Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant is probably the most famous and influential philosopher working within the Duties Framework. Kant identifies our duties by using five formulas, all of which are said to guide us to the same conclusions, and most scholars agree that his two main formulas are the Formula for Universal Law and the Formula of the End in itself.

Formula for Universal Law

The Formula for Universal Law states, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become universal law” (Kant 88). What Kant means when he states this law is that an action can only be ethical if it would make sense for everyone to perform the action on a regular basis.

For example, let’s say a person could not decide whether letting someone copy data from his lab report would be moral or immoral. The student might feel like this is cheating, but also might feel he has to help out those in need. According to Kant, this student, only needs to ask if his proposed action could be made universal: if everyone were to let others copy their data, what would happen? There would probably be very little learning because everyone would merely be copying data from the small number of people who have to do the work. More importantly, if everyone were to copy data (making the action universal) who would do the initial work? Obviously, it is impossible for everyone to copy the work because there would be no starting point to copy from, so this action could not be made universal, so it would be immoral. The student will have to find some other way to help his friend (some way that does not involve cheating).

Positive and Negative Duties

This is how Kant identifies negative duties: any action that cannot be a universal law is one we are forbidden from doing. Kant also identifies positive duties (duties we are required to do, though we may have some leeway in deciding exactly when and how to fulfill them) using the Formula for the End in Itself. This tells us to “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” (Kant 96).

Formula for the End in Itself:

When Kant says to always treat others as an end, he means to treat them as rational beings who can make their own decisions and determine for themselves when those decisions are moral. To treat someone as an “end” is to recognize that she has the ability to set her own goals in life, and to respect her right to pursue her own goals (so long as those goals are moral ones). By contrast, we treat someone as a means when we use them simply as a thing that helps us achieve our own, personal goals.

For example, when the friend in the above example asks the other student to let him copy his lab data, the student merely becomes a source of information that his friend uses to fill in his missing data. It is important to realize that this formula is not the “Golden Rule” (treat others as you want to be treated) restated. Rather, Kant’s formula sets out a specific way that we ought to treat others; we have a duty to treat them as rational beings regardless of how we want to be treated ourselves. We always have a Positive Duty, to treat people (including ourselves) as rational beings, which is the way we respect their basic human dignity.

How Kant Resolves Conflicts between Duties

Kant believes that any action which can be a universal law will also be one that treats people as ends, and he believes that every apparent conflict between duties can be resolved. To return to our student example, while the duty not to cheat (a negative duty) may at first seem to conflict with the duty to help one’s friend (a positive duty); Kant says we ought to choose the negative duty. This is because there are, in fact, other ways to help our friends besides engaging in cheating (other ways to fulfill our positive duty), and we must never violate our negative duties (we must never cheat). For similar reasons, if there seem to be conflicts between two or more positive duties, Kant leaves the decision up to the individual: since any action that fulfills a positive duty is morally acceptable, we may choose whichever one we think is best. For Kant, there are no conflicts between negative duties, so if there appears to be one, we need to rethink our reasoning (using one or more of Kant’s formulas) again. This is the most controversial aspect of Kant’s theory, but he insists that if we reason carefully, we should always be able to find some action that does not violate any negative duty, and the conflict will be resolved.

The Source of Kantian Duties

One of the main questions concerning duty-based ethics is, “why do we have these duties, and why do we have a moral obligation to follow them?” Kant answers this question by appealing to the value of autonomy, which he believes is the basis for human dignity. Because we are capable of using our reason both to figure out what our moral duties are, and to recognize when and how they apply to our own situation, we are literally “self-legislating.” Hence, when we fulfill our duties (when we act on universal laws), we are exhibiting our own capacity for autonomy, as well as recognizing the autonomy of others. Respect for autonomy is the ultimate moral motivation for Kant, and his ideas have been used to champion the cause of individual rights ever since the 18th century.

Kant. Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. H. J. Patton. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964.