MORALITY ACCORDING TO IMMANUEL KANT

Morality According To Kant

According to Kant actions can be divided into two groups, firstly, those actions which are performed in accordance with duty, and secondly, those actions which are performed for the sack of duty, i.e. out of the respect for the moral law. Further, Kant explains this distinction with an example. Let us suppose that a shopkeeper is always careful not to overcharge his customers. Here, his action is certainly in accordance with duty, but it does not necessary follow that his action is done for the sake of duty. He may be guided by his inclinations. Or he may be simply acting on the basis that honesty is the best policy. Thus we can say that most of our actions performed in accordance with duty are much wider than the actions performed for the sake of duty.

For Kant, the morality of an action is decided on the basis that it is performed for the sake of duty devoid of inclinations. First of all let us understand what is meant by duty. Duty is defined as the moral necessity to do or omit something. As moral necessity, it obliges and demands independently of compulsion. Duties come from law. The ultimate foundation of duty is in the very nature of man himself. For Kant morality is based on rationality. As the rationality is universal (i.e. present in all human beings) so therefore the morality is also universal. So, morality is applicable to all. For Kant only those actions which are performed for the sake of duty are moral actions. For example, preserving one’s life is a duty and, furthermore, everyone has an inclination to do so. These are the two positions. Now, if I preserve my life simply because I have an inclination to do so, my action does not, in Kant’s view, possess moral worth. To possess such moral worth my action should be performed for the sake of duty, that is out of reverence for the moral obligation.

According to Kant, morality consists of categorical imperative rather than hypothetical imperatives. What are imperatives? Imperatives are instructions which tell us what to do. There is difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are those imperatives which tell us what to do in order to achieve a particular goal. For example, “if you want to be honest, do not cheat others.” It is always a conditioned one. Categorical imperatives are those imperatives those tell us what we ought to do irrespective of our desire and inclinations. It is an unconditioned imperative or command. Hypothetical imperatives apply only to those people who want to achieve certain goals, to which they refer. If I don’t care about being honest, then, “if you want to be honest, do not cheat others”, does not apply to me, it gives me no reason for not cheating others. Categorical imperatives are applicable to all (all rational beings). Morality doesn’t say “if you want to be honest, do not cheat others”; it says “Do not cheat others!” We ought not to cheat others whether we want to become honest or not.

The moral law does not prescribe moral actions in order to achieve some end (like, making more money, becoming an honest person, etc); rather it prescribes moral actions irrespective of the ends that it achieves. This implies that we ought to obey the moral law no matter what our desires or inclinations. Kant tends to complicate matters, by giving the impression that, in his opinion, the moral value of an action performed for the sake of duty is increased in proportion to a decrease in inclination to perform the action. In other words, the less the inclinations we have to do our duty, the greater is the moral value of our actions; if we actually perform we perform what is our duty to do. This point of view leads to the strange conclusion that the more we hate doing our duty, the better moral persons we are, provided we do it. In other words, the more we have to overcome ourselves to do our duty, the more moral we are. And if this is admitted, it seems to follow that the lesser a man’s inclinations are, the higher is his moral value. For example, suppose I am a rich person and I think that I ought to make a contribution to charity to relieve poverty in the developing world, and I am well aware of this fact. Suppose further that I would like to do so, that, I care about the welfare of others and so that making such a donation will make me happy. When, actually, I make the donation, it is difficult to tell whether I am doing so out of duty (because I understand that I ought to do so) or out of inclination (because I want to do so). Kant holds that moral action must result from the respect for the moral law. If I give money to charity because I want to, but lack respect for the moral law, then in making the donation I am not acting morally. If I don’t want to give money to charity, but, in fact, I give for the sake of duty (because I have a strong sense of the responsibility of helping others) then my action is moral. At first place, my donation is a sign of my generosity but secondly, it also shows that my action is out of selfishness (because it leads to my own happiness). Therefore, only when I act out of duty and contrary to inclinations, my action has moral value.

Kant’s concern was to bring out the difference between acting for the sake of duty and acting to satisfy one’s natural desires and inclinations. Though, according to Kant, the beneficent actions have no moral worth, he does not say that it is better to have an aversion towards beneficent action, provided that one performs such action when it is one’s duty to do so, than to have an inclination towards it. According to Kant, the good will is manifested in acting for the sake of duty and that acting for the sake of duty must be distinguished from acting out of mere inclination or desire. But what is meant by acting for the sake of duty. Kant tells us that it means acting out of reverence for law that is the moral law. Duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence for the law as such. And the essential characteristic of law as such is universality, which is a strict universality which does not admit of exceptions. Therefore, a man’s actions, if they are to have moral worth, must be performed out of reverence for the law.

Finally, we can conclude saying that, for Kant, the morality of an action solely depends on duty. If an action is performed for the sake of duty, it is said to be moral, irrespective of the results it may produce. Moral duty is a practical necessity of an action which arises from reverence or respect for a moral law. Duty enables good will to determine which actions are morally necessary. Duty is a motive for the rational will. The use of reason to ground morality is that it explains the scope of morality. Rationality is definitive of human nature; it is universal among human beings. All human beings, then, because they have the capacity to be rational, ought to be moral. Only rational beings are subject to the moral law. Let us finally conclude in the words of Kant “act only in such a way that you can will that the maxim of your actions should become a universal law.”


Bibliography
Copteston, Frederick S. J. A History of Philosophy, Vol. VI: Wolff to Kant. London: Search Press, 1960.
Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. T. K. Abbot. New York: Prometheus Books, 1988.