Kantian Deontological Ethics

Hello to you, I do hope you're well. Welcome to this A-Level Religion, Philosophy and Ethics revision video. I'm Ben Wardle and today we are looking at Kant's Deontological Ethics. Now, deontology means duty-based and Kant's ethical theory is all about moral duties. It's all about ethical obligations that we should always be fulfilling. And Kant believed that human beings need discipline in all areas of their lives. He said that man must be disciplined And... but by nature he is raw and wild and that extends to his moral theory. So he has a very strict duty-based ethical theory which is all about us following categorical imperatives in every single situation and we work out those categorical imperatives by finding out whether they can be universalised, whether they treat people as ends and whether they could be a legislated rule in the kingdom of ends. And we'll talk more about how you determine a categorical imperative later in the video. But I think the main thing to know about Kant's deontological ethics is that they are very strict and they are duty-based. Kant did not care about the consequences of your actions, and he did not care about the situation you were in. He said the only good thing is the goodwill to do your duty and live in accordance with those categorical imperatives. So we'll be looking at all of your AO1 key knowledge about Kant's theory. And then, of course, we'll be looking at our AO2 evaluation. We'll be looking at the strengths and the weaknesses. And we'll be asking, is this moral theory too demanding to actually be practical and to be, you know, a practical approach to ethics in the 21st century? So plenty to talk about. Let's get started, shall we, with Kant's very famous... X-Men example, because I think this really does illustrate how demanding and duty-based his moral theory is. And remember, Kant focused on the act itself. He did not care about the consequences. He said the only good thing is the goodwill to always do your duty. So I want you to picture the scene. A murderer with a dangerous weapon is at your door, and they are demanding to know the location of your friend, because obviously... Your friend has done something that they're not happy about and they want to get revenge. They want to go and murder them. And you have to ask yourself, do I tell them where they are? So do I tell the truth? Do I tell them exactly where they are so they can go and kill them? Or do I not? Do I tell a white lie? Do I say they've gone to Tesco when they're actually in Lidl? So that is obviously a hypothetical scenario. but Kant said that if you were in this position, it is your duty to tell. the truth. Because remember, he is not concerned about consequences. It does not matter to him what will then happen. And he does not want you to take the situation into account. It doesn't matter about the circumstances. He said that it is your duty to tell the truth. Okay. And again, this is because that action can be universalised. He said your principle of action should be made a law for the whole world. So if you were going to lie in that situation, even though you had, you know, a good motivation, arguably, he says that is wrong. Because if every single person in the world then started lying, society would collapse. So he believes, remember, this is a duty based ethical theory, that the only good thing is the goodwill to do your duty. And it is your duty to always tell the truth. And so in that situation, Pant would say you must. tell the truth. It is your duty to tell the truth. It doesn't matter about the consequences. It doesn't matter about the situation. You have a duty to always follow certain ethical and moral obligations. Now, of course, if we contrasted this with utilitarianism or situation ethics, we can see that Kant's ethical theory is very distinct from both of those, isn't it? You know, utilitarianism, for example, is a consequentialist theory. And it's all about doing whatever is useful for bringing about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. And of course, for a utilitarian, the end would justify the means. And so that end goal of saving your friend's life would justify the means, which is telling a lie. But Kant would not be having any of that. Remember, he believed that morality needed to be very disciplined, it needed to be very rigid and very strict. And so he demands... that you always do the right thing. And that means for him, always doing your duty, which in this case would be to tell the truth. So. As you can hopefully see, this is a very demanding moral theory, isn't it? And it does not take the situation into account. It does not take consequences into account. It is all about doing your ethical duty. So here on the screen are a couple of quotes from Kant. And I have to tell you, Kant is very, very quotable. You know, the way that he wrote and the way that he articulated things is actually quite poetic, I would say. And these are just a couple of the brilliant soundbites that you can actually apply and you can include in your exam answers. So just have a look at these quotes because they really do encapsulate his ethical theory and his attitude towards morality. So one of my favourite quotes from him is that two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe. The starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. So, of course, he believes that there is a fixed moral law. He believes that that can be discovered through reason and that that is categorical imperatives, that we should always be following the categorical imperatives. He said that man must be disciplined, for by nature he is raw and wild. So he believed we need discipline in every area of our lives. And that includes in our moral decision making. He said, live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law. So again, every single action you perform needs to be universalised. So you have to imagine, well, if everybody in the world did this, what would be the consequence? So, you know, would this be something that could happen in what he calls the kingdom of ends in the perfect world? Is this an action people would perform? So something like, for example, stealing in order to feed your starving child, Kant would be completely against that because he would say, well, what if everybody then stole? you know we can't have that so it's again, a very demanding theory because every act you perform has to be a universalizable action. It has to be suitable, if you like, to become a universal law. He said you should do the right thing because it is right. So again, don't consider the consequences. Don't consider the circumstances. Do the right thing because it is right. And again, that reminds you of this duty-based theory. that it's about having these moral duties, these ethical obligations that you must always follow, and that we can work those out, we can ascertain what they are by using reason, which of course is the categorical imperative and his three formulations for that. He said that there is nothing higher than reason. So this is a moral theory based on reason, the idea that you can reason, you can rationally work out what these categorical imperatives are, and therefore follow them and so we're going to say that that could be a strength of the theory because it means it is secular. Because although belief in God is one of Kant's three practical postulates, in terms of where your morals come from, they are derived from reasoning. And we can argue that all people, whether they're religious or not, can use reason in order to work out categorical imperatives. He said, and I love this quote as well, life without reason and morality has no value. So it is our ability to reason, and it is our strong morals. that gives our lives as human beings value. And he was one of the key thinkers of the Enlightenment, which was this period in time when people were very interested in using their reason and thinking for themselves. And Kant very much wants you to use your reason and think for yourself about what the right thing to do is. And he said, the right thing to do is to do your duty. Because remember, the only good thing for Kant is the goodwill. And that is the will, the desire to do your duty. So I think someone like the late Queen Elizabeth II, for example, would find favour with Kant. He would be very happy about her because he loved people that did their duty, you know, not so they would be rewarded, not because it worked in that situation, but because it was their duty that they'd ascertained, they'd discovered through reason. And then another key quote just to mention here is he said, all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. So a big focus for us with Kant's ethics. is the categorical imperative. And we're going to look at the difference between what he called hypothetical imperatives, which are all about doing something if it will lead to something else, and then these categorical imperatives, which are the moral absolutes, which form the foundation, really, for his ethical theory. So now we've looked at the key quotes, and we've been inspired by some of Kant's poetic sayings. Let's have a look at the key words, which are key for our understanding of Kantian ethics. The first one is moral absolutism. And this is a really important key term because this is a moral absolutist theory. Because Kant believes that there are certain universal moral principles by which all people's actions should be judged. And of course, at the core of the categorical imperative are these three formulations. that your action can be universalised, that it treats people as ends, and it could be applied in the kingdom of ends. So for Kant, his ethics are absolutist, you know, and we discover the categorical imperative by using reason. And the categorical imperative is something that can be universalised, that your principle of action could be made a law for the whole world. The next key word is duty and whenever we talk about pant we do talk about duty And this is the action that is morally required of you. It is an obligation you must obey. And remember, for Kant, the only good thing is the goodwill to do your duty. OK, so as I've mentioned, Kant believes in two different types of imperative, the categorical and the hypothetical imperative. So the first one we'll mention is the hypothetical imperative. And this is a conditional obligation that is dependent upon desiring the goal in question. So whenever we're looking at hypothetical imperatives, we're always looking for the word if. It's about doing something if you want to achieve something else, yeah? Which, of course, the can is not what morality should be about. You are not considering the consequences, you are not considering the situation. We then have the categorical imperative, which he did like, because this is the unconditional moral obligation that we must always obey. So it is our duty to obey. We've got to discover it through reason. And then we've got to do it based on duty. And that is, of course, going to be followed, irrespective of the situation, irrespective of the consequence. And as I say, we can work these out using reason. For example, it is wrong to make a lying promise. And the key word we're looking for when we talk about a categorical imperative is must. So whereas with the hypothetical imperative, it's about the word if, that if you want to achieve something else, you should do this, whereas with the category categorical imperative, excuse me, it's that keyword must. Yeah, that modal verb, isn't it? That you must always do something irrespective of the consequence, irrespective of the circumstance. It is your duty to obey the categorical imperatives. Okay, so how do we discover a categorical imperative? Kant proposes three formulations for discovering, for ascertaining a categorical imperative, and they are universal law, persons of ends. and kingdom of ends. So formulation one, universal law. This is the principle that we should only carry out those acts that we are able to will as the universal law for everyone to follow at all times. So again, with the lying to the murderer, that would be wrong, according to Kant, because if everybody then lied at all times, we would be in a very difficult position, wouldn't we? You know, morality would collapse. And so you cannot lie in that situation because If you did that, you would be saying you think lying should be made a universal law. So everything that you do needs to be universalised. In terms of when you act, you've got to think what would be the consequence if this was made a universal law. So as you can see, very, very demanding. And there is no consideration of your particular circumstance. Everything you do needs to be made a universal law. The second formulation is persons as ends. And this is the principle that people should be treated as an end in themselves, not as the means to an end. So this really does lay the foundation for human rights and the idea that everybody should be seen as an end in themselves rather than being used as a means to an end. So they must be respected rather than used or taken advantage of. Now, this does actually contrast, doesn't it, with utilitarianism, where, you know, Benson believed that the end does justify the means. the pan in canteen ethics every person must be treated as an end in themselves. You can't use them in order to achieve something else. And I think a great application is maybe to business ethics. And if you think about, say, sweatshops, where, you know, people are working in really quite shocking conditions in order to produce cheap clothing for Western consumers. And I think Kant would be absolutely appalled by this, that those people were being exploited, really, in order to produce cheap clothes for other people. And so that's why I say for Kant, there is a real focus on human rights and respecting people as an end in themselves. You cannot use them or take advantage of them. Our next one then is kingdom of ends. And this is the third formulation. This is the principle that your actions should be made a law in a hypothetical state where people always act according to the moral rules and treat people as ends. So whatever you're doing, you are effectively saying. In the kingdom of ends, this would be what happens. So this could be legislated for in the kingdom of ends. So we're going to talk about this a little bit more, obviously, as we journey through the video. But this sort of brings together and ties together the universal law and the persons as ends formulation. We then have a postulate. An postulate is something assumed to be true as a starting point for reasoning. OK, so a postulate is not something you have proven to be true, but is something you are assuming to be true for practical reasons. And Kant's ethical theory has three of these, that we have free will, that there is life after death when we will be rewarded for acting in accordance with our duty. And then that there is a God who can actually give us that reward. Now, Pant, as I say, is not saying that these things are proven, but he is saying that it is practical for us to assume these things as the foundation for the moral theory he presents. So we will be looking at these postulates and we'll be asking, why does he need to assume that these things are true? And, you