Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics is a philosophical framework developed by Immanuel Kant in the late 18th century, focusing on the principles that govern moral behavior. Central to Kant's ethics is the concept of the "categorical imperative," which asserts that individuals should act according to maxims that can be universally applied as moral laws. This ethical approach emphasizes the respect for individuals as self-determining agents, positing that a moral society, termed the "realm of ends," exists when members promote one another's goals while adhering to shared moral principles.
Kantian ethics has inspired subsequent philosophers, including Hermann Cohen, John Rawls, and Jürgen Habermas, who sought to address perceived limitations of Kant's original framework. Cohen transformed Kant's ideal into a vision of democratic socialism, advocating for broader participation in decision-making processes. Rawls introduced concepts of justice that emphasize equal rights and benefits for all, particularly for the least advantaged, proposing a theoretical "original position" for fair decision-making. Habermas built on Kant’s ideas with his discourse ethics, highlighting the importance of community dialogue in establishing valid moral norms. Each of these thinkers contributes to the ongoing evolution of Kantian ethics, reflecting its relevance in contemporary moral philosophy.
Kantian Ethics
At Issue
The term “Kantian ethics” is commonly used to refer to the ethics of Kant, as set forth in his Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and other moral writings of the 1780s and 1790s. The term is also frequently used to refer to later moral theories that are similar to Kant’s ethics but contain modifications in response to its perceived shortcomings. Three important examples are the moral theories of Hermann Cohen, John Rawls, and Jürgen Habermas.
Immanuel Kant
The ultimate purpose of moral rules, Kant argued, is to make possible his ideal society, the “realm of ends,” which has two main aspects: All its members respect one another as self-determining agents who pursue different individual ends, and they seek to promote one another’s ends. Kant believed that this moral ideal would evolve if everyone followed the fundamental principle of his ethics: the “categorical imperative.” This imperative demands that one act only on those personal policies of conduct (“maxims”) that one can rationally will to become universal laws or principles that guide everyone’s conduct. According to Kant, obedience to the categorical imperative implies respect for others as self-determining beings with different individual ends; in acting only on maxims that can become universal laws, one acts only on principles to which others can rationally consent, and thus one upholds their right to legislate their own moral rules and pursue their own individual ends. Moreover, Kant argued that general obedience to the categorical imperative would bring about universal mutual promotion of individual ends (as the other aspect of the realm of ends) because the imperative prohibits refusing to assist others. The reason for this prohibition is that one cannot rationally will that everyone adopt a maxim of not assisting others in the pursuit of their individual ends, for in such a world one would lack the assistance of others as a means for realizing one’s own happiness.
Attempts to overcome the shortcomings of Kant’s ethics, while preserving its strengths, have led to such influential examples of Kantian ethics as the moral theories of Hermann Cohen, John Rawls, and Jürgen Habermas. The most significant shortcomings are the following: The categorical imperative, does not offer a sufficient criterion for determining universal laws, Kant failed to provide an adequate justification of the categorical imperative, he described moral agents as isolated legislators of universal laws, and he failed to address satisfactorily how the realm of ends can be institutionalized.
Hermann Cohen
During the later part of the nineteenth century, Kant’s philosophy regained in Germany the great influence it had had during his own lifetime. This resurgence is known as neo-Kantianism, and one of its most important representatives is Hermann Cohen who transformed Kant’s ideal of the realm of ends into a democratic socialist ideal. Cohen held that human agents can only arrive at universal laws, or approximations thereof, if all people become decision makers or co-legislators in their institutions. Thus, Cohen argued that the realm of ends requires for its realization not only political democracy, as Kant himself claimed, but also democracy in the workplace. Moreover, Cohen held that workplace democracy, in order to be effective, requires workers’ ownership of productive property. Cohen also maintained that these democratic socialist proposals were necessary for realizing the aspect of the realm of ends that all of its members promote one another’s individual ends.
John Rawls
A second main philosophical movement of renewed interest in Kant’s ethics and corresponding attempts to improve his ethics occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. The American philosopher John Rawls and the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas are the two major figures of this movement. Rawls’s primary concern is to argue for principles of justice that create a political society in accord with the realm of ends. More specifically, he argues for an extensive liberal welfare state based on the principles of justice that all persons must have equal political and civil liberties and that social and economic inequalities must be corrected to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Rawls holds that rational agents will opt for these principles of justice once their situation of choice, the “original position,” is made impartial by a “veil of ignorance” that makes them temporarily forget about all the specific facts concerning themselves and their society. Whether this innovative transformation of the categorical imperative—the veil forces one to opt for principles that are acceptable to all—justifies Rawls’s two principles of justice, and whether it can more generally be used to justify and explicate Kantian moral rules, are questions that have generated much debate.
Jürgen Habermas
The basic principle of the “discourse ethics” of Jürgen Habermasis a clear modification of the categorical imperative. The principle is that for a norm to be valid it must be accepted in a practical discussion by all those who are affected by the norm. The participants in the practical discourse must then also foresee the consequences of the general observance of the norm for the realization of the particular interests of each of them. This view that moral norms must be constructed by communities engaged in free practical discourse implies that the good society must be fundamentally democratic; unlike Cohen and Rawls, however, Habermas has been somewhat vague and hesitant about the specific institutional ramifications of his Kantian ethics.
Bibliography
Habermas, Jürgen. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Translated by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, MIT Press, 1990.
Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Lewis White Beck, Liberal Arts Press, 1959.
Fisher, Andrew, and Mark Dimmock. "Kantian Ethics." Open OK State UP, 2020, open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/kantian-ethics/. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press, 1993.
Schmidt, Jeff. "Kantian Ethics." Corporate Finance Institute, 2024, corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/kantian-ethics/. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.
Van der Linden, Harry. Kantian Ethics and Socialism. Hackett, 1988.
Willey, Thomas E. Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianism in German Social and Historical Thought, 1860–1914. Wayne State University Press, 1978.