Kant's Deontological Ethics: Duty and Categorical Imperative

The Problem of Freedom in Kantian Ethics

The problem of freedom is presented in theoretical philosophy as a contradiction. The choice between freedom and determinism arises now back in practical freedom. The reason for opposition is the submission to the laws themselves, and this freedom is only existing in man. Thus, we witness an attempted rational justification of moral norms. However, reason may adopt its own laws of action in two different ways: formal ethics and material ethics.

Material Ethics Disadvantages

Material ethics suggest that ethical behavior depends on something regarded as the highest good. Once this highest good is proposed, a set of rules is established to achieve that end. For Kant, this type of ethics has several disadvantages:

• They are empirical or a posteriori.
• Their precepts are hypothetical and appear as means to an end; they depend on the circumstances. For example: "If you do not want to gain weight, then do not eat fattening sweets." What if I do not worry about gaining weight?
• They lack universal validity.

For all these reasons, Kant seeks to construct an ethic that is a priori, universal, necessary, and independent of all experience—a formal ethics.

The Categorical Imperative

The problem now is: how can reason give itself its own laws, stating there are orders that are not subject to any conditions? This is the categorical imperative. Kant formulates the imperative this way:

1. Act so that you could wish the principle directing your action to become a universal law.
2. Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always as an end and never merely as a means.

The Concept of Duty in Kant's Ethics

Kant's ethics is based on duty and not on the good. It removes any subjective view; the moral value of an action is no longer a specific property but the way it is done. Formal ethics does not provide what we should do; it merely indicates how we must always act.

• According to Kant, humans only act morally when we act out of duty. Duty is the necessity of an action performed out of respect for the law.
• Kant draws a distinction between actions done from duty and actions done in accordance with duty. Only the former possess moral value. An action done out of duty is not a means to an end but something that must be done for its own sake.
• The moral value of an action does not depend on the end or purpose to be achieved, provided that such intention must coincide with the law.