Summary
It might be possible to defend rights in a utilitarian calculus, but many use other methods. Libertarian ideas could be a basis. Lockean ideas could also prove the importance of rights. In this chapter, Professor Sandel delves into Immanuel Kant’s idea.
The basis of Kant is this: we are rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) was born in the East Prussian city of Königsberg in 1724. His father was a harness-maker and his parents were Pietists. He excelled at the University of Königsberg, where he entered at the age of sixteen. He worked as a private tutor and then became a lecturer at thirty-one. He gave about twenty lectures a week on subjects including metaphysics, logic, ethics, law, geography, and anthropology. In 1781, at the age of fifty-seven, he published The Critique of Pure Reason. The work challenged the empiricist theory which was advocated by thinkers such as David Hume and John Locke. Four years later, he published the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. After Jeremy Bentham published the Principles of Morals and Legislation in 1780, Kant published Groundwork to rebut his theory. The key idea here is that morality is not about maximizing happiness, rather it is about respecting persons as ends in themselves.
Kant’s works are far from merely abstract. It emerged between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. It offers a powerful basis for the eighteenth-century revolutions and universal human rights of the twenty-first century.
Kant’s ideas are not very intuitive, but they teach us important things. It gives some questions: What is the supreme principle of morality? What is freedom?
Kant’s idea of morality is not maximizing welfare or promoting virtue. Nor is it the freedom of libertarianism. It is a form of freedom that Kant redefines; as a very demanding one. Before going deeper into Kant, the book discusses the problems of other means of deciding justice and morality.
Kant believes that utilitarianism undermines rights. Keeping a person happy is not the same as making him virtuous. Kant believes justice can be achieved by using “pure practical reason”. He states that reason can grant us freedom. Kant believes we are worthy of respect because we are rational beings, not because we own ourselves. We are also able to act and choose freely, so we are autonomous. We do not always succeed in making decisions through reason, but regardless, we have the capacity.
We can find one clash between Kant and Bentham here. Bentham characterizes humans as being enslaved by “our sovereign masters”, which are pleasure and pain. That is only true when we characterize people as sentient beings. When reason intervenes, that becomes untrue.
So, what is freedom, according to Kant? It is distinct from being slaves of our appetites and desires. Kant uses the word “autonomous” for his definition of freedom. I am free when I act according to a law I give myself. For acting according to determinations that I did not decide, Kant would describe that as “heteronomous”. To act freely is not to choose means for given ends, it is to choose ends themselves. Not because they produce something, but for their intrinsic value; for the sake of them.
Circle back to the trolley problem for a moment. Pushing the man onto the tracks would be wrong in the eye of Kant because that would be treating the man pushed as a means of producing higher total happiness, not as an end.
Let’s discuss what Kant thinks of morality. For Kant, it is evaluated on the motive. It must follow the moral law. Not only that, it should be done for the sake of moral law. If a shop seller does not overcharge a customer to not get a bad reputation, that would not be moral according to Kant. If the person does so for the sake of moral duty, he would be moral. Another example then. If a person lives on because they like living, that is not moral (obviously, it is not wrong to live on, just not particularly moral). It would be moral if the person decided to live on because he acknowledges that such action is moral, respecting human life as an end.
Then how should we figure out the moral principles? Well, apart from the aforementioned discussion on duty and inclination; and autonomy and heteronomy, he discusses categorical and hypothetical imperatives.
Hypothetical imperatives are the thought processes such as “If you want X, then do Y.” If you want to stay full, eat a meal. If something is good for something else, it is hypothetical. If something is good for the sake of it, it is categorical. By categorical, here he means unconditional; with no exceptions or loopholes. So, pretty much adheres to the dictionary definition. Right, we know the definition now. But how do we know when an imperative is categorical?
Categorical imperative I: Universalize your maxim
A categorical imperative should be able to be applied universally, while still holding up, not contradicting itself. Let’s check an example.
Let’s say I borrow some money with the knowledge I cannot pay it back. Indeed, I do not pay it back. Now universalize this action. If everybody borrows money and does not pay it back, that would lead to people not lending money. We can see a contradiction.
A criticism that can be raised, and indeed Mill rises, is that this type of logic is consequentialist. Kant rejects that. He says it is to test if I put my desires above the ones of others. There is no other goal.
