Can Kantian deontological ethics be successfully defended?
Kantian deontological ethics is an act centred theory that states that the only thing with
intrinsic value is a good will, which is a capacity to do the right thing by acting on moral
principles. It states that all other goods are conditional goods as they can be bad in the
hands of a bad person. But a good will is good because of its nature- its acting on
principle- rather than any actual or intended consequences it could achieve. In this
essay I will argue that Kantian deontological ethics cannot be defended. I will first show
Kant’s ethical theory, and some reasons why it is a good theory. I will then show
arguments against the ethical theory, and why it ultimately fails as a moral theory.
Kant appeals to our common sense understanding of morality. We recognise that what
we value are not things like happiness or power, as they are only good in the hands of a
good person. It is the good will- the capacity for making proper moral choices- that
matters. We recognise that a good will is valuable in itself, regardless of the actual
consequences, as it is the intention to do the right thing that matters, even if you never
achieve anything. We are able to capture this idea with the concept of duty. As we are
creatures with inclinations, we find that it is not easy being moral. We are tempted by
things and although we recognise that we have to do certain things, we have to push
ourselves to do them. He gives us an example of two shopkeepers, who both treat their
customers fairly. However, one of them does so purely out of self interest, as she does
not want to lose customers. The other shopkeeper does so out of recognition that
treating everyone fairly is the right thing to do. In this case, the first shopkeeper acts in
accordance with duty, but the second shopkeeper acts out of duty, so only the second
shopkeeper’s actions have moral worth. This is to say that it is not sufficient to do what
duty requires- the recognition of it as my duty must be my motive. Kant says that acting
out of duty is acting as the moral law requires and not to achieve any purpose. To do
one’s duty is to act as the moral law requires. He introduces the first formulation of the
categorical imperative, which is to act only according to the maxim which you can will to
become a universal law. Humans are rational beings because they understand moral
principles. There are two kinds of moral beings. God and other holy beings are bodiless
and so not subject to inclinations and automatically follow what reason tells them is the
right thing to do. Humans and other bodily beings are subject to desires that can tempt
us away from duty, and do not automatically do what reason recognises as right. So,
reason must command the will to do what is right. A command takes the form of an
imperative. There are two kinds of imperatives, hypothetical and categorical.
Hypothetical imperatives specify what you ought to do if you want to achieve said goal.
These are conditional. For example, you ought to run if you don’t want to miss the bus.
Categorical imperatives specify what you ought to do. They are unconditional. For
example, you ought to run. To determine whether you can will a maxim into being a
Kantian deontological ethics is an act centred theory that states that the only thing with
intrinsic value is a good will, which is a capacity to do the right thing by acting on moral
principles. It states that all other goods are conditional goods as they can be bad in the
hands of a bad person. But a good will is good because of its nature- its acting on
principle- rather than any actual or intended consequences it could achieve. In this
essay I will argue that Kantian deontological ethics cannot be defended. I will first show
Kant’s ethical theory, and some reasons why it is a good theory. I will then show
arguments against the ethical theory, and why it ultimately fails as a moral theory.
Kant appeals to our common sense understanding of morality. We recognise that what
we value are not things like happiness or power, as they are only good in the hands of a
good person. It is the good will- the capacity for making proper moral choices- that
matters. We recognise that a good will is valuable in itself, regardless of the actual
consequences, as it is the intention to do the right thing that matters, even if you never
achieve anything. We are able to capture this idea with the concept of duty. As we are
creatures with inclinations, we find that it is not easy being moral. We are tempted by
things and although we recognise that we have to do certain things, we have to push
ourselves to do them. He gives us an example of two shopkeepers, who both treat their
customers fairly. However, one of them does so purely out of self interest, as she does
not want to lose customers. The other shopkeeper does so out of recognition that
treating everyone fairly is the right thing to do. In this case, the first shopkeeper acts in
accordance with duty, but the second shopkeeper acts out of duty, so only the second
shopkeeper’s actions have moral worth. This is to say that it is not sufficient to do what
duty requires- the recognition of it as my duty must be my motive. Kant says that acting
out of duty is acting as the moral law requires and not to achieve any purpose. To do
one’s duty is to act as the moral law requires. He introduces the first formulation of the
categorical imperative, which is to act only according to the maxim which you can will to
become a universal law. Humans are rational beings because they understand moral
principles. There are two kinds of moral beings. God and other holy beings are bodiless
and so not subject to inclinations and automatically follow what reason tells them is the
right thing to do. Humans and other bodily beings are subject to desires that can tempt
us away from duty, and do not automatically do what reason recognises as right. So,
reason must command the will to do what is right. A command takes the form of an
imperative. There are two kinds of imperatives, hypothetical and categorical.
Hypothetical imperatives specify what you ought to do if you want to achieve said goal.
These are conditional. For example, you ought to run if you don’t want to miss the bus.
Categorical imperatives specify what you ought to do. They are unconditional. For
example, you ought to run. To determine whether you can will a maxim into being a
