Immanuel Kant's Ethical Framework: Duty and Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant: Synthesizing Knowledge and Ethics

Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth-century German philosopher who lived during the Enlightenment. Kant attempted a synthesis between rationalism and empiricism, offering a new way of interpreting human knowledge. He sought to answer the question: "Is metaphysics possible as a science?" and to analyze existing ethics to create his own.

Critique of Pre-Kantian Ethical Systems

Kant analyzed ethics preceding his time, determining that these were theological, teleological, or materialist, because they prescribed actions based on desired outcomes. This is because any theological ethics is based on the idea that there are good things for human beings and therefore begins to consider what the highest good for humans is—their ultimate goal. For example, for Aristotle, the ultimate end of man is happiness; for Epicurus, it is pleasure.

Actions will be good or bad depending on how they bring us closer to or further away from the pursuit of that ultimate goal. To achieve this end and guide our actions, rules or precepts are set, so these are called material ethics. Examples of these rules would be: "Nothing too much," or "Enjoy natural and necessary goods, and avoid those that are neither natural nor necessary."

After analyzing these ethics, Kant criticized them:

Empirical and A Posteriori Nature

All material ethics is empirical and therefore a posteriori. Its precepts are drawn from experience, made from generalizations. For this very reason, its precepts are never necessary and universal, since we never get to experience a truly universal judgment. They could only be universal if obtained a priori, regardless of experience.

Hypothetical and Teleological Foundations

All material ethics is theological and therefore hypothetical. They have an objective, and precepts are to achieve it. For example, "If you follow the imperative 'Nothing too much,' then you will be happy." Or, "If you follow the imperative 'Take advantage of natural and necessary goods and avoid those that are neither natural nor necessary,' then you will get pleasure." The problem is that what has been set as an end, being derived from experience, is not universal; there is proof that not everyone agrees on it. Therefore, these are hypothetical, conditional precepts, only valid if what is the end is universally accepted, something we ignore. The precepts cannot be conditioned but should be unconditioned, i.e., absolute or categorical.

Heteronomy vs. Autonomy of the Will

Every material ethics is not autonomous; it is therefore heteronomous. For us to consider an action moral, the will must be autonomous, i.e., under its own law, and not heteronomous, i.e., determined by external objects or purposes. The ethical principles of material ethics are prescribed from outside one's own will; the subject is not given the law itself but is determined from outside. The principles have to be internal, coming from the will's own structure.

Kant's Formal Ethics: Key Characteristics

Having made these criticisms, Kant developed his own ethics. The characteristics of these ethics are:

1. A Priori and Universal: It must be a priori to be universal. This will occur only if it is grounded in something we all have in common.
2. Explicit and Unconditioned Principles: Its principles must be explicit, absolute, and unconditioned. Therefore, they must not take into account any end, circumstances, or consequences.
3. Formal and Devoid of Empirical Content: It must be formal, i.e., devoid of any empirical content. This means that it sets no good or end which is to be pursued, not telling us what to do but how to act, the way we act.

Kantian Morality and the Categorical Imperative

Kantian ethics entails Kantian morality. This morality is understood through the following questions:

1. How should we act? We must act in good faith. According to Kant, what is important is not the action itself, but the will behind it (intention).
2. When is our will good? Goodwill is one that acts out of respect for duty, not for reasons other than the performance of duty or subjection to moral law.
3. What does acting out of duty mean? It means the submission to the law not by utility, interest, or satisfaction of fulfillment, but out of respect for it. People can act in 3 ways: "in accordance with duty," "from duty" (which corresponds to acting with goodwill), and "contrary to duty."
4. When do we act out of duty? When we act as rational beings. The good will acts from duty when acting in a universalizable way, i.e., according to a maxim that can be universalized.
5. What is the form that should determine any law or moral imperative? The Categorical Imperative, which is the formula to deduce all moral maxims from which our actions derive, not by their content but by their form. It is, therefore, the formal principle of all of them and all duties, and the expression of the moral law itself. To possess a categorical character, it must be absolute and unconditional.