know, does the fact that one of the postulates is God mean that people who are atheists, for example, wouldn't actually find this theory appealing? Because although it is secular, in the sense that morality is ascertained by using reason rather than turning to scripture or God, there is still this assumption in Kant's theory that there is a God who can reward you for doing your duty. So, you know, when we start to do our critical analysis and look at our AO2 evaluation, that is something we will very much be considering. And then finally, the summum bonum, which is the highest good. And for Kant, this is the place where our happiness and virtue come together. So obviously he believes in being moral, doesn't he? He takes it very seriously. And he thinks that virtue and happiness will ultimately come together. That even though doing your duty will be difficult and demanding in this world and in this lifetime, you know, there might sometimes be a conflict between what makes you happy and what your duty requires you to do. For example, telling a murderer where your friend is so they can kill them. You know, he says that ultimately that will be rewarded. that, you know, in the afterlife. which he's obviously assuming to exist, that happiness and virtue will come together. So, you know, really interesting in terms of how Kant's theory has been put together by him. And as I say, you know, he's got these three formulations and then these three postulates as well. So everything is always very organised with Kant because he loved order, he loved routine and he loved things to be, you know, put together properly. So we'll be coming back to those. as we journey through the video. But I think the best place for us to start actually is by asking who was Immanuel Kant because we can learn so much about his moral theory by understanding who he was as a person. So we get a real insight into Kant and his morality from looking at his life story. So he was a German philosopher born in 1724 and as I mentioned before he was a key figure in the enlightenment. He's written a brilliant essay actually on enlightenment that I would really recommend you read if you have a look on Google. And he believed in the importance of personal autonomy and the role of reason, which were two key themes of the enlightenment. And he believed that having a good will is the only good thing. And he said that a good will is having a desire to do duty for duty's sake. And Kant really believed in the distinction between having desires and your duties, that you shouldn't be led by your human desires, because as I mentioned before, he believed man must be disciplined, for by nature he is raw and wild, but for Kant, the only desire that is good is to do your duty, and so the goodwill is the only good thing. He was a deontologist, he was focused on the act itself, and on ethical duties, that we have this duty to always act. in a certain way, and that way is in accordance with categorical imperatives. Now, he had obviously a very disciplined and very strict morality, and that is reflected in his daily routine. He had a famously disciplined daily routine. He woke up at exactly 5am every day, for example, and he actually took pride in the fact that he never overslept. He had his servant wake him up at exactly the same time every day, and he never hit the snooze button. hypothetically. He always got up on time and he took pride in that because, again, he believed we must be disciplined in every area of our lives, whether that is the time we wake up or whether that is in our moral decision making. There can be no exceptions, there can be no excuses, you know, full stop, whether that is in when you wake up or the moral decisions that you make. And another great anecdote about him is that he was seen as more reliable than the town clock because his neighbours knew his daily routine so well because it never ever changed. So for example, they knew it was 3.30pm when they saw Can on his daily walk. They didn't even need to look at the town clock. If they saw Can on his walk, they knew what time of day it was because he, as I say, never ever changed his routine. He was so strict. He was so disciplined in every area of his life, whether that was what time he woke up, the time that he did things in his day, and of course, in his morality as well. So hopefully, you know, that helps you to remember how strict his moral theory is. And it gives you an insight into why his theory is so strict, because he believed human beings need discipline. He believed that we need to have strict rules. We need to have a strict routine and we need to have our strict approach to morality. There can be no exceptions. There can be no exemptions and there can be no excuses. So, yes, set your alarm for 5 a.m. tomorrow and don't press that snooze button. That would make very happy indeed. Now, in terms of his deontological ethics, then, that he develops, he believed, and this is important, that there is an absolute moral law that exists. and that the absolute moral rules this contains can be worked out by using reason. So he, remember, believes you can discover morality through the use of reason. And these moral rules that make up this universal law are known as categorical imperatives, and these apply in all situations. He believes they are universally binding on all people at all times, and that reflects formulation one, the universal law. And so it is your duty, Kant believed, to follow these without exception. You must always do your duty. The only good will is the will to do your duty. The only good thing, sorry, is the good will, which is to do your duty. Excuse me. And he believed that categorical imperatives are things that we could make into formulation one, universal laws, formulation two, that they treat people as ends, and formulation three, that they would be permissible in a perfect kingdom of. ends. Now, before we look at those in more detail, I want to be really clear about Kant's belief, you must always do your duty. And this is in contrast with following your emotions or your desires. So, for example, with Bentham in Utilitarianism, remember he said, nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain. And Bentham said that they should shape our morality. But Kant would be absolutely appalled by that, because he believed that actually we shouldn't be giving in to our desires, we need to be disciplining ourselves. So instead of saying, okay, that gives me pleasure, let's do that, he said, man must be disciplined, for by nature he is raw and wild. So he believed that our feelings, our emotions, our desires should be excluded from moral decision making. We simply have to do our duty, which is to follow, of course, I hope you You know by now the categorical imperatives. Being virtuous, he believed, will ultimately be rewarded after death, in the afterlife. He said our duty in this lifetime is to do our duty. And you shouldn't expect reward for that. You shouldn't expect that to necessarily be easy or pleasurable. But actually, in the afterlife, that virtue and happiness will actually be joined together, that we will receive our reward for being so disciplined and doing our duty. But we shouldn't be seeking a reward now. Because remember, we shouldn't be looking to consequences. The only good thing is the goodwill to do your duty. And he believed that goodwill shined forth like a precious jewel. So, you know, somebody who has that goodwill to do their duty in every situation would, you know, find favour with Kant. He would be very happy with them and very impressed by them. So, again, I do think of, say, Queen Elizabeth II. When we looked at the tributes paid to her. that key theme of doing her duty kept coming up, didn't it? And so I think Kant would be very happy with her in the sense that she always did her duty, you know, and that was something she took very seriously. That is what Kant wants us to all do. He wants us to take our duty very seriously, and he wants us to be committed to always doing our duty. So Kant and goodwill. Let's just talk about this a little bit more. I don't know why that bullet point is already there. Do excuse me. This PowerPoint is not in order. Kant would not be happy about this. There we go. Let's get all the key facts on the screen. So as I've mentioned, for Kant, the only good thing is goodwill. So having the good intention to do your duty for duty's sake is the goodwill for Kant. And that is the only truly good thing. Your will, your desire, if I can use that word in this context, to do your duty. That is the only good desire. If we have a good will, we will then perform the right action for the right reason. And Kant argues that it doesn't matter if we are prevented from carrying out our good intentions. What matters is that we sincerely aim to do the right thing. That is what matters to him, that you have that desire, that good will. to do your duty. So what is duty? Well, can't believe that all human beings have moral duties that they must follow and act upon. And these duties must be followed simply because they, or we, are human beings. So we have these duties. And our duty, of course, is to follow categorical imperatives, which we work out using reason. And they can be worked out, as I've put there, rationally. And I think the key thing to remember when it comes to duty-based ethics is that emotions and feelings are irrelevant and that the possible outcomes or consequences are also irrelevant. With Kant's deontological duty-based ethics, all that matters is doing your duty, doing your moral duty, which is following the categorical imperatives. So, you know, really important, you know, situation ethics, obviously based on love, Kant would not be happy about that. Utilitarianism based on consequences and outcomes. Kant would not be happy about that. Your emotions, feelings and the outcomes are irrelevant. The only good is the goodwill to do your duty. And if you've done your duty, you can sleep well at night and then wake up at 5 a.m. the next morning, of course. And a great example actually of just how demanding Kant is, is this really great example of the shopkeeper. So he gives the example of a shopkeeper who always charges others fairly. you could say that's a good thing because he's charging people a fair price. But Kant says if he does that because he knows that this is good for business, that actually takes away the goodness of the act. So what should be a really good thing that he's charging people fairly, that's a moral, honourable thing to do. Kant says that if he's doing that because he knows it will be good for business, that then actually undermines the goodness of the act. It's no longer a good thing to do. He concludes that even this is not sufficient for the action to count as morally good. Because, he says, the shopkeeper is actually acting in his own interest, not in accordance with duty. Because it is only if he charges people fairly out of duty that this becomes a good action. So even though you could say, well, it's still a good action because people are getting a fair price for what they're purchasing, Kant would say it's not a good action because the motivation behind it is not duty. So remember, the only good thing is the goodwill, which for Kant is to do your duty. Whereas here, he's got the motivation of it being good for business. So the word because is a problem for Kant. You know, he wants you to be doing it because it's your duty, not because in this case, he knows that it is good for business. So again, this is illustrating how demanding in. Kant's deontological ethics are. And again, we can be already thinking about our AO2 evaluation. Does this show that actually, Kant's morality is too demanding? It would work in his perfect kingdom of ends, but it's just not practical when you're working with human beings in the real world. And the key point is that acting in accordance with duty is not enough for an action to be considered morally good. You must act from duty, irrespective of whether or not you are inclined to do it. or whether or not it is in your interest. Because remember, the only good is the goodwill, the will to do your duty, nothing else. So, you know, he is only interested in people acting from duty. So even if the action does so happen to be good, if it is not the result of doing your duty or the goodwill to do your duty, Kant would not see it as good. So again, this is how demanding it is. There can be no consideration of feelings, consequences, outcomes, or absolutely anything else except duty. Hence the fact we call this a deontological ethical theory because it is duty-based and it's that goodwill to do your duty. So what we need to have a look at now is the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative because remember, Kant believed that we need to always be following, it is our duty to always be following the categorical imperatives. So we want to have a look at what these imperatives are. actually are and how we work them out. To do that, we're going to have a look at your hypothetical imperatives and then at your categorical imperatives as well. So what is a hypothetical imperative? And the key word with these is if. OK, so here's a potential framework for asserting a categorical hypothetical, excuse me, imperative. Don't get them mixed up. So if you want to do this or achieve this, then you should do this. So it's all about... things being a means to an end and the end justifying the means. So these are hypothetical imperatives, are conditional imperatives that we would follow if we wanted to achieve a certain end result in a specific situation. So they are good for certain purposes and that is why we see them as conditional. They are not objectively good. They are good, so your action is good, if you want to achieve something else. So that is why hypothetical hypothetical imperatives are conditional. They should be followed, they would be followed, if we want to achieve a specified end goal. So as I put in that framework at the top, if you want to pass your exams, then you should revise. So they are conditional, that you should do something if you want to achieve something else. And so that means that they only apply in certain cases, and they are dependent on the outcome that you want to achieve. So of course, Kant would be completely against this. because they are not going to be made into universal laws. They are conditional things you would do to achieve a certain end goal. So obviously, Kant would not be happy about these. On the other hand, we have the categorical imperative, which he would be happy with. And this framework is actually much simpler, because all you need to put is, you must always fill in the gap here. For example, you must always tell the truth. That could be an example, you know, something that must... always be done. You shouldn't tell the truth if you want to X, Y, Z. You should always do it. Another way we can put this into a framework is you must never. So, for example, you must never make a false promise. So, it's this idea of musts, yeah? So, whereas with the hypothetical, it's about saying if on this side of the table for the categorical imperative, it's about must. You must. always do something or you must never do something else. So a categorical imperative is a command which logically has to always