Immanuel Kant: Goodwill and the Categorical Imperative

A dive into Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork

Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential philosophers from the 18th century, is widely known for his deontological ethical theory — Kantianism.

What is a deontological ethical theory?

A deontological ethical theory is one that values and considers actions over consequences. This means that actions are intrinsically wrong or right, and their moral worth is to be considered within themselves, by their motives, regardless of the consequences. This is in stark contrast with the teleological ethical theory, which assesses the moral worth on the basis of consequences of actions, an example of which is Utilitarianism.

For example, if two firefighters set out to rescue 10 stranded people, and one of them dies on the way, while the other succeeds, both are to be viewed as equally heroic because as Kant said, they both had the same moral goodwill, even though the consequences were different for both of them.

Goodwill and Moral Obligation

Goodwill refers to acting from duty which involves experiencing an imperative. Kant said that the categorical ought is the source of morality.

You are morally obligated not to violate a person’s rights. It means following moral duty for the sake of duty. When Kant proposed his moral theory, he did not claim to invent a new one, rather, he stated that he is simply explaining and describing our common morality which we possess. Most of us are against slavery and child abuse, for example.

These intrinsic principles are a priori, which means they are not based on how people behave, rather they are based on how people ought to behave.

‘Ultimate’ Goodwill

Kant claimed that the only thing that is good without qualification is goodwill. Even things like happiness, courage and intellect can be bad if they inspire acts/motives which are immoral. For example, finding happiness in hurting others (being a sadist), and having the courage to kill someone is undoubtedly bad. Another important point is that goodwill is the only thing that is under our control. This entails that it is the freedom that comes with goodwill that holds moral value.

Even if people do the same thing but with different motives, their actions have different moral worth. If Vendor A does not sell expired goods because it would be bad for business if word spreads, his action is not moral because it is inspired by ulterior motives and not goodwill. But if Vendor B refuses to sell expired goods because he knows it would be wrong and it’s his duty to prevent it, he is acting from goodwill. This clears the difference between action that is in accordance with duty and actions that are from duty.

The Categorical Imperative

Kant explains in the Categorical Imperative a supreme moral principle, which states that acting from duty means acting from reason, and this reason is universal and would apply to all people.

There are two types of imperatives. Understanding these clears up the concept of duty and what we ‘ought to do’, which is the meaning of ‘imperative’. The first is the hypothetical imperative, which is non-moral. It is based on desires and wants. For example, if I want to score good marks then I ought to study. As desires differ from person to person, so do hypothetical imperatives. Ought arises when there is a desire to attain something.

The second type, Categorical imperative, is always present. They are not concerned with an individual’s desires and goals. Instead, they arise from a person’s rational nature. They tell us that actions like lying and stealing are wrong.

Even though Kant was a theist, he did not believe that morality was based on God. He said that one does not need to have faith in God to be moral.

Kant believes that our duties and ‘oughts’ do not come from our culture. Rather, they come from the categorical imperative, which is our rational and absolute standard to judge our culture and desires.

Categorical imperative helps in sorting out right from wrong. This makes the concept synonymous with that of conscience.

A closer look at the Categorical Imperative

In the Categorical Imperative, Kant has described 3 major formulations.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative states that we should —

Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

This means that we should ask ourselves if the action that we are about to do should be universal, i.e. would it be alright if everybody did it at all times and all places? If the action leads to a logical contradiction here, then it is impermissible in a moral sense. If I make a promise with no intention of fulfilling it, would I be willing to make it a universal law without making an expectation for myself? In other words, would I be alright with everyone lying to me all the time? This would mean that promises won’t have any value at all.

In other words, if an action is not fit to become a maxim, or a rule, then it should not be done.

For Kant, free will is absolutely essential because it ensures moral autonomy. In other words, freedom is essential to experience the categorical imperative and then make a choice of either following it or violating it. Kant went as far to say that without free will, there is no morality.

Morality commands us to rise above our selfish desires when they clash with moral reasoning.

The second formulation states that you should —

Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as merely a means.

Every rational creature, said Kant, deserves to be treated with respect, purely because they are self regulating creatures.

The third formulation is autonomy.

You must so act as if you were through your maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.

Kant explained this through universal laws like gravity. These are not affected by any external authority. Desires need to be set aside to formulate laws of this kind.

The different formations are different ways of describing the categorical imperative. All these formulations imply the same thing — there is no ‘objective difference’ when it comes to duties.

Conclusion

The conclusions that can be drawn from Kant’s categorical imperative are — reason is essential in ethics — if you accept reason in one case, you should accept them in others, don’t make exceptions for yourself. Second, motive is important, even more so than consequences. Third, humans have intrinsic value, and hence should be respected. And last, moral judgements cannot be reduced to emotions and subjective preferences.