Kant’s Ethics or Ethical Theory

Introduction
The Kantian ethics is a deontological model of morality based on the intention or duty of
the moral agent. “Deontos” in Greek means duty or obligation. The model emphasizes that it is
the intention of the responsible moral agent to always do his or her duty to do what is good. For
this reason, Kant’s ethics is also called deontologism.
Following the same line of thought, the motive which is the performance of one’s duty to
do what is good, becomes the essence of morality. It means that the rightness or wrongness of an
act is determined by the motive to do what is good regardless of the consequences of the act.
Motive or intention also refers to the motive of doing what one ought to do which of course is
the duty to do what is good (Timberza p. 44).
The Kantian model of morality is often put in juxtaposition with the utilitarian
perspective of morality in which the consequence regardless of the intention of the motive
determines the rightness or wrongness of the act. The Kantian model has its own weaknesses and
limitations which are discussed below.

Learning Outcomes
1. Articulate the Kantian ethics;
2. Substantiate why a categorical imperative as a central element of Kantianism;
3. Criticize Kantianism theory in terms of its strength and weaknesses.

Presentation of Contents
Kant’s ethics is the theory of the good (ethics). Kant emphasizes the intention or the will
which is the intention to do the good, the duty of every rational person. Hence, acts are good
only when they are done out of duty more than the end or regardless of the consequence of the
act. The crucial element for Kant is the intention or motive which is the duty of every individual.
Hence, acting in the sense of duty is the one that makes an act moral. When someone does
something out of one’s pleasure for doing it or is based on one’s inclination to do it, it does not
reflect a moral act. It is the sense obligation or duty that makes an act moral or ethical. Duty or
the intention to do what is good is that which one ought to do. Hence, duty is doing what one is
obliged to do. Duty is also known as obligation. The presumption is that everybody has good will
in which again, the good will is our duty.

The important question that should be asked now is how can one know one’s duty in a
given situation? To determine if one acts from the sense of duty, one must judge his or her action
in the light of the universalizability of the act. This means, act according to the maxim that you
would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law or code of behavior.
The universalizability of an act is verified if it has the characteristic of the categorical imperative,
meaning the doing of the act is done without mental reservation at all.

The good involves the principle of universalizability. Kant argues that there are four
formulation of this principle.

1. Formula of the law of nature. Act as if you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law. The act implies that it is an acceptable act that can be willed
and be acted upon by every rational moral agent. It reflects the idea of modelling. The
intention to do good to another and the act of doing it is first acted upon by the moral
agent. It is not intended for others to do it. Further, what you do is acceptable to
others. It has the sense of strictness because the basis is good will.

2. Formula of the end in itself. It means “act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always as an
end, never simply use the other as a means” (Prof.Bitanga). An intention and the act
itself are good when they have respected the dignity of the person to whom the act is
intended and not using the same person for selfish ends. It is the humanitarian aspect
of the Kantian theory.

3. The formula of autonomy. Act that your will can be regarded at the same time as if
you are making a universal law. It is as if you want your action to be legislated. You
look at it as if an action can become a law. In doing an act of goodness, the goodness
itself is self-evident. It does not require another evidence or proof of goodness.

4. Formula of the Kingdom of Ends. It is expressed by the maxim, “Act as if you were
setting yourself as a standard. Never treat a person as a means but always as an end.
Never exploit anyone for any purpose” (Prof.Bitanga, 2018). An act is expressive of
this principle when it is motivated by absolute recognition of the sanctity and dignity
of person for whom the act is done. An act done to gain the recognition of others, no
matter how good it appears to be does not belong to this formula of the kingdom of
ends.

Distinction between a Perfect Duty and an Imperfect Duty

Perfect Duty. It is the duty which we are obliged to do all the time. Example, no killing,
no harming others physically, no lies, etc.

The Imperfect Duty. Imperfect duties are those we should do as often as possible but
cannot be expected to be done always. Example, being charitable, loving, etc. (Timbreza, 2007).

Some Kantian Ethical Principles

1. In the medical context for Kant, it is always wrong to lie. It says that medical
investigators should not lie to their patients.
2. People should be treated as ends and not as means.
 3. That we have also a duty to treat ourselves as ends and to preserve our dignity and
worth as human beings.
4. That an action is right insofar as it satisfies the categorical imperative.
5. The distinction between perfect and imperfect duties suggests that some rights
should be recognized.

Criticisms of the Kantian Ethics

1. Kant’s principles have no clear way of resolving cases of conflicting duties.
Example, it is one’s duty to always tell the truth. What if telling the truth to a
patient about the real health status will shorten his or her life.
2. Categorical imperatives fail to establish duties in cases involving maxims that
cannot be willed to become a universal law for subjective reason.
3. The problem related to the notion that we have a duty to treat others as rational
beings or persons. In bioethics, it is the question of whether to consider a
seriously deformed fetus a rational being or not (Timbreza, 2007).

Summary

Kantian ethics emphasizes that the rightness or wrongness of the act is determined by the
motive or intention regardless of the consequences of the act. On some light, it is understood that
morally right actions are possible only when one does something that one ought to do. And
therefore, it is important to ask, “When does one do what he or she ought or obliged to do?” It
happens when one acts according to one’s sense of duty or obligation.

Clearly, the Kantian sense of morality demands that before doing anything one should
first seriously examine the motive or intention for doing the act. If the act lacks the requirement
of the sense of duty for doing it, the act does not reflect moral righteousness. Therefore, one
should always consider the sense of the categorical imperative value of an act or its
universalizability. If the act does not meet this requirement, the act does not reflect moral value.

Assessment

Reflection

When deciding to perform an act, what were my considerations? Did I make the decision
only on the basis of my personal interests and the consequences of the act? Have I considered
reflecting on my intentions or motives for doing it?