Think about a hired assassin, who knows exactly what he’s doing.
How can we defend that he is acting irrational? Let’s call this the Amoralist’s Challenge.
The amoralist is someone who believes in right and wrong but doesn’t care about
morality at all. Obedience to moral rules is completely optional. If I am interested in
playing the game, then I’ll follow the rules. if not, then there is no reason to do so. The
Amoralist’s Challenge supports this view in the following way:
1. People have a reason to do something only if doing it will get them what they care
about.
2. Doing their moral duty sometimes fails to get people what they care about.
3. Therefore, people sometimes lack any reason to do their moral duty.
4. If people lack any reason to do their moral duty, then violating their moral duty
can be perfectly rational. Therefore, it can be perfectly rational for people to
violate their moral duty.
The success of this argument would undermine the thought that morality, all by itself,
supplies us with good reason to do as it says. It would also refute Kant’s claim that
immoral actions are always irrational. Kant thought that you act irrationally when you act
contrary to your strongest reasons. And he thought that when moral reasons apply to a
given situation, they are always the strongest reasons. Moral reasons are more important
than any other kind of consideration. Kant admits that the ruthless contract killer, like so
many other successful criminals, did, in a sense, reason perfectly well. He followed what
Kant called hypothetical imperatives. Specifically, these imperatives (commands) are
commands of reason. These commands of reason are precarious. Their existence depends
entirely on what I want. Many people think that all rational requirements are like this.
That’s precisely that the first premise of the Amoralist’s Challenge states: all of our
reasons for action depend on what we care about. Kant knew he had to challenge that
, first premise. In his jargon, what we need is to show how there can be such a thing as a
categorical imperative. Categorical imperatives are rational requirements that do not
depend on what we care about. Categorical imperatives command us to do things
whether we want to or not, with the result that if we ignore or disobey them, we are
acting contrary to reason (i.e., irrationally). Kant thought that all moral duties are
categorical imperatives. One lesson Kant took from his thoughts about the golden rule is
that the basic rules of morality do no depend on our desires. Kant thought that he was
defending common sense when he claimed that morality is, in this sense, universal – that
everyone who can reason must obey its commands. But can we really justify the claim
that it is rational for everyone to act morally? Kant thought he could do this.
Consider his Argument for the Irrationality of Immorality:
1. If you are rational, then you are consistent.
2. If you are consistent, then you obey the principle of universalizability.
3. If you obey the principle of universalizability, then you act morally.
4. Therefore, if you are rational, then you act morally.
5. Therefore, if you act immorally, then you are irrational.
Let’s take premise 1 and 2 for granted and focus on premise 3. This is the claim that
obedience to the principle of universalizability guarantees that our conduct is moral. Its
location in this argument tells us that the principle of universalizability is a crucial
element in Kant’s reply to the Amoralist’s Challenge. He needs to successfully defend the
principle in order to secure the claim that rational people are moral people, and immoral
people are irrational. Can he do it?
Assessing the Principle of Universalizability
Look at premise 3. It says that a maxim’s universalizability is a guarantee of an action’s
rightness. That is false. We can act on universalizable maxims and still do wrong. Some
things are clearly wrong to do (examples on page 169). But a man’s maxim could be
universalizable. It tells him to take whatever steps are necessary (including killing) in
order to preserve for example the beauty of his lawn. If everyone did this, his goal would
still be met. And so, if the principle of universalizability is true, this is no murder; it is
justifiable killing. That has to cast serious doubt on the principle. I think this shows that
the principle of universalizability fails to give us an adequate test of fairness, for we can
follow its advice while still singling out individuals or groups for discriminatory treatment.
There can be consistent Nazis, after all. It doesn’t follow that their policies are fair or
morally acceptable.
Integrity
While utilitarians think of benevolence (the steady commitment to do good for others) as
the central moral virtue, Kant touts integrity. Integrity requires that you resist making an
exception of yourself. It demands that you follow your principles even when doing so
comes at a real cost. Kant is surely right that there is something admirable about
integrity. But integrity is not the only moral virtue, and it isn’t even the most important
one. Integrity is worthy of our admiration only when it is tied to morally legitimate
principles. The problem, as we have seen, is that people of integrity may still be doing
wrong. It’s not that consistency is worthless. But it fails as a general test for the morality
of the principles we live by.
