Are there universal maxims/principles which bind us? Immanuel Kant believed so and Cicero before him. Kant argued that a framework of duty applied to us all. But is there such an absolute set of standards?
Are there universal maxims/principles which bind us? Immanuel Kant believed so and Cicero before him. Kant argued that a framework of duty applied to us all. But is there such an absolute set of standards?
Kant argued that an action is morally right only if the actor is motivated by a "good will" (see Rousseau also). If the action is not so motivated then it is wrong. It is not a matter of the individual weighing up consequences. This is a very different view to that of Bethamite utilitarianism or consequentialism.
"Good will" for Kant means action done for rational principled reasons - from a sense of duty. This informs and serves as a categorical imperative for all ethical judgements rather than hypothetical or conditional circumstances. Self-interest, loyalty, sympathy, altruism are all praise worthy but true morality transcends individual feelings, likes/dislikes, abilities and opportunities. Two categorical imperatives are notable
A maxim or rule governing an action which cannot be (consistently) universalised is unacceptable. it must be(capable of being universalised. If you cannot will that everyone follow the same rule, the rule is not a moral one.
Consider whether the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." - satisfies such criteria.
ImperativeAct by treating people, your own person and others, always as an end in itself, never merely a means to an end. Respect for people is emphasised. There is a radical distinction between things and people who are not inanimate things - quarter-pounders with cheese, electricity, trees or sperm whales (do we detect some problems here.......? The question of sentience arises).
Kant's view is that people, unlike things, ought never to be merely used. Such principle has important implications for business activity. The value of employees, customers, suppliers is never merely instrumental. An employee for instance may be hired because their labour, abilities, skills are useful, but he/she must concommitantly always be treated with respect as a person.
Such propositions underpin Kantian duty-based ethics (deontology - from the Greek). Morality is judged on the actions and motives/will of agents and their application of inputs/principled maxims rather than outcomes/goals achieved (consequences). There is no explicit, direct appeal to consequences in differentiating what is right/ wrong.
The motive for action is the central tenet compared with utilitarianism where motives are incidental (only matter where helpful in securing the greatest happiness of the greatest number).
A Kantian view would recognises that despite best efforts, uncontrollables do happen. Nevertheless Kantians would not allow individuals or groups to be sacrificed for collective self-interest. A utilitarian would evaluate consequences and maximise utility. But the Kantian would be accused of rigidity in making no allowances for extreme circumstances.
Are all lies wrongful - even the "polite lie "? Is it not OK - even an ethical duty - to tell lies to an evil-doer and so divert their wrongfulness? Clearly such maxims as "always be truthful" or "always keep your promises" are too simple.
A utilitarian weights up consequences for all actions. If alternatives on calculation produce the same utility value, they are equally good. Conflicting duties, however, call on me to take logically or physically incompatible action. In crude Kantian terms acting on one duty but not on the other is itself unethical - a breach of duty. Thus rather than unwaveringly standing on principle we take steps to qualify our maxims to avoid unacceptable outcomes.
Deontological ethics is strongest where utilitarianism is weakest. In an ethics of duty, the ends can never justify the means. Individual human rights are acknowledged and inviolable. We need not consider the satisfaction of harmful desires in our moral deliberations.
