Principal Elements of Kant's Moral Rules
- Rational consistency:
- Is the rule universalizable? Can everyone follow it?
- Is the rule self-defeating? Can one will that all follow it?
- Does the rule contradict other maxims that have already passed the
Categorical Imperative Test?
- Respect for persons:
- Does the rule undermine personal autonomy?
- Does the rule contravene the fundamental equal intrinsic of worth
of all persons?
- Does the rule compromise human rationality?
If the proposed rule passes these tests, then Kant says it can be
a proper Moral Rule, one which commands all rational beings. But this
only makes the rule morally correct ...
Two formulations of the Categorical Imperative
- "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law."
- often compared with the golden rule but better: do not do to others
what you would not have them do to you (not "those who have the
gold make the rules")
- universalizability is the key component of the 1st formulation
- "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always
at the
same time as an end."
- respect for persons is crucial to the 2nd formulation
- Kantian-type arguments in bioethics are generally made with reference
to the 2nd formulation rather than the first
Kantian deontology is concerned with respect for persons: every person
has an inherent dignity both towards himself and others. The duties that follow
from this are, Kant argues, of two kinds: perfect duties that allow for no exceptions and
imperfect duties that can be realized in any number
of ways which allow for exceptions and prioritizing but never take precedence over perfect duties.
4-fold Classification of Kantian Duties
- Perfect duties to self: e.g., Preserve one's own life.
- Perfect duties to others: e.g. Never murder.
- Imperfect duties to self: e.g., Develop one's talents and abilities.
- Imperfect duties to others: e.g., Be charitable towards
others.
Kantian Perfect Duties
Perfect duties require that we either do or abstain from certain acts, with
no exceptions.
Perfect duties are universally binding on all rational persons, for they
are necessary in order to respect the inherent worth of persons.
Treating someone just as a means to an end violates the perfect duty we
all have to respect each others' humanity and autonomy.
People are ends in themselves and failing to treat them as such is failing
to give them the respect they are due.
We can use people as a means with informed consent sometimes but we must
not use them merely as a means.
- duty not to kill yourself
- You cannot treat
yourself merely as a means to some end. Rational agency
is the source of all moral worth. People who kill themselves
renounce
the authority of reason (the source of morality) for the sake
of a contingently valuable end. So suicide is intrinsically wrong,
for one is merely treating
oneself as a means to end one's life of discomfort.
Also, heavy drinking or drug-misuse or
prostituting one's body undermines one's rational capacity for autonomy
and therefore it is incompatible with respect
for
one's self.
- duty not to kill innocent people
- duty not to
lie
- duty
to keep promises
- duty not to use others solely for one's own ends
- Killing,
lying and promise-breaking are intrinsically wrong since by
engaging in such actions you fail to treat people as ends-in-themselves.
Kantian Imperfect Duties
- Self Improvement: One must develop one's capacities
to the best of one's abilities. Choose a life plan that you
are most capable of fulfilling.
- Beneficence: One must act charitably towards
others. Beneficence is not merely doing no harm to another.
Perfect duties override imperfect duties:
one cannot lie in order to promote the welfare of another or to prevent
harm from coming to another
- imperfect duties require of all rational
persons that we pursue or promote certain necessary preconditions for
respectful human relations (e.g., rationality, autonomy, dignity of
others)