On why Kant is wrong. By Kaylan Morzaria

On why Kant is wrong By Kaylan Morzaria (L6S2)

In this essay, I shall argue that Kant’s deontological ethical theories are not strong methods of deciding if an action is morally right or wrong. I will present several arguments for my view and consider objections against it. However, firstly I would like to start by defining a few things and explaining Kantian ethics.

Deontological theories that claim we have moral duties to follow certain rules and that these rules are what determine whether a person’s actions are morally right or wrong. A categorical imperative is a rule you must follow irrespective of your desires and motives. Additionally, I would like to define “the good will” as follows: good will is the will for acting for the sake of duty, which according to Kant is the source of moral worth. Kant believes that we have a duty as rational agents to follow the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative says to only act according to maxims that can be applied universally, which is crucial as it is the first formulation of it.

Kant describes several ways to determine whether a particular maxim passes the categorical imperative. If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, then we as rational humans have a perfect duty not to follow it. If a maxim leads to a contradiction, we have an imperfect duty to follow it. Furthermore, Kant says that acting for the sake of these duties – the good will – is the only thing that

60

is good without qualification. My two arguments to support my case are that the categorical imperative can justify two contradictory courses of action and so does not provide clear guidance for actions, and secondly, because there are other valuable motivations for action besides the good will.

In Kantian ethics, as we know, if I a maxim fails one of the two tests it cannot be passed. Kant would say that the maxim “it is perfectly fine to steal what is not yours” is a contradiction in conception. If the maxim was followed universally, then it would be morally okay for people to take things from others; however, if it was always acceptable to take things from others in this way, nobody would be able to claim ownership of anything because someone else would be entitled to take that thing from the “owner”. One cannot steal something from someone if they don’t own it in the first place. Kant would therefore say “it’s perfectly fine to steal what is not yours” leads to a contradiction in conception and that we have a perfect duty to never steal. In this case there is a sort of loophole in that can be used. Instead of following the maxim “it’s perfectly okay to steal”, I could instead claim my maxim is “it’s perfectly okay to steal if your name is Kaylan and

61

it’s Wednesday”. This makes it so there is no contradiction in conception in making this rule universal. This shows how it is possible to avoid a perfect duty and justify any course of action by modifying the maxim you are acting on.

Kant would argue in response that the extra conditions –such as my name and which day of the week it is – are irrelevant to this situation. Further, these conditions are not a part of my choice: I don’t choose which day of the week it is, and I don’t choose my name. Adding the extra conditions in this way is cheating because it ignores the true maxim you are acting on in favour of some false made up one. Kant would argue that the categorical imperative is concerned with the real maxim I am acting on and not some arbitrary one I just made up. If we apply the categorical imperative honestly to our true maxim, it would lead to a contradiction in conception. Kant would therefore argue that correct application of the categorical imperative always ends in a perfect duty never to steal. In response to this I am going to argue that there are sometimes cases where extra conditions added to the maxim are not irrelevant and considered cheating. For example, if we take a person who is starving and has no other way of getting food, they could perhaps act on the maxim that “it is okay to steal if their lives depend on it”. This differs from the previous example, which added irrelevant details such as the person's name and the date. Here, the individual is not dishonestly adding arbitrary conditions to his maxim to justify a selfish and immoral

62

act. Moreover, the maxim "it's OK to steal if your life depends on it" is clearly applicable to Kant’s terms, as it does not lead to a contradiction in conception. Private property would still make sense in a world where everyone followed this rule. It is possible to justify two completely contradictory actions using the categorical imperative, depending on which maxim is being used: “it is perfectly okay to steal” or “it is perfectly okay to steal if your life depends on it”. This illustrates how the categorical imperative does not provide clear and coherent rules for moral actions as it can justify two completely opposite courses of action. This maxim can be universalised without contradiction.

Another problem with Kant’s deontological ethical theory is that applying the theory too strictly leads to morally undesirable consequences. The theory itself is not concerned enough with the consequence of the action. For example, like stealing, Kant would say that “it’s perfectly okay to lie” leads to a contradiction in conception. This is because the purpose of a lie is to make the other person believe you are telling the truth, but if everyone always told lies then nobody would believe each other. Therefore, according to Kant, we have a perfect duty not to lie. However, there are situations where telling a lie seems to be the morally right action, such as white lies. If a friend asks whether you like her wedding dress, but you don’t, it is simply good manners to say “yes” even if it isn’t true. A more extreme example would be lying to save a life. If, for example, you

63

let someone who is running from a crazed murderer hide in your garden or shed, the categorical imperative would require you tell the murderer that his victim is hiding in the shed or the garden when asked. Telling the truth in these situations appears to be the morally wrong thing to do, therefore showing that the categorical imperative is a flawed ethical theory.

Kant may respond to this argument by saying that we still have a moral duty to follow the categorical imperative even when this leads to undesirable consequences such as unhappiness or even loss of life. Kant would argue that, although it may seem morally acceptable to tell a white lie in order to make someone happy, consequences such as happiness are not always good without qualification. For example, happiness derived from making others unhappy or from torturing isn’t good. In contrast, the good will itself is the only thing good without qualification. Therefore, we should always choose our actions in accordance with the categorical imperative. In opposition to this, Kant’s heavy focus on the good will being the only good without qualification doesn’t consider the moral value of other motivations to do good. According to Kant a son who spends time with his mother because he recognizes that it is his duty to do so if someone who is worthy of moral praise. In contrast, a son who spends time with his mother because he enjoys spending time with his mother is not worthy of moral praise; and in another example a bit more extreme, someone who visits their sick mother and spends time

64

with them because there is genuine love and care there, is not morally praiseworthy. However, someone who goes to visit their sick mother purely out of the sake of “duty” and not because they want to is deemed the morally correct person. Surely it is better and more morally right to spend time with your mother because you enjoy spending time with her, and similarly, surely it is better and more morally right to go spend time with your sick mother because you genuinely care about her then solely out of duty. These examples show the unfairness of Kant’s ethics in failing to consider other morally valuable motivations aside from “the good will”.

To conclude, Kant’s deontological ethical theory is a flawed ethical theory for the two reasons given. These are that the categorical imperative cannot provide clear guidance for moral action. The second is that the strictness of the theory leads to absurd outcomes due to it ignoring the moral significance of other motivations for doing an action. Therefore, Kantian ethics are flawed and is not a very convincing account of how to judge if an action is morally correct or incorrect.

65