Immanuel Kant was a great philosopher of his time and continues to be an influential figure in the realm of theology and epistemology. Additionally, he is one of the latter philosophers of the Enlightment. He challenged the structure of reason by expanding the traditional thoughts on metaphysics – not only by the formulation of moral values and philosophy, but also by presenting educated arguments on topics such as history and law, but excluded the subject of religion. Kant is noted for many theories and philosophies, and one must gain an understanding of his ideas in order to fully appreciate his suppositions.
First, one must understand Kant’s general criticism of previous ethical theories. Prior to the works of Kant, ethical theories were based on the teachings of Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Socrates. Kant is noted for his criticism on various ethical topics, and his theory of duty is a prominent example of his criticism. There are several definitions of the word “duty”, and it is commonly thought of as one’s moral obligation. However, Kant provided a much deeper rationalization on the topic of duty. He explained that it is not enough for one to simply act as duty demands, but that one’s motivation for doing one’s duty is just because it is one’s duty (Immanuel Kant, 2004). He argues that duty in and of itself should not be an act influenced by outside motivation, but that duty is an obligation that one performs because they ought to – not because of any personal benefit or interest.
In relation to his views on ethical duty, autonomy and heteronomy are commonly referenced terms when discussing the theories and philosophies of Kant. Let us first examine the basic definitions of these terms. Autonomy refers to self-independence or self-government. Heteronomy is defined as an action that is influenced by a force outside the individual. In other words, autonomy is acting alone without influence, while heteronomy is acting with the influence of someone or something. Thinking in terms of autonomy results in an individual creating their own moral values, often without regard or concern to other individuals. On the contrary, heteronymous thinkers decline any circumstance that results from an ethical choice due to the ability to shift the blame to an outside influence. Kant reflected an autonomous position throughout his philosophical teachings and strictly rejected heteronymous thinking. He believed that “heteronomy is the determination of the will by external and non-rational forces and transforms the imperatives of morality into hypothetical ones (Egea-Kuehne, 2008).” Kant maintained that heteronomy upheld no moral value and determined autonomy is the ultimate goal of moral education. Pursuant to this fact, Kant created a perception geared towards autonomy that essentially paved the way for the idea of transcendental freedom. This concept is known as the categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative is divided into three formulations, or maxims. The first of these states, “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” This maxim was then divided into two parts – perfect duty and imperfect duty. According to his reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them. In other words, this means perfect duties are those which are blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required duty for a human being (Categorical Imperative 2009). The second part of this maxim is imperfect duty. This means a duty to act only by maxims that we would desire to be universalized. Unlike perfect duties, you do not achieve blame should you not complete it but you still receive praise for it should you complete it, as you have gone beyond the basic duties and taken duty upon yourself (Categorical Imperative 2009). An example of this is a soldier who is killed in action. A soldier cannot be blamed for not completing his or her mission because they died fighting for their country, however the soldier should be praised for going above and beyond their basic duties as a citizen of the United States.
The second maxim states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.” This formulation reflects on Kant’s theory of perfect duty, because it implies that humans should not capitalize on ourselves or anyone else as a “means to an end”. It emphasizes his theory of imperfect duty by describing that we should cultivate and nourish the ends of ourselves and everyone else (Rachels 2003).
The third and final maxim states, “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” To understand this maxim, we need to define what Kant meant by “universal kingdom of ends.” In short, this implies that all people should consider themselves both members and heads. Kant theorized that humans should abide by formulations if and only if they comply with the kingdom of ends. Therefore, we have a perfect duty to avoid maxims that result in unachievable states when we try to universalize them. This leads to a reference to imperfect duty as well, by emphasizing that we avoid maxims which lead to undesired circumstances (Categorical Imperative 2009).
We must understand adherence to the categorical imperative in order to produce an autonomous ethical choice. Kant recognized that humans are not without error, and the decisions we make will effect others as well as ourselves. In addition to the three maxims, Kant stated, “I ought at best to base my life and action on the rejection of non-universalizable maxims and so lead a morally worthy life whose acts are done out of duty; but even if I fail to do this I ought at least make sure to do any acts that would be indispensible if I had such a morally worthy maxim (Rachels 2003).”
I can’t say that I agree or disagree on Kant’s theory of ethical decision making. Kant’s second maxim of the categorical imperative basically implies to treat people the way you would want to be treated, and I concur with that logic. We as humans should always treat people with dignity and respect, regardless of whether or not the act is reciprocated. Kant also is noted for his stance on lying. Lying in and of iteself is considered to be morally wrong, and Kant emphasizes his position by stating that lying is always wrong, even if it is done in order to save a life. He believed that lying could never be willed into universal law and is therefore never permissible (Categorical Imperative 2009). An example of his theory is lying to a murderer in order to save a victim, like those who saved Jews from the Gestapo by concealing them in their home and lying to the Nazis when questioned about the Jews’ whereabouts. While Kant states that lying in such a scenario violates the categorical imperative, he explains that simply evading the truth is not lying, and one could choose to say nothing at all. I disagree with this theory because I personally believe that lying in order to save someone’s life is morally acceptable, as allowing the person to die would be a much greater consequence to live with.