be followed and the key word there really is logically because these are worked out using reason. This is because it is objectively necessary in itself, it is not necessary for any other reason. So it's not about achieving something else, it's not about achieving a specified end goal but it's a moral duty that everybody must always follow. And that's because the command is unconditional. It must always be followed. It does not depend upon the end results. This action is always intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong. So again, if we compare with utilitarianism, it's not about whether the action is useful for maximising pleasure and minimising pain. It is always unconditional in terms of being intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong in every single situation. Whoever does it, it's either always right or always wrong. And so its logical form is simply do X or don't do Y. And there is nothing there, is there, about if you want to achieve this or, you know, in order to reach this end goal. You have, with the categorical imperative, a must, that you must always do something in every circumstance, in every situation, or you must never do something else. So these are actions that are commanded in terms of a universal application. Yeah. that they are universally, eternally right or wrong. So in order to work out what a categorical imperative is, Kant offers us these three tests, these three formulations. So if you have got a maxim, you've got an imperative, and you want to work out, okay, is this rule, is this command a hypothetical imperative or a categorical imperative or a hypothetical imperative? Sorry, guys, I'm just repeating the words now. Let me start that sentence again. I think I need some green tea to excuse me. Right, let's go again. If you want to work out whether the imperative is hypothetical or categorical, you need to use these three tests. And they are, number one, universal law, formulation one. Number two, persons of ends. And number three, kingdom of ends. So, let's have a look at these, shall we? The first... formulation for working out what is a categorical imperative is universal law. And the key quote you could use in the exam is live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law. The maxim you follow, if it is to be a categorical imperative, must be universalizable. That's a very big word, isn't it? I think it's actually easier to write than say. So it has to be something that would be good if every person on the planet followed it or did it. So you've got to see it as a universal law. It has to be universally applicable. If the action cannot be made into a universal law, then it cannot be done in any situation. And again, this reflects the fact that Kantian ethics is about following universal laws. There are no exceptions. There are no exemptions. You can't say, well, in this situation, you could do this. You know, as I say, he would not like situation ethics at all, because he believes in moral absolutes, that you must always do certain things, you must never do certain things. You cannot base it on the situation. There is no consideration of consequence. There is no consideration of situation. You have to do your duty. And so we shouldn't put ourselves above the universal law. There are no exceptions. There are no exemptions. You can't say, well, it was an extreme circumstance. You know, it was a one off. That is not going to cut it for Kant. He's not interested in that. He would see it as an excuse. You can never put yourself above the universal law. You have to do your duty. Action must be in accordance with the universal law. Live your life, as he said, as though your every act were to become a universal law. The second formulation then is persons have ends. And our key quote that you can use here is that every man is to be respected as an absolute end in himself. So what does that mean? Well, he believed, and remember, key figure of the Enlightenment, very interested in people using their reasoning. He said humans are rational, autonomous, and they deserve respect. So as I say, Kant very much a pioneer of human rights here. He said we must therefore see people as ends in themselves rather than as means to our ends. So in modern terms, he's saying there, don't use people, don't abuse people, don't exploit people for your own gain. He said we can use objects, so we can use something like a pen, because I'm using this pen to write, for example. But we can't use people to fulfil our needs or our desires. Your action must never involve using, taking advantage of or exploiting somebody. So you can't use people in order to achieve something for yourself. You must respect them as an end in themselves. So as I say, you know, it's very much about respecting people and seeing people as ends in themselves rather than as a means to our ends. You know, you can't use one person in order to achieve something for. five people. I think a great example here is, you know, the trolley problem that we looked at when we talked about utilitarianism and the idea that you could kill that one person working on the track in order to save five other people. Again, he would be absolutely appalled by this. You know, he'd probably pass out and collapse at the thought of it because, you know, you are using that one person as a means to our ends. We're saying, well, we're going to kill that one person in order to say five. He would say every man is to be respected. as an absolute end in himself. You cannot justify the killing of one person in order to save five, because, you know, it's not treating that person as an end in themselves. You're using them as a means to your end. And then the third formulation is the kingdom of ends. So he said, act as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaking member of the kingdom of ends. So this, as I mentioned before, or ties together. universal law and persons as ends because he said that whenever you act you must imagine that you are sitting on the law-making council of a perfect kingdom of ends so this is a really interesting one actually he said that if you were to live in this place where everyone always does their duty universalizes their actions and treats people as ends would your action be permitted so in that ideal world in that moral paradise is this something that would be a law? Is this something that people would be allowed to do? And obviously, something like lying, if we go back to the Axeman example, you know, the argument we're making is, well, in this situation where there is a murderer, I need to lie in order to save my friend. But Kant is saying no, because you should act as if you were in the kingdom of ends, and you were making the laws for the kingdom of ends. And in that perfect moral world, Of course, you would not say that lying is something people are allowed to do. And so you shouldn't do it in this world. Only do things that would be allowed in the perfect kingdom of ends. Now, of course, a key criticism we can make here is we are not in the kingdom of ends, you know. And so, of course, when there are things like poverty and child poverty, that means things like stealing can be excused if it means you can feed that starving child or that lying can be excused if it's to protect someone from a murderer. But Kant is saying, no, that is the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to imagine that in this world, your actions are creating the laws for the kingdom of ends. So, you know, again, is this theory too demanding? Because we don't live in the kingdom of ends. How on earth can we base our moral decisions in this world on what you would do or legislate for in the kingdom of ends? So, you know, again, this idea of Kant being too demanding. But also we could argue that if everybody did live like this, the world would be a better place. So, you know, always thinking about our AO2 evaluation and whether this actually works. But yes, the kingdom of ends is the idea that your categorical imperatives are the rules that would be in place in the perfect moral paradise, which is the kingdom of ends. OK, so just a little activity here for you to put this into practice, really. and just to see. whether we understand now, fingers crossed, I hope, the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative. So on the board are six imperatives, and it is your task, it is your job to sort out which of these are hypothetical, there are three hypothetical, and which of these are categorical. There are, again, three categorical. So just have a minute, whilst I have a bit of green tea, having a look at those, and sort out my hair as well, by the way, guys. Also, look at the lighting. It's terrible. I've looked very pale. Just a little complaint there to Zoom. Going to have to sort that out, I think, before the next video. So anyway, hopefully you've had a chance to look through those. Here we are. Those colours are really coming up boldly, aren't they? Very vivid distinction between them there. So hopefully you can see that the first two and then the bottom one on the right are your categorical imperatives. And then the other three are your hypotheticals. So the categoricals are don't make a false promise. It is wrong to refrain from helping others and do not steal. So they are our categoricals. And then our hypotheticals, don't be rude if you don't want others to be rude to you. So, of course, the term if, the word if, giving it away there, really, that it is a hypothetical, that it's a conditional. Again, if you want to gain weight, you should eat more food. It's a conditional. If you want to achieve a certain thing, you need to do a certain thing. So it's conditional. It's, you know, relative to a certain goal. And then if you want to do well in your exams, you should revise. So, again, it's linked to a certain goal. So it's conditional. It's not something that we can universalise. So hopefully that's helped you to put this into practice and just check your understanding of the hypothetical and the categorical imperatives. And. please feel free to use them as examples in your answers as well. When we're achieving those AO1 marks, we want to show the examiner clear, concrete examples of the concepts that we're referring to, such as these hypothetical and categorical imperatives. So let's have a look now at the other trio of things that Kant focuses on. And this second trio are the three postulates, and they are the required assumptions for his ethics. Now, It's really important we unpack the word postulate. This is something that he presumes in order for his moral theory to work. So he is not saying he has proven these three things. He is saying that we need to assume it to be true in order for the moral theory to work. So chance-free postulates provide the basis for his reasoning and have to be in place for his ethical theory to function properly. So let's have a look at what they are. Number one is that we have free will. Number two, there is an afterlife. And number three, that God exists. And, you know, really important to know before we explore each of these in detail that Kant does not think these three things are proven to be true, but that he says we must assume them practically. in order for morality to work and make sense. So we're going to have a talk through each of these now, which are the three postulates, the required assumptions for Kant's morality, for his ethics. So postulate one is that we have free will. Why is this something that we are required to assume practically in order for Kant's moral theory to work? So as we've mentioned before, Kant sees human beings as autonomous and rational beings. He says we can use reason to work out the categorical imperative. And he says, you know, that's what we need to do. Again, remember, he was a key figure in the Enlightenment. He wanted people to think for themselves and to work things out. He said we then choose to do our duty and follow it. If we are not genuinely free to do either good or evil, then there can be no moral responsibility. So he believes that, you know, we have to choose to do our duty. The only good is the goodwill to do our duty. So that implies, doesn't it, a will, that we have free will. If the only good is the goodwill, we must have free will. We have this inclination. We make this choice to do our duty. And so we think for ourselves in terms of working out what the categorical imperatives are. They're not handed to us on a plate. We are expected to reason for ourselves by applying the free formulations. And then we choose for ourselves. So we think for ourselves and then we choose for ourselves. And that's what gives our actions genuine goodness, that we have the goodwill to do our duty, that we want to do our duty. So, you know, that's very important for Kant in terms of his deontological ethics work in. There are these duties, but we're not moral robots. We're not conditioned to do our duty. We have to make that choice. We have to have the goodwill to do our duty. The second one, then, is that there is an afterlife because. As I mentioned with the key words before, morality requires the summum bonum, and that means the highest good in order to be achieved. So this is where perfect virtue is rewarded with perfect happiness. So again, he believes that in this world, there is not a correlation necessarily, or there is not a communion or coming together of virtue and happiness. Sometimes doing your duty is going to go against doing what makes you happy. And he said that's important because we've got to be disciplined, you know. doing your duty is demanding. Following categorical imperatives is not necessarily going to make you feel good in every situation. But remember, he said, in this lifetime, you don't pay attention to those emotions. You don't pay attention to those outcomes. You know, it's instead going to be achieved in terms of the union of your virtue and happiness in the next life. So he says that, you know, we can see quite clearly. that perfect virtue and perfect happiness do not coexist in this world. And so there needs to be another world when they will come together. So this is quite interesting. If we talk about the demanding nature of cancer ethics, you could then link in there. But one of his postulates is that there is an afterlife when we will be rewarded for doing our duty. And again, that could actually be a criticism because you could say, so actually there is an end goal to the ethics. Because you're only doing your duty in order to achieve perfect happiness. Now, Kant would disagree with that. He would say, no, no, you're doing your duty because it's your duty. But then in the afterlife, there will be this connection between virtue and happiness. But it is interesting to see here that, you know, he is saying, OK, because there is a difference between doing your duty and being virtuous in this life and then what makes you happy, there must be another life when they will actually. infused together, shall we say, when they will come together, because doing your moral duty will be rewarded after death. But that should not be your motivation for doing your duty, is a really important part of Kant's ethical argument. You should remember that the only good is the goodwill to do your duty. And then the third one is really interesting, because many elements