Categorical imperative II: Treat persons as ends
Categorical imperatives treat people as ends. The thing that has an absolute value is humanity. Back to the money-borrowing example, by knowing that I do not know I cannot pay back and still borrowing, I would be treating the other person as a means to my financial solvency, not as an end. For Kant, treating people as ends is respecting their dignity. Everybody is worthy of respect, not only people with whom one has a personal relationship.
This might be confusing. Let’s do a FAQ type of thing.
Q: So is this the principle of do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
A: No. That only concerns my emotions. What is actually important here is whether I am treating that person with respect, as a rational being.
Q: How is acting to duty autonomous?
A: Duty and autonomy go together only in a special case. That is when I am the author of the law, I must obey. We abide by the law that we have chosen.
Q: Won’t people make up different laws?
A: No, when we make the laws, we are not being particular persons. We are rational beings, using “pure practical reason”.
Q: What about the scientific proof that there is no free will?
A: People can be looked at scientifically, but they can also be looked at morally. Both work, with no interference from each other. The scientific perspective here, considering that I am controlled by the laws of nature, is thinking oneself in the natural world. The perspective that believes I have freedom is the intelligible world. Both are true, not just the intelligible one. If you are that person rejecting Kant on this, he cannot prove you wrong. But that person should not that they cannot make sense of their life.
Let’s apply this to some situations.
Casual sex is not a moral action because it treats people as means for sexual pleasure, not beings respectable for their dignity. Marital sex is different in the sense that it gives each other the whole of themselves.
Lying to a murderer of where my friend is would be immoral. That would not make sense when applied universally; then no murderer would believe people, showing a contradiction. I can give a misleading yet true statement, as that includes the intention for the murderer to understand my intentions.
Same for Bill Clinton lying about sexual relations. That would be acceptable according to Kant, as it includes the intention for the listener to realize Clinton had oral sex.
Two more things about Kant and justice.
Utilitarianism is wrong because while figuring out the utilitarian calculus, you unfortunately put someone’s rights over another’s.
Laws should be from an imaginary contract, not a real one. Why? It is because a real contract did not actually exist, even if you wanted it to. Also, because if it did, it would be empirical, therefore not acting as principles applicable unconditionally? In that case, what does the imaginary contract look like? That is a nice segue to the next chapter, on a certain man named John Rawls.
Thoughts
That is a lot to take in. Writing this post is the 5th time studying Kant’s theories, and I have learned more things again!
I’m not a big fan of it, though. Let me borrow Bentham’s words: nonsense on stilts.
1 Kant: Morality is based on motives.
I agree, it should be. I just don’t care about moral actions that don’t produce happiness. Yes, I’ll clap at you for being moral, but that’s separate from that action having the more important value (in my opinion), producing happiness.
2 Kant: Empirical philosophy is wrong because it is applicable every time.
Well, yes it’s not. Learn new things on the way then. There’s no need to shorten your knowledge by only relying on abstract thought.
Consider this: the trickle-down effect makes sense logically. The rich earn money. They then make their business bigger. They hire more people. But it’s been proven to be wrong so many times. Yes, you can disprove it by pure practical reason, but there’s no need to. That takes a long time. That’s less convincing for the public to follow.
3 Kant: You act freely by acting morally.
No, I hate that Kant used the word “free” here because it steers from the dictionary definition so much. You’re not free, you’re assuming people want to be moral.
In addition, you don’t need to be always moral for a good society. I guess Kant would agree, I’m just saying in case he doesn’t.
4 Kant: Everybody will come to the same law.
No, they won’t. People are influenced by external factors. They can try to be uninfluenced, and they can want to be, but that’s different from them being able to do so.
5 Kant: Moral laws must have no exceptions.
Yes, they can. Rational beings can make rational exceptions, without being absolute followers of law.
6 Kant: Treat people as ends.
That’s not wrong, I just want to add that you will still be moral even if you help that person be “slaves to their desires” or however uncharitably you’ll word it. If that person gains happiness from adhering to their wants and I help them achieve, that’s also a way to be moral and helpful.
Finally, a criticism that I have for almost all theories. They think they are being first principles, but in my opinion, they’re really not. Respect human dignity? Okay, but why? Kantians will believe that’s the full conclusion. However, I believe we use that as a means to gain more happiness.
Considering how famous he is; much more famous than Mill, Bentham, Locke, and Rawls (maybe on par with Aristotles); his theories are weak in my eyes. Not weak in the sense that they contradict, but weak in the sense that they don’t matter. I’d much rather listen to other philosophers.