Kant on Absolute Moral Duties
Perspective: Fairness and Justice
Despite good results that may come from their actions, people who for example steal but
don’t get caught did wrong – or so we think. And the explanation of their immorality is
simple. What they did was unfair. Immanuel Kant thought this way. He remains perhaps
the most important voice of opposition to utilitarianism, and to its claim that the ultimate
point of morality is to improve well-being rather than do justice.
Consistency and Fairness
People are inconsistent to the extent that they treat similar cases differently. Our deep
opposition to unfairness, and the resulting importance we attach to consistency, are
revealed in two very popular tests of morality. Each takes the form of a question:
1. What if everyone did that?
2. How would you like it if I did that to you?
These basic moral challenges are designed to point out the inconsistency, and so the
immorality, of that person’s behavior. Consider the first question. It is basically the
following test: if disastrous results would occur if everyone did X, then X is immoral. The
test works easily for some cases, like cheating on your taxes. But the test fails for other
cases, like homosexual sex. The real problem for this test, apart from the fact that it
sometimes delivers mistaken verdicts, is that it makes the morality of an action depend
on how it is described. A very same action, like homosexual sex, could be both morally
wrong and morally acceptable, depending on how it is described. This test cannot do
what it was supposed to do – namely, identify which acts are immoral.
So what about the other test? This is a direct application to the golden rule, which tells
you to treat others as you would like to be treated. The golden rule is the classic test of
morality. Getting people to imagine what it would be like to switch places with their
intended victims is often a very effective way to convey a moral message. But the test is
unreliable, it cannot be correct. Kant himself identified the basic reason for this. The
golden rule make morality depend on a person’s desires. There are true believers out
there who are willing to suffer any harm in the name of their chosen cause. The golden
rule also fails to give us guidance on self-regarding actions (i.e., those that concern
only oneself). Because the golden rule sometimes gives the wrong answer to moral
questions, it cannot be the ultimate test of morality.
The Principle of Universalizability
His aim was to identify the ultimate principle of morality, one that would explain the
attraction of the two tests while correcting for their shortcomings. He thought he had
found it in the following standard, the principle of universalizability:
An act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable.
We need to understand two things: what a maxim is, and what it is for a maxim to be
universalizable. A maxim is simple the principle of action you give yourself when you
are about to do something. A maxim has two parts. It states what you are about to do,
and why you are about to do it. You dictate your own maxims. These are the rules you live
by. A maxim is nothing but a record of that intention and its underlying reason. Kant
thought that an action’s rightness depends on its maxim. And this leads directly to a very
important point. For Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to do with results. It has
everything to do with our intentions and reasons for action, those that are contained in
the principles we live by. This is a clear break with consequentialism. Even if the same
thing done by two people bring about identical results, one of the actions may be right
and the other may be wrong, since only one of the maxims may be morally acceptable.
This is something that act consequentialists cannot accept. It all depends, as we’ll see, on
,whether their maxims are universalizable. Many people agree with Kant’s view that the
morality of our actions depends not on their results, but on our maxims. Kant had a deep
reason for this: it is crucial that the morality of our actions depends entirely on what is
within our control. Results of our actions are often out of our hands and it is unfair to
assign credit or blame to things we can’t control.
We need a way to sort out the good maxims from the bad. That’s where universalizability
comes in. How can we tell whether a maxim is universalizable? Here is three-part test:
1. Formulate your maxim clearly – state your intent to do, and why you intend to do
it.
2. Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim.
3. Then ask: Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?
If the answer to the last question is yes, then the maxim is universalizable, and the action
is morally acceptable. This should strike a familiar note. The test of a maxim’s
universalizability clearly echoes the rule consequentialist’s test for optimific social rules,
and the what if everyone did that? test discussed above. Instead, Kant asks about
whether we could achieve our goals in that world (not if we are better off or something).
The importance for Kant is that this three-part test severs as the real way to determine
whether we are being consistent and fair. We are asking whether our aims could be
achieved if everyone shared them. If they can be, this shows that we are living by fair
rules. Were we making an exception to ourselves, our maxims wouldn’t be
universalizable.
(example of lying promise and why lying is immoral on page 165)
Morality and Rationality
Kant claimed that when we act on a maxim that can’t be universalized, we are
contradicting ourselves. We are being inconsistent. If follows that when we behave
immorally, we are reasoning badly. Mistaken assumptions and the inconsistent,
contradictory reasoning behind them, show that immoral conduct is irrational. But how
could Kant be right? Think about a hired assassin, who knows exactly what he’s doing.