of Kant are secular. The idea of thinking for yourself and working out those categorical imperatives by using reason, you know. So that does give this, you know, credibility for a secular audience. But we then have this postulate, this practical assumption that there is a God. So in order that the sun and bonham, the greatest good, the union of perfect virtue and happiness actually occurs and goodness is ultimately rewarded by happiness, even if it's not been achieved in this life, there must be a God who ensures the justice of the universe. So obviously, you know, Kant with his Kingdom of Ends, for example. is very concerned with perfect justice, isn't he? He wants the perfect moral world. He can see that we do not live in the kingdom of ends. So he believes that there must be something more than this. You know, there must be an afterlife and there must be, we have to assume, a God who can ensure the justice of the universe. So he postulates, and this is important, the existence of God, because he does not think that we can know the existence of God, but that God is a necessary presupposition of our reason. So he is making a moral argument for presupposing God's existence. So this is really interesting if we think, you know, about all the moral theories we studied and their relationship with religion. With Kant's theory, as I say, it is very much secular. in that, you know, the morals don't come from God, you know, they come from reason. But we then have this postulate that there is a God, we have to assume there is a God, so that justice can ultimately be done. So, you know, it shows us the complexity of Kantian ethics, and it gives us great opportunity, actually, to talk about the relationship between Kantian ethics and religion, because on the one hand, the actual morals that Kant presents don't require belief in God. But then we have this postulate where we're expected to, you know, assume for the sake of our morality that there is a God who can ensure the justice of the universe. So, you know, really interesting area of Kantian ethics, actually. So that leads us on to our AO2 evaluation, where we get to look at the strengths and the weaknesses and then, of course, make our judgments about Kant. And I think your key areas of focus with Kant really are going to be, is it practical? Does this work in practice? You know, is it something that can be applied in 21st secular society? And do the strengths of Kantian ethics outweigh the weaknesses? So, you know, just start thinking about those key questions about whether it's applicable, about whether it actually works in practice or whether, as we've mentioned a few times today, it is just too demanding to work in reality. So let's start with our strengths, shall we? Let's start with the positives for Immanuel Kant. And the first one. is that it offers clear and fixed guidelines. You know, one thing about Kant is that we certainly know where we stand with him. So this principle of universal law, one of the first formulations, and at the absolute core of the categorical imperative, we can say is useful for moral decision making, because it gives people a clear criteria for determining the morality of actions. You know, with situation ethics, you know, a key criticism is that pretty much anything goes, because, you know, you can say, well, in that situation, that was the most loving thing to do. But with Kantian ethics, we have got a very clear universal law. And so we can be very clear in terms of making a judgment about actions. Is it right? Is it wrong? And we can say this is a good thing because it ensures that morality is clear and consistent. You know that there are no exceptions or exemptions, which provides clarity. Everyone knows where they stand. Everybody's on the same page. It also, of course, avoids the influence of our emotions. So we can say it is objective. which again, we could say is very helpful because it removes emotions and it removes the situation from your ethical decision making. You know, it's very clear what your duty is. It is to do the categorical imperative or follow the categorical imperative. And we could actually say that this is consistent with Cicero's belief, there should be one law eternal binding upon all people at all times. And of course, we looked at that quote with natural moral law. We could actually bring that back in when we talk about county and ethics. And you might argue, you. that Kant offers this in a much clearer way, because he is so clear in terms of what you should do. Your action is about the universal law, persons as ends and kingdom of ends. So he is really clear about what we should be doing. And it is binding upon people, isn't it? It's about having a duty to act in this way. Our second strength, then, is that it values and respects each person. So, you know, Kant very much, I would say, a pioneer of human rights, whereas Benson said that human rights are nonsense on stilts. Kant was very clear that we need to respect the value of each person because, of course, his second formulation is that people are treated as ends in themselves rather than as means to our ends. So we can say it is a good thing or this is a good thing because it respects the intrinsic value of every person. So it recognises the worth and value of every person. if we want to link that to a modern concept The UN Declaration of Human Rights, which was put together in 1948, is still seen as very important today in the world. And we can say that this laid the foundation for that, the idea that everybody has certain rights that can never be taken away from them. We could actually credit Kant with pioneering that, that people need to be seen as ends in themselves with these intrinsic rights and this intrinsic value. You know, we can see a Kantian influence on that. We can also say that Kant is consistent in this with religious ideas about the sanctity of life, you know, that idea in Christianity of imago Dei, for example, that we are made in the image and likeness of God. So the idea that every human life has intrinsic worth and value, we see that as well in religious thinking and in, you know, religious ethics. So We can see consistency there between Kant with his secular ethics and then religious ethics in terms of the value and dignity of each person. We could say in practice it's good because it prevents the exploitation of anybody, even the weakest or the most vulnerable. Again, if you compare with utilitarianism and that idea of the tyranny of the majority, you know, we have a protection in Kantian ethics for all people, you know, even the most vulnerable, because everybody needs to be treated as an end in themselves. And again, be thinking about your applications to business ethics, for example. And we could say that this is a favourable contrast, though, always great as part of your evaluation to be comparing with other ethical theories. We could say it's a favourable contrast with theories like utilitarianism, where persons are only instrumentally valuable. Remember, utilitarianism is about usefulness and the and justifying the means with Kant. People need to be seen as an end in themselves. So a clear contrast and arguably a favourable contrast in terms of protecting human rights and respecting the dignity of every person. OK, and another strength, and this is a controversial one, I suppose, because of the postulates. But in terms of how can works out morality, we can say it does not depend on a belief in God. We can say it is a secular theory because unlike natural moral law or situation ethics. Morality is not derived from God, but is worked out by using reason. We could say this is more appealing and it can therefore be universally applied even by atheists or in an atheistic society, because you can use your reason to work out the categorical imperative, because the criteria is universal law, persons as ends and kingdom of ends, yeah? It's not about God giving us commandments. The categorical imperative as I've mentioned, are worked out rationally rather than being given as commands by God via a holy book. But of course, you know, you must not forget those postulates and they are a great opportunity here to bring in a rebuttal or, you know, offer some critical analysis because you can say that, however, the existence of an afterlife and the existence of God are two of Kant's three postulates. And you could argue that an atheist isn't going to be prepared to esteem that there is a God, even if it's just for practical reasons, yeah? You can say, OK, Kant says he hasn't proven the existence of God, but he's still expecting us to assume there is a God. And we can say this shows it is truly or not truly, sorry, secular. You know, it still has an element in it that atheists today would feel quite uncomfortable about. They would say, you know, using reason doesn't actually lead us to just assuming for the sake of morality that there is a God or that there is an afterlife. And you could therefore argue, again, keeping in your comparisons, that utilitarianism may be a better option as a secular morality. So, you know, interesting and a great opportunity there to get in your critical analysis. So in terms of your weaknesses, then you could argue, of course, that it is too rigid. It's too narrow. We're also going to talk about it being too strict and demanding. So we could say, Pantene ethics is lovely on paper. It sounds great if everybody, you know. was on board with it and everybody followed it, but it doesn't work in practice. We could say that in the real world, it is important to take situations and outcomes into account, especially because of the difficult situations and the difficult scenarios people find themselves in. For example, you know, the classic example is a desperate mother who steals to feed her starving baby. We could say stealing is not universalizable. It is not a universal law, isn't it? You wouldn't legislate for it in the kingdom of ends But you could say if you were in that situation, it can be justified. It would be a morally acceptable thing to do. You know, it is justifiable. The end does justify the means. We're not in the kingdom of ends. If we were in the kingdom of ends, surely a starving child wouldn't be a reality. The fact that we're not in that kingdom means we shouldn't follow the laws of that kingdom. We have to think practically about the moral problems we are facing in the world around us. And so, of course, we could bring in Joseph Fletcher and situation ethics, because he said the morality of an action is dependent on the circumstances. The Kantian ethics is too rigid and narrow. You do need to consider the circumstance. You do need to consider the context. You do need to take into account what's actually going on in that particular scenario. And then Jeremy Benson as well. He said the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measure of right and wrong. And remember, you know, he said the end does justify the means. We do need to, in his case, get out our hedonic calculus and make a calculation. So again, you can use other moral theories to critique Kantian ethics and to say it's too limited in that it's too rigid and it's too narrow. We could also say it is too abstract and impractical because it works, we could say, in the kingdom of ends, but does not work in practice in this world. We could say it offers perfect solutions, doesn't it, based on a hypothetical kingdom of ends where everyone follows the moral law, but in reality, in this world, they don't. Hence the fact there's someone at the door who wants to murder your friend. You know, how can you stick to the rules of the kingdom of ends when you're not in that perfect kingdom, when you're actually in a world where people do immoral things and you have to deal with that? So we could write that this theory cannot actually cope in a world where people do immoral things and we find ourselves in extremely difficult situations. We could say moral decision making in this world is much more complicated than Kantian ethics. suggest. You know, in his little world, for example, where he woke up at five every day, he did his teaching, he did his writing, he went for his free 30 walk and he went to bed. In his little bubble, this might have sounded excellent. But, you know, we know that Kant never actually left the hometown where he was born. So, you know, his morality might have sounded great on paper and it might work great in a kingdom of ends, but that is not the reality for many people in the world today. And so, you know, it theoretically would be excellent, but practically it is impossible and it cannot cope in the real world where people are having to respond to real world situations where they do then face difficult decisions and dilemmas. So, you know, again, a really interesting criticism about the practical applications of this, that it's too demanding to work in this world. And then another weakness could be conflicting duties. So we could say it does not account for times when two moral absolutes clash. So what if you've got two categorical imperatives that seem to contradict one another? So which one should you choose to follow if you are supposed to follow all duties at all times? And again, this could show that Kant's theory does not take into account the demanding complexity of real life. You know, it also, and this is an important point, does not account for the idea that duties... could extend further than just moral duties. Because if Kant's all about doing your duty, what if I believe I have a duty to my family, for example? So I don't just have a duty to the moral law, but I have a duty to look after my family. So for example, you know, your starving child who hasn't eaten and desperately needs food, should you not steal in order to feed them based on your duty towards that child you've brought into the world? So this idea of duty is something that we can expect. explore further and we can actually say, well, can, you know, surely there are more duties than just your moral duty. What about your duty to that child you've brought into the world that is now starving? So, you know, maybe that's a great opportunity to evaluate in terms of considering this duty-based ethics. What do we actually mean by duties in the 21st century? So hopefully that's giving you some, you know, food for thought in terms of evaluating Kantian ethics. And the question I would like you to consider, and maybe write your conclusion actually below, is that the strengths of Kantian ethics outweigh the weaknesses. So, you know, there are many, many more actually critiques of Kantian ethics than we've just looked at there. That is just a little flavour, you know, please have a look at more contemporary theories such as Roth's thoughts on Kantian ethics. And think about this idea of duty in the modern world. Do people in the modern world... think that this is something we could follow, that we should follow, that it works as an ethical theory, or is this actually completely impractical and completely impossible to actually put into action? But yes, I hope you found that interesting. I hope you found that quite insightful in terms of Kant and his deontological, duty-based, and I think it's fair to say, very demanding ethical theory. Thank you for watching. Good luck with your studies and see you soon. Bye-bye.

