Kantian Ethics: The Categorical Imperative and the Moral Law
ETHICAL THEORY: WHAT SHOULD I DO?
That the objects of metaphysics there can be no scientific knowledge, does not mean they do not make sense, not worth dealing with them. Instead, they just make sense within the realm of practical reason in morality. Moreover, according to Kant, these are the postulates of morality, i.e., they are the condition for the existence of morality. Without them, morality would be impossible. Let’s see what Kant means by this. What should I do? Kant answers this question primarily in two works: The Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals and Critique of Practical Reason. Kant says that man, besides a theoretical (scientific) reason, developed a practical reason in coexistence with others. Practical reason helps us to establish the conditions that make rigorous practice possible in our dealings with other men, in other words, a moral practice.
The fundamental problem is to find out what conditions a practical principle must meet to be an objective, universal, and necessary law.
2.1. MATERIALS OF ETHICS
What is morality concerned with? It deals with what is right (to do) and what is wrong (to avoid). The current ethical and moral understanding of the determination of right and wrong in humans are called, in Kantian terminology, ethical materials. They tell you what is good (happiness, pleasure) and set standards for it. That is, they start from certain content (that are material) and then look for ways to access it. The ethical characteristics of materials, depending on their understanding of the content of morality, are as follows:
- Empirical: Its principles are determined a posteriori. They claim that what is good is pleasure or happiness and to know how to get it, experience is necessary. However, experience cannot be the basis of universal moral laws (which are binding on all men alike) or necessary (requiring at all times and places), which are the ones that are of interest to Kant (to me may be pleasurable than another bored).
- Hypothetical: This means they are not valid for the whole world (which confirms the previous review) because its principles establish duties, imperatives, not for themselves but as a condition for another thing. The hypothetical imperatives express a condition and should only be met if they aim to set forth the imperative, e.g. “If you want to be a millionaire, invest in the stock market.” As not everyone wants to be a millionaire, this principle only requires those who want to achieve that purpose.
- Heteronomous: When we get carried away by pleasure or happiness and do things that lead us to get them, we are not acting autonomously, but let us send for something else: it is heteronomous. We will no longer be governed by reason and freedom is lost.
Facing those ethics that consider materials as determining what is right or wrong, Kant understands morality as the conscience of duty. He considers the nature of morality is revealed in the experience of “moral conflict.” This conflict is to be aware that we must do our duty even if we do not like it, even if it is not pleasant or does not provide happiness, because duty is presented as necessary and universal.
Formal ethics is one that does not give us content, but only the form of the law. Previous ethics laws give us content (e.g., Christianity with the ten commandments). Because formal ethics has no content, its precepts are a priori. They do not rely on experience and, therefore, are universal, valid forever and for all men. Its precepts are categorical and autonomous, which means that reason gives itself precepts completely independent of experience. This implies that, ultimately, the individual must be guided solely by his reason, with what reaches a climax in the liberation of individuals from tradition, authority, and faith.
The Categorical Imperative and Good Will
Formal ethics is governed by the moral law stated in categorical imperatives. These imperatives express no condition; they are not conditioned to achieve any specific objective, they stand on their own apart from any other consideration. For example: “Thou shalt not steal.” In this case, it is understood that you should not steal under any condition. Now suppose the case of someone who has a chance to steal and does not. Can we say that his action is moral? Kant will say no, it is not enough.
In fact, he distinguishes between two types of actions:
- Conforming to duty: These are actions that conform to the standard (non-stealing), but they do so for reasons that have nothing to do with morality but with the consequences. In doing so, the categorical imperative is no longer categorical, becoming hypothetical. “Thou shalt not steal” is intended to be valid by itself, but if the individual is not stealing to avoid going to jail, basically, the rule he is following is: “If you do not want to go to jail, you must not steal.”
- For duty: Those in which the standard is met, simply because it is the duty to fulfill it, regardless of other considerations.
In all moral law, we must distinguish between the content or subject matter of the law and the form. Kant called the matter of law what the law says, the concrete fact of stealing or not stealing, and calls the law to the will with which the law is made.