Kant’s Categorical Imperative

PHI 101-G Introduction to Philosophy, Spring 2021
Instructor: Hwan Ryu

1

Introduction to Philosophy – Week 11 (2)
O’Neill’s Brief Overview of Kantian Ethics

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

– The supreme principle of morality according to Kant’s view
– Has various formulations
– The Formula of the End in Itself: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether
in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the
same time as an end.”

Treating a person as a mere means

– Maxims: Each of our acts reflects (one or more) maxims. (Principles underlying) intentions
on which the act is made.
– Whether our actions are right or wrong is determined by our maxims.
– Treating someone as a mere means: To involve them in a scheme of action to which they
could not in principle consent.

(1) Deception
e.g. Making a promise with the intention of breaking it.
(2) Coercion
e.g. Threatening someone to make them do something.

– Requirement of justice.

Failing to treat a person as an end
– Apart from treating a person as a mere means, there are other ways of not treating a person
as an end in him/herself.
– In order to treat a person as an end, we should seek to foster others’ plans and maxims by
sharing his/her maxims as well.
– Requirement of beneficence.

Narrower scope than utilitarianism
– Suppose that someone did an action that greatly benefits everyone. But in fact, s/he had
utterly no interest in benefitting others. S/he is interested in earning a good reputation and
nothing else. We’re not in a position to know that his/her intention was like that. Are we in a
position to tell whether his/her action is morally right?
– Utilitarianism: Yes, morally right acts are acts that maximizes happiness.
– Kantianism: No, the action is morally wrong, and we are not in a position to know it.

PHI 101-G Introduction to Philosophy, Spring 2021
Instructor: Hwan Ryu

2

Intentions and results of actions
– An objection to Kantian view: Kantian ethics concentrates on intentions to the neglect of
results. But sometimes good intentions result in bad results, and bad intentions result in good
results. Do we really want to say that, even in such cases, intention is all that matters for an
action being right or wrong?
– O’Neill’s reply: We should distinguish an agent’s true intention from what the agent claims
as his/her intention.

Respects for others
– O’Neill’s criticism of utilitarianism: Utilitarianism implies that we may sacrifice some
people for the sake of a good greater than their lives. This is because persons are not ends in
themselves according to utilitarianism. Human beings have special moral status in virtue of
their being means to the production of happiness.
– Kantian view: Human life is valuable because humans are capable of choose their lives for
themselves. This is why we should not treat persons as mere means. As a result, sacrificing
others without their consent is morally unjustified. This is so even when we can achieve great
amount of happiness by sacrificing them.