And Kant believed that human beings need discipline in all areas of their lives. He said that man must be disciplined And... but by nature he is raw and wild and that extends to his moral theory. So he has a very strict duty-based ethical theory which is all about us following categorical imperatives in every single situation and we work out those categorical imperatives by finding out whether they can be universalised, whether they treat people as ends and whether they could be a legislated rule in the kingdom of ends. And we'll talk more about how you determine a categorical imperative later in the video.

But I think the main thing to know about Kant's deontological ethics is that they are very strict and they are duty-based. Kant did not care about the consequences of your actions, and he did not care about the situation you were in. He said the only good thing is the goodwill to do your duty and live in accordance with those categorical imperatives. So we'll be looking at all of your AO1 key knowledge about Kant's theory. And then, of course, we'll be looking at our AO2 evaluation.

We'll be looking at the strengths and the weaknesses. And we'll be asking, is this moral theory too demanding to actually be practical and to be, you know, a practical approach to ethics in the 21st century? So plenty to talk about.

Let's get started, shall we, with Kant's very famous... X-Men example, because I think this really does illustrate how demanding and duty-based his moral theory is. And remember, Kant focused on the act itself. He did not care about the consequences.

He said the only good thing is the goodwill to always do your duty. So I want you to picture the scene. A murderer with a dangerous weapon is at your door, and they are demanding to know the location of your friend, because obviously... Your friend has done something that they're not happy about and they want to get revenge. They want to go and murder them.

And you have to ask yourself, do I tell them where they are? So do I tell the truth? Do I tell them exactly where they are so they can go and kill them? Or do I not? Do I tell a white lie?

Do I say they've gone to Tesco when they're actually in Lidl? So that is obviously a hypothetical scenario. but Kant said that if you were in this position, it is your duty to tell.

the truth. Because remember, he is not concerned about consequences. It does not matter to him what will then happen.

And he does not want you to take the situation into account. It doesn't matter about the circumstances. He said that it is your duty to tell the truth. Okay. And again, this is because that action can be universalised.

He said your principle of action should be made a law for the whole world. So if you were going to lie in that situation, even though you had, you know, a good motivation, arguably, he says that is wrong. Because if every single person in the world then started lying, society would collapse. So he believes, remember, this is a duty based ethical theory, that the only good thing is the goodwill to do your duty. And it is your duty to always tell the truth.

And so in that situation, Pant would say you must. tell the truth. It is your duty to tell the truth. It doesn't matter about the consequences. It doesn't matter about the situation.

You have a duty to always follow certain ethical and moral obligations. Now, of course, if we contrasted this with utilitarianism or situation ethics, we can see that Kant's ethical theory is very distinct from both of those, isn't it? You know, utilitarianism, for example, is a consequentialist theory. And it's all about doing whatever is useful for bringing about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. And of course, for a utilitarian, the end would justify the means.

And so that end goal of saving your friend's life would justify the means, which is telling a lie. But Kant would not be having any of that. Remember, he believed that morality needed to be very disciplined, it needed to be very rigid and very strict.

And so he demands... that you always do the right thing. And that means for him, always doing your duty, which in this case would be to tell the truth. So.

As you can hopefully see, this is a very demanding moral theory, isn't it? And it does not take the situation into account. It does not take consequences into account.

It is all about doing your ethical duty. So here on the screen are a couple of quotes from Kant. And I have to tell you, Kant is very, very quotable. You know, the way that he wrote and the way that he articulated things is actually quite poetic, I would say. And these are just a couple of the brilliant soundbites that you can actually apply and you can include in your exam answers.

So just have a look at these quotes because they really do encapsulate his ethical theory and his attitude towards morality. So one of my favourite quotes from him is that two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe. The starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. So, of course, he believes that there is a fixed moral law.

He believes that that can be discovered through reason and that that is categorical imperatives, that we should always be following the categorical imperatives. He said that man must be disciplined, for by nature he is raw and wild. So he believed we need discipline in every area of our lives. And that includes in our moral decision making.

He said, live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law. So again, every single action you perform needs to be universalised. So you have to imagine, well, if everybody in the world did this, what would be the consequence? So, you know, would this be something that could happen in what he calls the kingdom of ends in the perfect world?

Is this an action people would perform? So something like, for example, stealing in order to feed your starving child, Kant would be completely against that because he would say, well, what if everybody then stole? you know we can't have that so it's again, a very demanding theory because every act you perform has to be a universalizable action.

It has to be suitable, if you like, to become a universal law. He said you should do the right thing because it is right. So again, don't consider the consequences.

Don't consider the circumstances. Do the right thing because it is right. And again, that reminds you of this duty-based theory. that it's about having these moral duties, these ethical obligations that you must always follow, and that we can work those out, we can ascertain what they are by using reason, which of course is the categorical imperative and his three formulations for that.

He said that there is nothing higher than reason. So this is a moral theory based on reason, the idea that you can reason, you can rationally work out what these categorical imperatives are, and therefore follow them and so we're going to say that that could be a strength of the theory because it means it is secular. Because although belief in God is one of Kant's three practical postulates, in terms of where your morals come from, they are derived from reasoning. And we can argue that all people, whether they're religious or not, can use reason in order to work out categorical imperatives.

He said, and I love this quote as well, life without reason and morality has no value. So it is our ability to reason, and it is our strong morals. that gives our lives as human beings value. And he was one of the key thinkers of the Enlightenment, which was this period in time when people were very interested in using their reason and thinking for themselves.

And Kant very much wants you to use your reason and think for yourself about what the right thing to do is. And he said, the right thing to do is to do your duty. Because remember, the only good thing for Kant is the goodwill. And that is the will, the desire to do your duty. So I think someone like the late Queen Elizabeth II, for example, would find favour with Kant.

He would be very happy about her because he loved people that did their duty, you know, not so they would be rewarded, not because it worked in that situation, but because it was their duty that they'd ascertained, they'd discovered through reason. And then another key quote just to mention here is he said, all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. So a big focus for us with Kant's ethics. is the categorical imperative. And we're going to look at the difference between what he called hypothetical imperatives, which are all about doing something if it will lead to something else, and then these categorical imperatives, which are the moral absolutes, which form the foundation, really, for his ethical theory.

So now we've looked at the key quotes, and we've been inspired by some of Kant's poetic sayings. Let's have a look at the key words, which are key for our understanding of Kantian ethics. The first one is moral absolutism. And this is a really important key term because this is a moral absolutist theory. Because Kant believes that there are certain universal moral principles by which all people's actions should be judged.

And of course, at the core of the categorical imperative are these three formulations. that your action can be universalised, that it treats people as ends, and it could be applied in the kingdom of ends. So for Kant, his ethics are absolutist, you know, and we discover the categorical imperative by using reason. And the categorical imperative is something that can be universalised, that your principle of action could be made a law for the whole world.

The next key word is duty and whenever we talk about pant we do talk about duty And this is the action that is morally required of you. It is an obligation you must obey. And remember, for Kant, the only good thing is the goodwill to do your duty.

OK, so as I've mentioned, Kant believes in two different types of imperative, the categorical and the hypothetical imperative. So the first one we'll mention is the hypothetical imperative. And this is a conditional obligation that is dependent upon desiring the goal in question. So whenever we're looking at hypothetical imperatives, we're always looking for the word if. It's about doing something if you want to achieve something else, yeah?

Which, of course, the can is not what morality should be about. You are not considering the consequences, you are not considering the situation. We then have the categorical imperative, which he did like, because this is the unconditional moral obligation that we must always obey.

So it is our duty to obey. We've got to discover it through reason. And then we've got to do it based on duty.

And that is, of course, going to be followed, irrespective of the situation, irrespective of the consequence. And as I say, we can work these out using reason. For example, it is wrong to make a lying promise.

And the key word we're looking for when we talk about a categorical imperative is must. So whereas with the hypothetical imperative, it's about the word if, that if you want to achieve something else, you should do this, whereas with the category categorical imperative, excuse me, it's that keyword must. Yeah, that modal verb, isn't it? That you must always do something irrespective of the consequence, irrespective of the circumstance. It is your duty to obey the categorical imperatives.

Okay, so how do we discover a categorical imperative? Kant proposes three formulations for discovering, for ascertaining a categorical imperative, and they are universal law, persons of ends. and kingdom of ends. So formulation one, universal law. This is the principle that we should only carry out those acts that we are able to will as the universal law for everyone to follow at all times.

So again, with the lying to the murderer, that would be wrong, according to Kant, because if everybody then lied at all times, we would be in a very difficult position, wouldn't we? You know, morality would collapse. And so you cannot lie in that situation because If you did that, you would be saying you think lying should be made a universal law. So everything that you do needs to be universalised.

In terms of when you act, you've got to think what would be the consequence if this was made a universal law. So as you can see, very, very demanding. And there is no consideration of your particular circumstance.

Everything you do needs to be made a universal law. The second formulation is persons as ends. And this is the principle that people should be treated as an end in themselves, not as the means to an end. So this really does lay the foundation for human rights and the idea that everybody should be seen as an end in themselves rather than being used as a means to an end. So they must be respected rather than used or taken advantage of.

Now, this does actually contrast, doesn't it, with utilitarianism, where, you know, Benson believed that the end does justify the means. the pan in canteen ethics every person must be treated as an end in themselves. You can't use them in order to achieve something else.

And I think a great application is maybe to business ethics. And if you think about, say, sweatshops, where, you know, people are working in really quite shocking conditions in order to produce cheap clothing for Western consumers. And I think Kant would be absolutely appalled by this, that those people were being exploited, really, in order to produce cheap clothes for other people. And so that's why I say for Kant, there is a real focus on human rights and respecting people as an end in themselves.

You cannot use them or take advantage of them. Our next one then is kingdom of ends. And this is the third formulation. This is the principle that your actions should be made a law in a hypothetical state where people always act according to the moral rules and treat people as ends. So whatever you're doing, you are effectively saying.

In the kingdom of ends, this would be what happens. So this could be legislated for in the kingdom of ends. So we're going to talk about this a little bit more, obviously, as we journey through the video.

But this sort of brings together and ties together the universal law and the persons as ends formulation. We then have a postulate. An postulate is something assumed to be true as a starting point for reasoning.

OK, so a postulate is not something you have proven to be true, but is something you are assuming to be true for practical reasons. And Kant's ethical theory has three of these, that we have free will, that there is life after death when we will be rewarded for acting in accordance with our duty. And then that there is a God who can actually give us that reward. Now, Pant, as I say, is not saying that these things are proven, but he is saying that it is practical for us to assume these things as the foundation for the moral theory he presents.

So we will be looking at these postulates and we'll be asking, why does he need to assume that these things are true? And, you know, does the fact that one of the postulates is God mean that people who are atheists, for example, wouldn't actually find this theory appealing? Because although it is secular, in the sense that morality is ascertained by using reason rather than turning to scripture or God, there is still this assumption in Kant's theory that there is a God who can reward you for doing your duty. So, you know, when we start to do our critical analysis and look at our AO2 evaluation, that is something we will very much be considering.

And then finally, the summum bonum, which is the highest good. And for Kant, this is the place where our happiness and virtue come together. So obviously he believes in being moral, doesn't he?