How can we defend that he is acting irrational? Let’s call this the Amoralist’s Challenge.
The amoralist is someone who believes in right and wrong but doesn’t care about
morality at all. Obedience to moral rules is completely optional. If I am interested in
playing the game, then I’ll follow the rules. if not, then there is no reason to do so. The
Amoralist’s Challenge supports this view in the following way:
1. People have a reason to do something only if doing it will get them what they care
about.
2. Doing their moral duty sometimes fails to get people what they care about.
3. Therefore, people sometimes lack any reason to do their moral duty.
4. If people lack any reason to do their moral duty, then violating their moral duty
can be perfectly rational. Therefore, it can be perfectly rational for people to
violate their moral duty.
The success of this argument would undermine the thought that morality, all by itself,
supplies us with good reason to do as it says. It would also refute Kant’s claim that
immoral actions are always irrational. Kant thought that you act irrationally when you act
contrary to your strongest reasons. And he thought that when moral reasons apply to a
given situation, they are always the strongest reasons. Moral reasons are more important
than any other kind of consideration. Kant admits that the ruthless contract killer, like so
many other successful criminals, did, in a sense, reason perfectly well. He followed what
Kant called hypothetical imperatives. Specifically, these imperatives (commands) are
commands of reason. These commands of reason are precarious. Their existence depends
entirely on what I want. Many people think that all rational requirements are like this.
That’s precisely that the first premise of the Amoralist’s Challenge states: all of our
reasons for action depend on what we care about. Kant knew he had to challenge that
, first premise. In his jargon, what we need is to show how there can be such a thing as a
categorical imperative. Categorical imperatives are rational requirements that do not
depend on what we care about. Categorical imperatives command us to do things
whether we want to or not, with the result that if we ignore or disobey them, we are
acting contrary to reason (i.e., irrationally). Kant thought that all moral duties are
categorical imperatives. One lesson Kant took from his thoughts about the golden rule is
that the basic rules of morality do no depend on our desires. Kant thought that he was
defending common sense when he claimed that morality is, in this sense, universal – that
everyone who can reason must obey its commands. But can we really justify the claim
that it is rational for everyone to act morally? Kant thought he could do this.
Consider his Argument for the Irrationality of Immorality:
1. If you are rational, then you are consistent.
2. If you are consistent, then you obey the principle of universalizability.
3. If you obey the principle of universalizability, then you act morally.
4. Therefore, if you are rational, then you act morally.
5. Therefore, if you act immorally, then you are irrational.
Let’s take premise 1 and 2 for granted and focus on premise 3. This is the claim that
obedience to the principle of universalizability guarantees that our conduct is moral. Its
location in this argument tells us that the principle of universalizability is a crucial
element in Kant’s reply to the Amoralist’s Challenge. He needs to successfully defend the
principle in order to secure the claim that rational people are moral people, and immoral
people are irrational. Can he do it?
Assessing the Principle of Universalizability
Look at premise 3. It says that a maxim’s universalizability is a guarantee of an action’s
rightness. That is false. We can act on universalizable maxims and still do wrong. Some
things are clearly wrong to do (examples on page 169). But a man’s maxim could be
universalizable. It tells him to take whatever steps are necessary (including killing) in
order to preserve for example the beauty of his lawn. If everyone did this, his goal would
still be met. And so, if the principle of universalizability is true, this is no murder; it is
justifiable killing. That has to cast serious doubt on the principle. I think this shows that
the principle of universalizability fails to give us an adequate test of fairness, for we can
follow its advice while still singling out individuals or groups for discriminatory treatment.
There can be consistent Nazis, after all. It doesn’t follow that their policies are fair or
morally acceptable.
Integrity
While utilitarians think of benevolence (the steady commitment to do good for others) as
the central moral virtue, Kant touts integrity. Integrity requires that you resist making an
exception of yourself. It demands that you follow your principles even when doing so
comes at a real cost. Kant is surely right that there is something admirable about
integrity. But integrity is not the only moral virtue, and it isn’t even the most important
one. Integrity is worthy of our admiration only when it is tied to morally legitimate
principles. The problem, as we have seen, is that people of integrity may still be doing
wrong. It’s not that consistency is worthless. But it fails as a general test for the morality
of the principles we live by.
Kant on Absolute Moral Duties
