This essay received a 9.5/10.  Professor's comments are in text.
 

Introduction

  I will analyze Immanuel Kant’s article, "Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals" from the anthologized collection Today’s Moral Issues. In this particular annotated essay, Kant asserts several things. The first, that to act morally is to act rationally, is based on his claim that morality is directly tied to rationality. Secondly, he puts forth that in order to act morally, one must act according to what is essentially the golden rule. Finally, Kant makes his case for the ideas of autonomy and dignity. Throughout the essay, he uses his explanations of categorical and hypothetical imperatives repeatedly to demonstrate the validity his points.

What I will focus on specifically in Kant’s myriad of philosophy is his idea on how to treat others. Kant asserts that one must treat others as though the maxim by which he is acting was or would become a universal law of nature - in order to act morally and rationally.

 Through my summary and critique, I endeavor to examine the extent to which that claim applies. That is, I plan to look at exactly how extreme his view of acting morally can be taken and whether or not it remains reasonable at those extremes. Those extremes often only come into play when one has conflicting imperatives, so my examination will lead me mostly to that genre. The rest of his essay I will largely ignore except for the examples he gives, as the section with which I will take issue stands fairly well on its own.

Summary

  Kant’s idea of the correct way of treating people is stated by way of a positive statement. Often, morals revolve around negatives first;  i.e. "thou shalt not . . .." Kant says, "(thou shalt) treat others as though the maxim by which you are acting will become a universal law of nature." In smaller words, treat others as you would have the world treat each other.

  *You should  say a bit more about why these are equivalent.

This disallows people acting based on their own convenience or feelings, unless those feelings are centered on how they wish to be treated. Kant’s justification for such a prescription lies in four examples. The first presents a man who is so miserable that he considers ending  his own life. The question is whether or not so ending his life is moral and rational. The man is faced with two choices: kill himself to escape his misery, or live his life out with this misery. The maxim this man acts on is that through self-love; he is compelled to end his life because it promises to hold more misery than pleasure. Kant sees several rationality problems with this maxim. First of all, the compulsion to feel good or end pain is only a smaller part of the compulsion to further one’s own existence. Secondly, to act according to that maxim would not allow this man to end his life, since it comes from a compulsion to further that which he seeks to end. Therefore the man is acting immorally and irrationally. This is not to say that his suffering should continue, but merely that the reason for which he gave to end his life is irrational and as such, is morally invalid. If everyone acted according to this false maxim, then everyone would kill himself or herself in order to extend their lives – a wholly contradictory way to exist. One cannot live after one has killed himself, indeed he would enjoy a life much shorter than if he had not killed himself. Kant says ultimately that the man is treating himself as a means to end his pain, which touches on a not-too-distant point, but one that deserves little attention in this essay other than to say that treating anyone as a means rather than an ends goes against Kant’s version of the Golden Rule.

The second example Kant uses centers on a man who needs to borrow money, as he is in rather dire straits. This man knows that he cannot possibly pay back what he needs to borrow. But the nature of borrowing is that one must pay back what one is given. He is faced with two choices. He can lie, enabling himself to borrow the money from someone who would not otherwise lend it. Or he can not lie, dooming any hope of borrowing money from someone who insists on being paid back. Kant points out that the second of the choices is the moral and rational choice. His reasoning is that if the man were to act on the first choice, his maxim would be that it is okay to lie about paying money back, if one needs a loan, when one knows he will never pay it back. If this maxim were made universal, it would certainly have disastrous effects. Nobody would loan anybody money because they would know that any promise to pay it back was meaningless. And if a promise to repay is meaningless, what is to compel people to repay a loan? This would logically extend to any kind of promise, making verbal and written contracts useless and non-binding. This condition would make society unbearable to live in, as anyone at any time could do whatever he or she please without anything holding them back – thus destabilizing society. He would, by lying to the loaner, also treat that person as a means to getting money – which Kant already determined as immoral and therefore irrational.

In the third case, Kant displays a man who could help many and advance his community through use of his cultivation skills. But the man decides to loaf around instead. If this were made into a maxim it would be possible that the world continues as well as it does. But advancement would not be possible. Maintenance, while certainly not immoral, is not as moral as advancement, according to Kant. It also would not last long. Without advancement, stagnation occurs. But, assuming maintenance is enough, this is not so much of a contradiction in duties as the first two examples were as it is a contradiction in wants. Kant still looks down upon someone who has useful abilities remaining sloth, but when their lack of use does not worsen the overall situation if applied universally, he does not condemn.

The fourth example Kant uses is one of a person who neither helps nor hurts others when he clearly can do either. If this man’s maxim for his action were universalized, the following would occur: nobody would help anybody for any reason. Nor would anybody hurt anybody. But by not helping one in need, the man automatically hurts someone – as that person’s situation worsens due to his inaction. This maxim is therefore contradictory as well, as Kant shows, and is one that would create an impossible world if it were universal. Even inaction can be motivated by bad will, and therefore irrational, so sayeth Kant.

Kant asserts, therefore, that any action or lack of action, if done without good will, is immoral – making it also irrational. Saying it another way, Kant says that for an action or inaction to be moral, it must come from a rational will. If imperatives conflict, Kant weighs them against one another. The one that contains the most good will is the one that should rationally be acted upon. He does not say this is easy or simple. To do so, one must act without thinking of the consequences, merely if the maxim driving the action/inaction would in a universalized fashion produce rational and non-contradictory results.

  *There's a problem with the expression "the most good will" .  Good will doesn't come in degrees for Kant.