He takes it very seriously. And he thinks that virtue and happiness will ultimately come together. That even though doing your duty will be difficult and demanding in this world and in this lifetime, you know, there might sometimes be a conflict between what makes you happy and what your duty requires you to do. For example, telling a murderer where your friend is so they can kill them. You know, he says that ultimately that will be rewarded.

that, you know, in the afterlife. which he's obviously assuming to exist, that happiness and virtue will come together. So, you know, really interesting in terms of how Kant's theory has been put together by him. And as I say, you know, he's got these three formulations and then these three postulates as well.

So everything is always very organised with Kant because he loved order, he loved routine and he loved things to be, you know, put together properly. So we'll be coming back to those. as we journey through the video.

But I think the best place for us to start actually is by asking who was Immanuel Kant because we can learn so much about his moral theory by understanding who he was as a person. So we get a real insight into Kant and his morality from looking at his life story. So he was a German philosopher born in 1724 and as I mentioned before he was a key figure in the enlightenment.

He's written a brilliant essay actually on enlightenment that I would really recommend you read if you have a look on Google. And he believed in the importance of personal autonomy and the role of reason, which were two key themes of the enlightenment. And he believed that having a good will is the only good thing. And he said that a good will is having a desire to do duty for duty's sake. And Kant really believed in the distinction between having desires and your duties, that you shouldn't be led by your human desires, because as I mentioned before, he believed man must be disciplined, for by nature he is raw and wild, but for Kant, the only desire that is good is to do your duty, and so the goodwill is the only good thing.

He was a deontologist, he was focused on the act itself, and on ethical duties, that we have this duty to always act. in a certain way, and that way is in accordance with categorical imperatives. Now, he had obviously a very disciplined and very strict morality, and that is reflected in his daily routine.

He had a famously disciplined daily routine. He woke up at exactly 5am every day, for example, and he actually took pride in the fact that he never overslept. He had his servant wake him up at exactly the same time every day, and he never hit the snooze button.

hypothetically. He always got up on time and he took pride in that because, again, he believed we must be disciplined in every area of our lives, whether that is the time we wake up or whether that is in our moral decision making. There can be no exceptions, there can be no excuses, you know, full stop, whether that is in when you wake up or the moral decisions that you make.

And another great anecdote about him is that he was seen as more reliable than the town clock because his neighbours knew his daily routine so well because it never ever changed. So for example, they knew it was 3.30pm when they saw Can on his daily walk. They didn't even need to look at the town clock. If they saw Can on his walk, they knew what time of day it was because he, as I say, never ever changed his routine.

He was so strict. He was so disciplined in every area of his life, whether that was what time he woke up, the time that he did things in his day, and of course, in his morality as well. So hopefully, you know, that helps you to remember how strict his moral theory is.

And it gives you an insight into why his theory is so strict, because he believed human beings need discipline. He believed that we need to have strict rules. We need to have a strict routine and we need to have our strict approach to morality.

There can be no exceptions. There can be no exemptions and there can be no excuses. So, yes, set your alarm for 5 a.m.

tomorrow and don't press that snooze button. That would make very happy indeed. Now, in terms of his deontological ethics, then, that he develops, he believed, and this is important, that there is an absolute moral law that exists. and that the absolute moral rules this contains can be worked out by using reason.

So he, remember, believes you can discover morality through the use of reason. And these moral rules that make up this universal law are known as categorical imperatives, and these apply in all situations. He believes they are universally binding on all people at all times, and that reflects formulation one, the universal law. And so it is your duty, Kant believed, to follow these without exception. You must always do your duty.

The only good will is the will to do your duty. The only good thing, sorry, is the good will, which is to do your duty. Excuse me.

And he believed that categorical imperatives are things that we could make into formulation one, universal laws, formulation two, that they treat people as ends, and formulation three, that they would be permissible in a perfect kingdom of. ends. Now, before we look at those in more detail, I want to be really clear about Kant's belief, you must always do your duty. And this is in contrast with following your emotions or your desires.

So, for example, with Bentham in Utilitarianism, remember he said, nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain. And Bentham said that they should shape our morality. But Kant would be absolutely appalled by that, because he believed that actually we shouldn't be giving in to our desires, we need to be disciplining ourselves. So instead of saying, okay, that gives me pleasure, let's do that, he said, man must be disciplined, for by nature he is raw and wild.

So he believed that our feelings, our emotions, our desires should be excluded from moral decision making. We simply have to do our duty, which is to follow, of course, I hope you You know by now the categorical imperatives. Being virtuous, he believed, will ultimately be rewarded after death, in the afterlife.

He said our duty in this lifetime is to do our duty. And you shouldn't expect reward for that. You shouldn't expect that to necessarily be easy or pleasurable. But actually, in the afterlife, that virtue and happiness will actually be joined together, that we will receive our reward for being so disciplined and doing our duty. But we shouldn't be seeking a reward now.

Because remember, we shouldn't be looking to consequences. The only good thing is the goodwill to do your duty. And he believed that goodwill shined forth like a precious jewel. So, you know, somebody who has that goodwill to do their duty in every situation would, you know, find favour with Kant.

He would be very happy with them and very impressed by them. So, again, I do think of, say, Queen Elizabeth II. When we looked at the tributes paid to her.

that key theme of doing her duty kept coming up, didn't it? And so I think Kant would be very happy with her in the sense that she always did her duty, you know, and that was something she took very seriously. That is what Kant wants us to all do.

He wants us to take our duty very seriously, and he wants us to be committed to always doing our duty. So Kant and goodwill. Let's just talk about this a little bit more. I don't know why that bullet point is already there. Do excuse me.

This PowerPoint is not in order. Kant would not be happy about this. There we go. Let's get all the key facts on the screen.

So as I've mentioned, for Kant, the only good thing is goodwill. So having the good intention to do your duty for duty's sake is the goodwill for Kant. And that is the only truly good thing.

Your will, your desire, if I can use that word in this context, to do your duty. That is the only good desire. If we have a good will, we will then perform the right action for the right reason. And Kant argues that it doesn't matter if we are prevented from carrying out our good intentions.

What matters is that we sincerely aim to do the right thing. That is what matters to him, that you have that desire, that good will. to do your duty.

So what is duty? Well, can't believe that all human beings have moral duties that they must follow and act upon. And these duties must be followed simply because they, or we, are human beings. So we have these duties. And our duty, of course, is to follow categorical imperatives, which we work out using reason.

And they can be worked out, as I've put there, rationally. And I think the key thing to remember when it comes to duty-based ethics is that emotions and feelings are irrelevant and that the possible outcomes or consequences are also irrelevant. With Kant's deontological duty-based ethics, all that matters is doing your duty, doing your moral duty, which is following the categorical imperatives. So, you know, really important, you know, situation ethics, obviously based on love, Kant would not be happy about that.

Utilitarianism based on consequences and outcomes. Kant would not be happy about that. Your emotions, feelings and the outcomes are irrelevant.

The only good is the goodwill to do your duty. And if you've done your duty, you can sleep well at night and then wake up at 5 a.m. the next morning, of course.

And a great example actually of just how demanding Kant is, is this really great example of the shopkeeper. So he gives the example of a shopkeeper who always charges others fairly. you could say that's a good thing because he's charging people a fair price. But Kant says if he does that because he knows that this is good for business, that actually takes away the goodness of the act. So what should be a really good thing that he's charging people fairly, that's a moral, honourable thing to do.

Kant says that if he's doing that because he knows it will be good for business, that then actually undermines the goodness of the act. It's no longer a good thing to do. He concludes that even this is not sufficient for the action to count as morally good. Because, he says, the shopkeeper is actually acting in his own interest, not in accordance with duty. Because it is only if he charges people fairly out of duty that this becomes a good action.

So even though you could say, well, it's still a good action because people are getting a fair price for what they're purchasing, Kant would say it's not a good action because the motivation behind it is not duty. So remember, the only good thing is the goodwill, which for Kant is to do your duty. Whereas here, he's got the motivation of it being good for business.

So the word because is a problem for Kant. You know, he wants you to be doing it because it's your duty, not because in this case, he knows that it is good for business. So again, this is illustrating how demanding in. Kant's deontological ethics are.

And again, we can be already thinking about our AO2 evaluation. Does this show that actually, Kant's morality is too demanding? It would work in his perfect kingdom of ends, but it's just not practical when you're working with human beings in the real world. And the key point is that acting in accordance with duty is not enough for an action to be considered morally good. You must act from duty, irrespective of whether or not you are inclined to do it.

or whether or not it is in your interest. Because remember, the only good is the goodwill, the will to do your duty, nothing else. So, you know, he is only interested in people acting from duty.

So even if the action does so happen to be good, if it is not the result of doing your duty or the goodwill to do your duty, Kant would not see it as good. So again, this is how demanding it is. There can be no consideration of feelings, consequences, outcomes, or absolutely anything else except duty.

Hence the fact we call this a deontological ethical theory because it is duty-based and it's that goodwill to do your duty. So what we need to have a look at now is the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative because remember, Kant believed that we need to always be following, it is our duty to always be following the categorical imperatives. So we want to have a look at what these imperatives are.

actually are and how we work them out. To do that, we're going to have a look at your hypothetical imperatives and then at your categorical imperatives as well. So what is a hypothetical imperative?

And the key word with these is if. OK, so here's a potential framework for asserting a categorical hypothetical, excuse me, imperative. Don't get them mixed up. So if you want to do this or achieve this, then you should do this.

So it's all about... things being a means to an end and the end justifying the means. So these are hypothetical imperatives, are conditional imperatives that we would follow if we wanted to achieve a certain end result in a specific situation.

So they are good for certain purposes and that is why we see them as conditional. They are not objectively good. They are good, so your action is good, if you want to achieve something else. So that is why hypothetical hypothetical imperatives are conditional.

They should be followed, they would be followed, if we want to achieve a specified end goal. So as I put in that framework at the top, if you want to pass your exams, then you should revise. So they are conditional, that you should do something if you want to achieve something else. And so that means that they only apply in certain cases, and they are dependent on the outcome that you want to achieve. So of course, Kant would be completely against this.

because they are not going to be made into universal laws. They are conditional things you would do to achieve a certain end goal. So obviously, Kant would not be happy about these.

On the other hand, we have the categorical imperative, which he would be happy with. And this framework is actually much simpler, because all you need to put is, you must always fill in the gap here. For example, you must always tell the truth.

That could be an example, you know, something that must... always be done. You shouldn't tell the truth if you want to X, Y, Z. You should always do it. Another way we can put this into a framework is you must never. So, for example, you must never make a false promise.

So, it's this idea of musts, yeah? So, whereas with the hypothetical, it's about saying if on this side of the table for the categorical imperative, it's about must. You must.

always do something or you must never do something else. So a categorical imperative is a command which logically has to always be followed and the key word there really is logically because these are worked out using reason. This is because it is objectively necessary in itself, it is not necessary for any other reason. So it's not about achieving something else, it's not about achieving a specified end goal but it's a moral duty that everybody must always follow.

And that's because the command is unconditional. It must always be followed. It does not depend upon the end results.

