Introduction to Kantian Ethics
- Alexandra Yap
- Feb 17
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 22
Introduction
Kantian ethics is a form of deontological ethics, focusing on duty and moral principles rather than consequences.
It is based on the idea that morality is grounded in rationality and the existence of a universal moral law.
Kant famously argued that "the only thing that is good without qualification is a good will."
He distinguished between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives: the difference between conditional commands and absolute, universal moral duties.
Key Ideas
The Good Will
A good will is the intention to act according to moral principles, regardless of the outcomes.
An action retains moral worth if driven by duty, even if it leads to negative consequences.
Unlike qualities such as intelligence, courage, or even happiness—which can be used for good or bad purposes—a good will is intrinsically valuable.
Moral worth is determined by the motivation behind an action, not by its result.
Hypothetical vs Categorical Imperatives
Hypothetical Imperatives – conditional and depend on personal desires or goals
e.g., "If you want to stay healthy, exercise regularly.”
These are if-then statements that tell you what to do only if you want a specific outcome.
These are practical.
Categorical Imperatives – unconditional and universally binding, regardless of individual preferences or circumstances
e.g., "Do not lie."
These commands are absolute and apply to everyone, regardless of desires or goals.
They tell you what you must do simply because it is the right thing to do.
These are moral.
The Categorical Imperative – Maxim of Universalisability
To test whether or not an action is moral, Kant introduces the Universalisability Test.
Ask yourself: “What if everyone did this?” If the action couldn’t work as a universal law, it is morally wrong.
Example: Lying
Suppose you consider to lie in order to get out of trouble
If everyone lied when convenient, trust would collapse, and lying would be meaningless.
Since this leads to contradiction, lying is morally impermissible.
How can we rationalise this?
The demands of the categorical imperative impose a rational structure on Kant’s ethics.
According to Kant, ‘pure reason’ can inform and direct the will of a moral agent simply because moral agency is inherently valuable.
This means pure reason guides the will by emphasising our freedom to create and follow moral principles we set for ourselves.
However, once the value of one’s own moral agency is recognised, it is necessary to extend that respect to the agency of others.
The Categorical Imperative – Maxim of Human Dignity
Based on this rationale, Kant asserts:
"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."
This means that people have intrinsic worth and must not be used solely for personal gain.
Basic rights stem from human dignity and agency.
Exploiting others ignores their autonomy and treats them as objects.
Self-serving maxims fail as moral laws because they violate this principle of the categorical imperative.
The Kingdom of Ends
Kant’s concept of the Kingdom of Ends – an ideal moral community where all individuals create and follow universal moral laws while respecting each other’s dignity, autonomy, and moral equality.
It expands on the categorical imperative, illustrating a society governed by reason rather than self-interest.
The idea serves as an ideal moral goal.
The vision presents:
Moral law as the foundation for society – individuals act only according to rational principles that apply to everyone equally.
Ethical decision making which prioritises fairness and duty, rather than personal gain or subjective desire.
Social and economic relationships formed out of trust and honesty.
Critiques and Contrasts
Kantian ethics can be rigid and inflexible, as it doesn’t account for exceptions or nuanced moral dilemmas (e.g., lying to protect someone’s life).
Its reliance on abstract reasoning may make it difficult to apply in everyday, emotionally complex situations.
As Kantian ethics are deontological, the contrast to it would be teleological ethics, such as utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism evaluates actions by their consequences, aiming to maximise overall happiness by promoting pleasure and minimise pain for the greatest number.
Kant’s ethics assumes moral absolutes, ignoring cultural and situational differences, whereas moral relativism argues that morality is context-dependent and shaped by societal norms.
Applications – Why is this important? How does this apply to real life?
Why is this important?
For students pursuing higher education in Philosophy, Politics and even Law, Kantian Ethics is a fundamental concept which can and will be applied in many contexts. Exploring it demonstrates:
Initiative in exploring fundamental ethical ideas
Critical thinking and analytical skills
The ability to apply theory to real-world issues
A deeper curiosity about ethical and moral reasoning
Universities value candidates who engage with theories beyond memorisation, considering their implications and relevance.
How does this apply to real life? – The development of Artificial Intelligence as an example.
As AI integrates into society, Kantian ethics forces us to set moral limits for machines.
Example: Self-Driving Cars
Kantian View: AI must never intentionally sacrifice a life—every person is an end, not a means.
Utilitarian View: AI should minimise casualties, even if it means choosing who dies.
The Dilemma
If AI follows Kant, it must never “choose” to kill—but inaction could still cause harm.
If AI follows utilitarianism, it assigns value to lives—an unsettling idea.
Can AI be moral? If we accept Kant’s argument that morality requires rational autonomy, AI cannot truly be moral—it reduces human dignity to an algorithm.
This debate isn’t just theoretical; it’s shaping laws, policies, and AI’s role in society.
Further Reading
John Rawls – A Theory of Justice
Rawls’ justice as fairness approach (influenced by Kant) has been used to justify redistributive policies in economics.
J.S. Mill – Utilitarianism
Direct critique of deontological ethics and Kant
Focused on the morality of the consequences of an action, rather than the morality of the action itself.
Commentaires