I found Kant's writings difficult to understand, so please point it out if I have overlooked something in this post. I will argue that the application of Kant's categorical imperative relies on the utilitarian calculus.
Here is a brief summary of my understanding of Kant's position:
Here is a brief summary of my understanding of Kant's position:
- A good will is the only thing that can be good without limitation.
- The function of reason is to form a good will.
- One should will to act in accordance with universal laws.
- One discovers those laws by employing the categorical imperative.
- The categorical imperative (in one formulation) is to "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" (4:421).
It seems to me that Kant fails to address why someone would or would not will any given maxim to be a universal law. Doesn't making judgements of this sort demand consideration of consequences? If so, isn't Kant in fact advocating the utilitarian calculus for making moral judgments? If not, how does one decide what they do or do not will to become a universal law?
In practical terms, I think our symposium showed the danger of failing to acknowledge one's own consideration of consequences. The Kantians (I thought, but maybe a commenter will correct me) were inconsistent in their reasoning when they found it acceptable to lie in the "Anne Frank" scenario but not to torture in the bomb scenario. Why were they willing to violate one of their moral duties in the former case in order to save lives, but not in the latter? One could advance a utilitarian argument for not torturing (social consequences, etc.) or for torturing (saving lives) in our hypothetical situation. The Kantians, however, were left with two conflicting duties—the duty to save lives when possible, and the duty to not inflict pain on others. A utilitarian would have the utilitarian calculus to resolve this dispute and, like I said, could easily deem it a greater good not to torture than to torture. But a Kantian would have no means for resolving moral dilemmas of this sort without relying on the utilitarian principle.
Mills, you posed some really great questions here, and I'll try to respond to a couple. First, you said that "Kant fails to address why someone would or would not will any given maxim to be a universal law." I think, rather, that Kant does speak to his throughout the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, but especially in the Categorical Imperative itself. The Categorical Imperative's 2nd formation states that one must treat humanity never merely as a means, but always as an end in itself. This is slightly indicative of the Golden Rule - why would you will the maxim of an action as a universal law if you wouldn't want that maxim enacted against you? It's like the example we gave in class about removing a person's autonomy. You could never will the maxim of your action as a universal law in a merely possible kingdom of ends if it took away someone's autonomy, because you would effectively be authorizing someone else to remove your autonomy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that "making moral judgments of this sort" does not "demand consideration of consequences." Kant specifically states the Categorical Imperative to say that you must act in such a way to WILL the maxim of your actions as (insert formulation here). Kant is still only focusing on the will/motive behind an action, with no importance placed on the potential outcomes. That's why the goodness of an action is derived from the goodness of the will, not the consequences of the act.
I hope that answers your questions a bit.
MILLS! You have outlined what I have been thinking all along. I do agree that Kant's CLAIM to be focusing on the will behind actions is completely conflicting with the reality that the very guideline of having a "good will" (namely, the categorical imperative) is in fact useless without considering consequences. When a person considers "can i will the maxim of my action to be a universal law?", that person is asking if the application of the maxim on a worldwide scale would essentially be unreasonable. If someone, according to Kant, has to consider whether or not a maxim would yield hippocricy or illogical reasoning, that person is considering the consequences of willing the maxim as universal. I probably am saying this in a very confusing way, but essentially I think human beings see everything in terms of consequences. To train yourself in a Kantian manner would have the supposed consequence of being a morally upright person, so that, too, is actually a utilitarian act.
ReplyDeleteMills and Karissa,
ReplyDeleteBoth of you have said exactly what I have been concerned with regarding Kant. As Karissa said, in order to determine whether one could will the maxim behind one's actions to be a universal law, one must consider the consequences of these actions. Granted, for Kant the consequences that must be considered are of a very narrow sort: namely, would making the maxim behind my action a universal law result in a contradiction in reason? But in the end, is that really all that different from utilitarianism?
Kant places the greatest priority on the effect his actions will have on and for reason, whereas Mill places the greatest priority on the effect his actions will have on the aggregate happiness of the world. Kant is a closet consequentialist!
Mills,
ReplyDeleteI must say that this is an excellent post. This is actually something I’ve been thinking about as well, and it’s interesting that others have pondered over the same issue. Colin’s statement “Kant is a closet consequentialist,” is a humorous truth. Honestly, in a real world setting, as Karissa said, consequences must be taking into consideration when determining whether one could will the maxim behind one’s actions to be a universal law. For example, we all agree that stealing is an immoral act. Thus, Kant would consider “not stealing” as a maxim behind one’s actions that could be willed as a universal law. Now, for one not to steal, the question “why not?” cannot be left unanswered. Answering this question would actually be considering the consequences for stealing. One may respond to this question saying “because stealing is wrong,” and may, thus, ask how the wrongness of stealing is a consequence. However, this is actually an empty response because the question “why?” can be asked again.
For the sake of brevity, in real world settings, the question “why?” is always asked and the response to this question will eventually lead to the consideration of consequences.
I completely agree with Mills' inquiry that Kant seems to advocate utilitarianism through his belief of willing maxims to universal laws. It does seem that if one were to act on something based on what they believe everyone ought to do they should think of the potential repercussions of that action before encouraging it to be a universal law. From what I understand, I believe Kant would argue that if our decisions were morally correct, then the consequences are no matter. What is important is the intent of an action regardless of what happens. Utilitarianism leaves less ambiguity in that whatever ultimately benefits the greatest amount of people is the answer to any debacle. This argument supports Mill's contention that everyone is utilitarian in some ways.
ReplyDelete