This action is always intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong. So again, if we compare with utilitarianism, it's not about whether the action is useful for maximising pleasure and minimising pain. It is always unconditional in terms of being intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong in every single situation. Whoever does it, it's either always right or always wrong.

And so its logical form is simply do X or don't do Y. And there is nothing there, is there, about if you want to achieve this or, you know, in order to reach this end goal. You have, with the categorical imperative, a must, that you must always do something in every circumstance, in every situation, or you must never do something else.

So these are actions that are commanded in terms of a universal application. Yeah. that they are universally, eternally right or wrong. So in order to work out what a categorical imperative is, Kant offers us these three tests, these three formulations.

So if you have got a maxim, you've got an imperative, and you want to work out, okay, is this rule, is this command a hypothetical imperative or a categorical imperative or a hypothetical imperative? Sorry, guys, I'm just repeating the words now. Let me start that sentence again.

I think I need some green tea to excuse me. Right, let's go again. If you want to work out whether the imperative is hypothetical or categorical, you need to use these three tests.

And they are, number one, universal law, formulation one. Number two, persons of ends. And number three, kingdom of ends. So, let's have a look at these, shall we?

The first... formulation for working out what is a categorical imperative is universal law. And the key quote you could use in the exam is live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law.

The maxim you follow, if it is to be a categorical imperative, must be universalizable. That's a very big word, isn't it? I think it's actually easier to write than say. So it has to be something that would be good if every person on the planet followed it or did it. So you've got to see it as a universal law.

It has to be universally applicable. If the action cannot be made into a universal law, then it cannot be done in any situation. And again, this reflects the fact that Kantian ethics is about following universal laws.

There are no exceptions. There are no exemptions. You can't say, well, in this situation, you could do this. You know, as I say, he would not like situation ethics at all, because he believes in moral absolutes, that you must always do certain things, you must never do certain things.

You cannot base it on the situation. There is no consideration of consequence. There is no consideration of situation.

You have to do your duty. And so we shouldn't put ourselves above the universal law. There are no exceptions. There are no exemptions. You can't say, well, it was an extreme circumstance.

You know, it was a one off. That is not going to cut it for Kant. He's not interested in that.

He would see it as an excuse. You can never put yourself above the universal law. You have to do your duty.

Action must be in accordance with the universal law. Live your life, as he said, as though your every act were to become a universal law. The second formulation then is persons have ends.

And our key quote that you can use here is that every man is to be respected as an absolute end in himself. So what does that mean? Well, he believed, and remember, key figure of the Enlightenment, very interested in people using their reasoning. He said humans are rational, autonomous, and they deserve respect. So as I say, Kant very much a pioneer of human rights here.

He said we must therefore see people as ends in themselves rather than as means to our ends. So in modern terms, he's saying there, don't use people, don't abuse people, don't exploit people for your own gain. He said we can use objects, so we can use something like a pen, because I'm using this pen to write, for example. But we can't use people to fulfil our needs or our desires. Your action must never involve using, taking advantage of or exploiting somebody.

So you can't use people in order to achieve something for yourself. You must respect them as an end in themselves. So as I say, you know, it's very much about respecting people and seeing people as ends in themselves rather than as a means to our ends.

You know, you can't use one person in order to achieve something for. five people. I think a great example here is, you know, the trolley problem that we looked at when we talked about utilitarianism and the idea that you could kill that one person working on the track in order to save five other people.

Again, he would be absolutely appalled by this. You know, he'd probably pass out and collapse at the thought of it because, you know, you are using that one person as a means to our ends. We're saying, well, we're going to kill that one person in order to say five. He would say every man is to be respected. as an absolute end in himself.

You cannot justify the killing of one person in order to save five, because, you know, it's not treating that person as an end in themselves. You're using them as a means to your end. And then the third formulation is the kingdom of ends.

So he said, act as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaking member of the kingdom of ends. So this, as I mentioned before, or ties together. universal law and persons as ends because he said that whenever you act you must imagine that you are sitting on the law-making council of a perfect kingdom of ends so this is a really interesting one actually he said that if you were to live in this place where everyone always does their duty universalizes their actions and treats people as ends would your action be permitted so in that ideal world in that moral paradise is this something that would be a law?

Is this something that people would be allowed to do? And obviously, something like lying, if we go back to the Axeman example, you know, the argument we're making is, well, in this situation where there is a murderer, I need to lie in order to save my friend. But Kant is saying no, because you should act as if you were in the kingdom of ends, and you were making the laws for the kingdom of ends.

And in that perfect moral world, Of course, you would not say that lying is something people are allowed to do. And so you shouldn't do it in this world. Only do things that would be allowed in the perfect kingdom of ends. Now, of course, a key criticism we can make here is we are not in the kingdom of ends, you know.

And so, of course, when there are things like poverty and child poverty, that means things like stealing can be excused if it means you can feed that starving child or that lying can be excused if it's to protect someone from a murderer. But Kant is saying, no, that is the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to imagine that in this world, your actions are creating the laws for the kingdom of ends. So, you know, again, is this theory too demanding? Because we don't live in the kingdom of ends.

How on earth can we base our moral decisions in this world on what you would do or legislate for in the kingdom of ends? So, you know, again, this idea of Kant being too demanding. But also we could argue that if everybody did live like this, the world would be a better place.

So, you know, always thinking about our AO2 evaluation and whether this actually works. But yes, the kingdom of ends is the idea that your categorical imperatives are the rules that would be in place in the perfect moral paradise, which is the kingdom of ends. OK, so just a little activity here for you to put this into practice, really. and just to see.

whether we understand now, fingers crossed, I hope, the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative. So on the board are six imperatives, and it is your task, it is your job to sort out which of these are hypothetical, there are three hypothetical, and which of these are categorical. There are, again, three categorical.

So just have a minute, whilst I have a bit of green tea, having a look at those, and sort out my hair as well, by the way, guys. Also, look at the lighting. It's terrible. I've looked very pale. Just a little complaint there to Zoom.

Going to have to sort that out, I think, before the next video. So anyway, hopefully you've had a chance to look through those. Here we are.

Those colours are really coming up boldly, aren't they? Very vivid distinction between them there. So hopefully you can see that the first two and then the bottom one on the right are your categorical imperatives.

And then the other three are your hypotheticals. So the categoricals are don't make a false promise. It is wrong to refrain from helping others and do not steal. So they are our categoricals.

And then our hypotheticals, don't be rude if you don't want others to be rude to you. So, of course, the term if, the word if, giving it away there, really, that it is a hypothetical, that it's a conditional. Again, if you want to gain weight, you should eat more food. It's a conditional. If you want to achieve a certain thing, you need to do a certain thing.

So it's conditional. It's, you know, relative to a certain goal. And then if you want to do well in your exams, you should revise.

So, again, it's linked to a certain goal. So it's conditional. It's not something that we can universalise.

So hopefully that's helped you to put this into practice and just check your understanding of the hypothetical and the categorical imperatives. And. please feel free to use them as examples in your answers as well. When we're achieving those AO1 marks, we want to show the examiner clear, concrete examples of the concepts that we're referring to, such as these hypothetical and categorical imperatives. So let's have a look now at the other trio of things that Kant focuses on.

And this second trio are the three postulates, and they are the required assumptions for his ethics. Now, It's really important we unpack the word postulate. This is something that he presumes in order for his moral theory to work.

So he is not saying he has proven these three things. He is saying that we need to assume it to be true in order for the moral theory to work. So chance-free postulates provide the basis for his reasoning and have to be in place for his ethical theory to function properly.

So let's have a look at what they are. Number one is that we have free will. Number two, there is an afterlife. And number three, that God exists. And, you know, really important to know before we explore each of these in detail that Kant does not think these three things are proven to be true, but that he says we must assume them practically.

in order for morality to work and make sense. So we're going to have a talk through each of these now, which are the three postulates, the required assumptions for Kant's morality, for his ethics. So postulate one is that we have free will. Why is this something that we are required to assume practically in order for Kant's moral theory to work?

So as we've mentioned before, Kant sees human beings as autonomous and rational beings. He says we can use reason to work out the categorical imperative. And he says, you know, that's what we need to do.

Again, remember, he was a key figure in the Enlightenment. He wanted people to think for themselves and to work things out. He said we then choose to do our duty and follow it.

If we are not genuinely free to do either good or evil, then there can be no moral responsibility. So he believes that, you know, we have to choose to do our duty. The only good is the goodwill to do our duty. So that implies, doesn't it, a will, that we have free will. If the only good is the goodwill, we must have free will.

We have this inclination. We make this choice to do our duty. And so we think for ourselves in terms of working out what the categorical imperatives are. They're not handed to us on a plate.

We are expected to reason for ourselves by applying the free formulations. And then we choose for ourselves. So we think for ourselves and then we choose for ourselves.

And that's what gives our actions genuine goodness, that we have the goodwill to do our duty, that we want to do our duty. So, you know, that's very important for Kant in terms of his deontological ethics work in. There are these duties, but we're not moral robots. We're not conditioned to do our duty. We have to make that choice.

We have to have the goodwill to do our duty. The second one, then, is that there is an afterlife because. As I mentioned with the key words before, morality requires the summum bonum, and that means the highest good in order to be achieved. So this is where perfect virtue is rewarded with perfect happiness. So again, he believes that in this world, there is not a correlation necessarily, or there is not a communion or coming together of virtue and happiness.

Sometimes doing your duty is going to go against doing what makes you happy. And he said that's important because we've got to be disciplined, you know. doing your duty is demanding.

Following categorical imperatives is not necessarily going to make you feel good in every situation. But remember, he said, in this lifetime, you don't pay attention to those emotions. You don't pay attention to those outcomes.

You know, it's instead going to be achieved in terms of the union of your virtue and happiness in the next life. So he says that, you know, we can see quite clearly. that perfect virtue and perfect happiness do not coexist in this world. And so there needs to be another world when they will come together.

So this is quite interesting. If we talk about the demanding nature of cancer ethics, you could then link in there. But one of his postulates is that there is an afterlife when we will be rewarded for doing our duty.

And again, that could actually be a criticism because you could say, so actually there is an end goal to the ethics. Because you're only doing your duty in order to achieve perfect happiness. Now, Kant would disagree with that. He would say, no, no, you're doing your duty because it's your duty. But then in the afterlife, there will be this connection between virtue and happiness.

But it is interesting to see here that, you know, he is saying, OK, because there is a difference between doing your duty and being virtuous in this life and then what makes you happy, there must be another life when they will actually. infused together, shall we say, when they will come together, because doing your moral duty will be rewarded after death. But that should not be your motivation for doing your duty, is a really important part of Kant's ethical argument.

You should remember that the only good is the goodwill to do your duty. And then the third one is really interesting, because many elements of Kant are secular. The idea of thinking for yourself and working out those categorical imperatives by using reason, you know. So that does give this, you know, credibility for a secular audience. But we then have this postulate, this practical assumption that there is a God.