Critique

 I agree almost 100% with Kant. And my disagreement with him on this point is at this time in my life more instinctive than anything else, and as such is currently irrational. For all intents and purposes then, it is irrational and therefore to be ignored.

 In each of the four examples, Kant does what a good philosopher should do. He puts his theory to the test and the theory comes out smelling like a rose. It is wholly consistent, regardless of personal feelings. A man who ends his own life is using his life as a means. The ends is to terminate his suffering. His life’s end is the means to that goal. In cases like that, to me, the ends do justify the means. But as far as I can tell, mercy deaths are the only instances where I come to loggerheads with Kant.

 A man who lies in order to get what he wants is immoral. And that is destructive to the hive we all live in, and therefore irrational. He will in all likelihood, see the person he lied to again in life. Likely, he will see him right around the time he is supposed to repay that man. This is problem causing, and destructive to the social harmony both men would depend on to get along in life. What will happen when the second man realizes he has been duped? He can take legal action, making life harder for the borrower than it ever was. This is contradictory to borrowing money without being able to pay it back as a means toward bettering his life overall. The lender could use physical violence, perhaps even killing the borrower. That too would run counter to the very reason he lied to borrow money in the first place. Immorality and irrationality are irreversibly linked in this case, as well as any other.

 The third example hearkens to Aristotelian concepts of fulfilling one’s higher function. To me, this kind of laziness is inexcusable. Personal happiness at the expense of public good is abhorrent. While not of the same magnitude, this third example’s subject is doing something along the same vein as a gifted teacher giving up his craft to sell drugs. While both are not equally harmful, they are both immoral in much of the same way. Both men are engaging in what some would call a victimless action. But both are harming society by not fulfilling their functions. If traffic lights were able to act, and they decided to all become Christmas lights; this would be harmful to society. Just as a father quitting being a father to join the circus would be harmful to a society. Moreover, a lack of action can often be as  immoral as an action. It is also counterproductive to the cultivator’s well being to have prices driven up because supply is scarce in something that he could have improved the amount or growth rate of by cultivating. Extended out beyond the example, if everyone were  to loaf about, not doing what they were good at, we would have few of the things that set humans apart from animals. Culture would stagnate and eventually decline. Countless lives would be lost, and the world would be riddled with bad poets and movies, as all the good ones would quit in favor of loafing about. People doing what they are good at is what keeps the machine going. Culture survives because it thrives, not stagnates.

In the final example of his analysis, Kant’s selfish man is harming his community and society more than any of the three other men did.  To not help is to guarantee the perpetual poor health of a community.

  *Only if conceived as a universal action, but then the others are pretty destructive as well.

 I disagree with Kant here. He says that this is maintenance, and is not helping or hurting. While I realize that I am being more Aristotelian than Kantian in arguing against him, I still think that people – for the good of society – should do what they’re best at. Inaction is its own death. A modern example is the people of Zepa or Srebrenicia. The UN did not take any action to help people who were being carted off to die. In that inaction, they helped those people to their deaths. To not help someone in need is immoral, and as Kant says, it is  irrational to act as if that maxim will become universal. If it did - anytime anybody needed help, nobody would give aid. That would spell the collapse of a society quicker than any natural disaster.

  Kant remains consistent throughout his essay. And while these four examples are illustrative and compelling, they do not show his consistency in its entirety. The one example that does show it is the inquisitive murderer scenario. Person A is running from Murderer A. Person A hides in Person B’s house, who grants Person A asylum. This scenario automatically flies in the fourth example’s face. Murderer A comes to Person B and says that he is looking for Person A with the intent to kill him. He asks Person B if he has Person A in his house. The question is whether or not to lie. Kant says no. Many would say yes, that these duties conflict and adhering to the duty of saving lives is more important than adhering, in this case, to the duty to tell the truth. But Kant says no.  Why? Because Kant says that an action should be taken regardless of circumstances. Only then is it moral. If Person B considers that  telling the truth may result in death and lies, the lie is not done out of morality, but convenience. In lying to save a life, Person B act  irrationally. Say Person B lies successfully and Murderer A goes looking elsewhere, say Person C’s house – who is not home and never locks his doors. And while this is going on, Person A, afraid that Person B will not convince Murderer A, runs to Person C’s house – after all, Person C never locks his doors. Person B, by lying, just set up the situation in which Person A gets killed anyway. All this was due to an irrational impulse that, while well meaning, was poorly thought out.

 Rewind the situation. Except this time, Person B tells the truth. When Murderer A asks if he his hiding Person A, Person B says, "Yes,nd furthermore, I will do all I can to keep you from murdering Person A." This is the truth. And it is a display of courage. Now Murderer A must subdue Person B in order to even attempt to murder Person A. And, assuming Person B fights Murderer A, Person A can escape. Person B acted morally and rationally, and moreover, courageously. Even if Person B dies, his objective of keeping Person A safe is given a greater chance of success. Herein lies the rationality of the action. Person B acted with the intent of protecting Person A as much as possible, a feat that was accomplished through rational and therefore moral behavior.

 Even in situations where categorical imperatives collide and conflict, there is a moral and rational way to decide them. Kant proves this with his stance on the inquisitive murderer case. His position, as illustrated by the inquisitive murderer scenario, is wholly consistent. Telling the truth is a categorical imperative. Choosing which truth to tell in order to effect a rational and moral decision – that is the trick to it.
 

  *This is thoughtful and comprehensive and you give your reasons for agreeing with Kant's take on the four examples in a
  clear way.  But, with the exception of the inquisitive murderer case, you don't really put much energy into providing
  challenging criticisms of his his conclusions. To do this you'd need to make the prima facie case that some of these issues
  can't be decided without an appeal to consequences.