The Ethical Theory of Kantianism
Kant says that we determine internally what is wrong or right. Through autonomy (self law), you use yourself as a guide. The individual determines her/his own behavior, rather than someone else dictating how you are supposed to behave or act. I agree with this whole-heartedly. In the Simpsons essay by James Lawler, Flanders is used as an example of a person who is not autonomous. Flanders behaves morally, but not because he believes it is right or appropriate for him. Flanders only acts the way he does because he feels “God” wants him to.
Flanders is externally motivated, and behaves the way he does because he thinks he will be punished (by God) if he doesn’t, not because he knows it is the right behavior. When in doubt, Flanders consults the Bible or the Ten Commandments instead of thinking for himself. Flanders really hasn’t chosen his behavior freely, and is behaving for the wrong reasons.
Doing the right thing for the right reason is a very important issue to a Kantian. Kantian morality is not consequential, which means that actions are based on the motive/will of the person, and not on the consequences that come from the behavior. For Kant, there is only one reason to do the right thing, and that is just because it is right!
In other words, a person’s actions are based on their intentions.
For example, if I make someone a sandwich just because I want to do something nice for that person (not as a bribe), and that person gets sick from eating the sandwich, my actions are still good because I meant well (my intentions were good). “The only thing that is good without qualification is good will.” This means that people should do good things, not as a means to an end, but just because it is good in and of itself.
But what exactly is good? According to Kant, there are two types of good: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic good means that it is good in and of itself. As I mentioned in the quote above, good will is the only intrinsic good. Everything else besides goodness is not intrinsically good because there is the potential to use them (i.e. intelligence, money, power�) for a bad purpose.
Kant used the terms “will” and “motivation” interchangeably. Will means that we have the ability to choose good, based on reason. I like Kant’s theory because he doesn’t merely look at people’s actions (or the consequences of such actions) but also at their reasons for doing them. So you could spend your life doing the “right” things and still not be moral, because you are doing them for the wrong reasons.
The will, led by reason, forms two imperatives. Imperatives are basically the “shoulds” in your life. Hypothetical imperatives are dependent upon the context of the situation. They are relative and contingent. Hypothetical imperatives are formed to bring about a certain result or consequence, and have nothing to do with morality. “Since we are not in complete control of the consequences of our actions, we should not be praised or blamed for them.”
The second type of imperative is the categorical imperative. Categorical imperatives are not dependent on the context of a situation. They are universal (can be applied in all situations). In making a decision, if one cannot universalize the behavior (can everyone do it and still be right?) without contradiction, then it should not be done.
For example, Winston is thinking about stealing a candy bar. He then attempts to see if the behavior can still be right if it is universalized, so he ponders what would happen if everyone just went around stealing candy bars whenever they felt like it. Winston thinks that if everyone just stole things, even just one candy bar, chaos would ensue. For instance, businesses would lose a lot of money, and would have to increase their prices as a result. So Winston decides he should not steal after all, based on the above reasoning.
There is only one categorical imperative, and that is to “act as to treat humanityâÂ?¦in every case as and end withal, never as a means only” (quote by Immanuel Kant). In other words, every person has intrinsic good, and we must treat them that way. Instead of using people and treating them like instruments or tools, people should be respected.
According to Kant, morality is NEVER relative. It is absolute. It is either right all of the time or not right at all. Likewise, if something is wrong, it is always wrong in every situation, no matter what. I think morality might be a little more flexible than that. Kant uses lying as an example. Kant feels that lying is always wrong, even if you lie in order to save someone’s life! I disagree. I don’t necessarily believe that morality is always relative, I don’t believe it is 100% absolute either. “There is nothing which has always and everywhere been regarded as morally good by all men (W.T. Stace).”
I think Kant contradicts himself when he says that lying to save someone else’s life is wrong, since he looks only at the act of lying and not at the motivation (good will!) or reasons for doing it (this is what his whole theory is about!). However, Kant says that doing what’s good in itself is not always good for you, and that doing the right thing sometimes hurts people. This is true, but if it is wrong to lie to save someone’s life (just because lying is wrong) then I would rather be wrong and lie instead of tell the truth and be right.