So in order that the sun and bonham, the greatest good, the union of perfect virtue and happiness actually occurs and goodness is ultimately rewarded by happiness, even if it's not been achieved in this life, there must be a God who ensures the justice of the universe. So obviously, you know, Kant with his Kingdom of Ends, for example. is very concerned with perfect justice, isn't he?

He wants the perfect moral world. He can see that we do not live in the kingdom of ends. So he believes that there must be something more than this.

You know, there must be an afterlife and there must be, we have to assume, a God who can ensure the justice of the universe. So he postulates, and this is important, the existence of God, because he does not think that we can know the existence of God, but that God is a necessary presupposition of our reason. So he is making a moral argument for presupposing God's existence.

So this is really interesting if we think, you know, about all the moral theories we studied and their relationship with religion. With Kant's theory, as I say, it is very much secular. in that, you know, the morals don't come from God, you know, they come from reason. But we then have this postulate that there is a God, we have to assume there is a God, so that justice can ultimately be done.

So, you know, it shows us the complexity of Kantian ethics, and it gives us great opportunity, actually, to talk about the relationship between Kantian ethics and religion, because on the one hand, the actual morals that Kant presents don't require belief in God. But then we have this postulate where we're expected to, you know, assume for the sake of our morality that there is a God who can ensure the justice of the universe. So, you know, really interesting area of Kantian ethics, actually. So that leads us on to our AO2 evaluation, where we get to look at the strengths and the weaknesses and then, of course, make our judgments about Kant.

And I think your key areas of focus with Kant really are going to be, is it practical? Does this work in practice? You know, is it something that can be applied in 21st secular society?

And do the strengths of Kantian ethics outweigh the weaknesses? So, you know, just start thinking about those key questions about whether it's applicable, about whether it actually works in practice or whether, as we've mentioned a few times today, it is just too demanding to work in reality. So let's start with our strengths, shall we?

Let's start with the positives for Immanuel Kant. And the first one. is that it offers clear and fixed guidelines. You know, one thing about Kant is that we certainly know where we stand with him.

So this principle of universal law, one of the first formulations, and at the absolute core of the categorical imperative, we can say is useful for moral decision making, because it gives people a clear criteria for determining the morality of actions. You know, with situation ethics, you know, a key criticism is that pretty much anything goes, because, you know, you can say, well, in that situation, that was the most loving thing to do. But with Kantian ethics, we have got a very clear universal law.

And so we can be very clear in terms of making a judgment about actions. Is it right? Is it wrong?

And we can say this is a good thing because it ensures that morality is clear and consistent. You know that there are no exceptions or exemptions, which provides clarity. Everyone knows where they stand.

Everybody's on the same page. It also, of course, avoids the influence of our emotions. So we can say it is objective. which again, we could say is very helpful because it removes emotions and it removes the situation from your ethical decision making. You know, it's very clear what your duty is.

It is to do the categorical imperative or follow the categorical imperative. And we could actually say that this is consistent with Cicero's belief, there should be one law eternal binding upon all people at all times. And of course, we looked at that quote with natural moral law. We could actually bring that back in when we talk about county and ethics. And you might argue, you.

that Kant offers this in a much clearer way, because he is so clear in terms of what you should do. Your action is about the universal law, persons as ends and kingdom of ends. So he is really clear about what we should be doing.

And it is binding upon people, isn't it? It's about having a duty to act in this way. Our second strength, then, is that it values and respects each person. So, you know, Kant very much, I would say, a pioneer of human rights, whereas Benson said that human rights are nonsense on stilts. Kant was very clear that we need to respect the value of each person because, of course, his second formulation is that people are treated as ends in themselves rather than as means to our ends.

So we can say it is a good thing or this is a good thing because it respects the intrinsic value of every person. So it recognises the worth and value of every person. if we want to link that to a modern concept The UN Declaration of Human Rights, which was put together in 1948, is still seen as very important today in the world. And we can say that this laid the foundation for that, the idea that everybody has certain rights that can never be taken away from them.

We could actually credit Kant with pioneering that, that people need to be seen as ends in themselves with these intrinsic rights and this intrinsic value. You know, we can see a Kantian influence on that. We can also say that Kant is consistent in this with religious ideas about the sanctity of life, you know, that idea in Christianity of imago Dei, for example, that we are made in the image and likeness of God.

So the idea that every human life has intrinsic worth and value, we see that as well in religious thinking and in, you know, religious ethics. So We can see consistency there between Kant with his secular ethics and then religious ethics in terms of the value and dignity of each person. We could say in practice it's good because it prevents the exploitation of anybody, even the weakest or the most vulnerable. Again, if you compare with utilitarianism and that idea of the tyranny of the majority, you know, we have a protection in Kantian ethics for all people, you know, even the most vulnerable, because everybody needs to be treated as an end in themselves.

And again, be thinking about your applications to business ethics, for example. And we could say that this is a favourable contrast, though, always great as part of your evaluation to be comparing with other ethical theories. We could say it's a favourable contrast with theories like utilitarianism, where persons are only instrumentally valuable.

Remember, utilitarianism is about usefulness and the and justifying the means with Kant. People need to be seen as an end in themselves. So a clear contrast and arguably a favourable contrast in terms of protecting human rights and respecting the dignity of every person.

OK, and another strength, and this is a controversial one, I suppose, because of the postulates. But in terms of how can works out morality, we can say it does not depend on a belief in God. We can say it is a secular theory because unlike natural moral law or situation ethics. Morality is not derived from God, but is worked out by using reason. We could say this is more appealing and it can therefore be universally applied even by atheists or in an atheistic society, because you can use your reason to work out the categorical imperative, because the criteria is universal law, persons as ends and kingdom of ends, yeah?

It's not about God giving us commandments. The categorical imperative as I've mentioned, are worked out rationally rather than being given as commands by God via a holy book. But of course, you know, you must not forget those postulates and they are a great opportunity here to bring in a rebuttal or, you know, offer some critical analysis because you can say that, however, the existence of an afterlife and the existence of God are two of Kant's three postulates.

And you could argue that an atheist isn't going to be prepared to esteem that there is a God, even if it's just for practical reasons, yeah? You can say, OK, Kant says he hasn't proven the existence of God, but he's still expecting us to assume there is a God. And we can say this shows it is truly or not truly, sorry, secular. You know, it still has an element in it that atheists today would feel quite uncomfortable about.

They would say, you know, using reason doesn't actually lead us to just assuming for the sake of morality that there is a God or that there is an afterlife. And you could therefore argue, again, keeping in your comparisons, that utilitarianism may be a better option as a secular morality. So, you know, interesting and a great opportunity there to get in your critical analysis.

So in terms of your weaknesses, then you could argue, of course, that it is too rigid. It's too narrow. We're also going to talk about it being too strict and demanding.

So we could say, Pantene ethics is lovely on paper. It sounds great if everybody, you know. was on board with it and everybody followed it, but it doesn't work in practice.

We could say that in the real world, it is important to take situations and outcomes into account, especially because of the difficult situations and the difficult scenarios people find themselves in. For example, you know, the classic example is a desperate mother who steals to feed her starving baby. We could say stealing is not universalizable.

It is not a universal law, isn't it? You wouldn't legislate for it in the kingdom of ends But you could say if you were in that situation, it can be justified. It would be a morally acceptable thing to do.

You know, it is justifiable. The end does justify the means. We're not in the kingdom of ends. If we were in the kingdom of ends, surely a starving child wouldn't be a reality. The fact that we're not in that kingdom means we shouldn't follow the laws of that kingdom.

We have to think practically about the moral problems we are facing in the world around us. And so, of course, we could bring in Joseph Fletcher and situation ethics, because he said the morality of an action is dependent on the circumstances. The Kantian ethics is too rigid and narrow.

You do need to consider the circumstance. You do need to consider the context. You do need to take into account what's actually going on in that particular scenario. And then Jeremy Benson as well. He said the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measure of right and wrong.

And remember, you know, he said the end does justify the means. We do need to, in his case, get out our hedonic calculus and make a calculation. So again, you can use other moral theories to critique Kantian ethics and to say it's too limited in that it's too rigid and it's too narrow.

We could also say it is too abstract and impractical because it works, we could say, in the kingdom of ends, but does not work in practice in this world. We could say it offers perfect solutions, doesn't it, based on a hypothetical kingdom of ends where everyone follows the moral law, but in reality, in this world, they don't. Hence the fact there's someone at the door who wants to murder your friend. You know, how can you stick to the rules of the kingdom of ends when you're not in that perfect kingdom, when you're actually in a world where people do immoral things and you have to deal with that? So we could write that this theory cannot actually cope in a world where people do immoral things and we find ourselves in extremely difficult situations.

We could say moral decision making in this world is much more complicated than Kantian ethics. suggest. You know, in his little world, for example, where he woke up at five every day, he did his teaching, he did his writing, he went for his free 30 walk and he went to bed.

In his little bubble, this might have sounded excellent. But, you know, we know that Kant never actually left the hometown where he was born. So, you know, his morality might have sounded great on paper and it might work great in a kingdom of ends, but that is not the reality for many people in the world today. And so, you know, it theoretically would be excellent, but practically it is impossible and it cannot cope in the real world where people are having to respond to real world situations where they do then face difficult decisions and dilemmas.

So, you know, again, a really interesting criticism about the practical applications of this, that it's too demanding to work in this world. And then another weakness could be conflicting duties. So we could say it does not account for times when two moral absolutes clash. So what if you've got two categorical imperatives that seem to contradict one another?

So which one should you choose to follow if you are supposed to follow all duties at all times? And again, this could show that Kant's theory does not take into account the demanding complexity of real life. You know, it also, and this is an important point, does not account for the idea that duties... could extend further than just moral duties.

Because if Kant's all about doing your duty, what if I believe I have a duty to my family, for example? So I don't just have a duty to the moral law, but I have a duty to look after my family. So for example, you know, your starving child who hasn't eaten and desperately needs food, should you not steal in order to feed them based on your duty towards that child you've brought into the world?

So this idea of duty is something that we can expect. explore further and we can actually say, well, can, you know, surely there are more duties than just your moral duty. What about your duty to that child you've brought into the world that is now starving? So, you know, maybe that's a great opportunity to evaluate in terms of considering this duty-based ethics. What do we actually mean by duties in the 21st century?

So hopefully that's giving you some, you know, food for thought in terms of evaluating Kantian ethics. And the question I would like you to consider, and maybe write your conclusion actually below, is that the strengths of Kantian ethics outweigh the weaknesses. So, you know, there are many, many more actually critiques of Kantian ethics than we've just looked at there.

That is just a little flavour, you know, please have a look at more contemporary theories such as Roth's thoughts on Kantian ethics. And think about this idea of duty in the modern world. Do people in the modern world... think that this is something we could follow, that we should follow, that it works as an ethical theory, or is this actually completely impractical and completely impossible to actually put into action? But yes, I hope you found that interesting.

I hope you found that quite insightful in terms of Kant and his deontological, duty-based, and I think it's fair to say, very demanding ethical theory. Thank you for watching. Good luck with your studies and see you soon.

Bye-bye.

Transcript for:Kantian Deontological Ethics

Transcript for:
Kantian Deontological Ethics