Kantian Ethics and Objectivism, Immanuel Kant's maxim(s) of morality

Immanuel Kant developed a set of ethics to guide our decisions and help us judge whether certain actions are morally correct.  According to Kant, the morality of every action must be carefully thought out beforehand.  Thinking about all aspects of an action, or moral testing, can help to determine if an act should be performed at all.  Kant introduced logical, objective methods to serve as a basis for distinguishing between what is right and what is wrong.  He holds a common theme throughout his Kantian moral philosophy, that every act should be an accurate representation of a universal maxim.

A consequentialist would claim that decisions should be based upon the resulting consequences.  The main goal to this way of thinking is to indulge in happiness while avoiding discontent.  A nonconsequentialist in contrast, would claim that one should make the “morally correct” decision, regardless of the consequences.  Kant was a nonconsequentialist as shown by his repeated philosophy that specific actions must only be right based upon their moral validity to a universal set of ethics.  But how should we determine if an act is morally correct?

If a Kantian was asked, “Do the ends justify the means?” he might respond that the means are in fact ends within themselves.  Kantian philosophy emphasizes the importance of making decisions that fit a universal moral code.  Although highly criticized, the three maxims of the categorical imperative claim that, regardless of outcome, a moral person will always make the same decision; unlike utilitarianism where morality is determined by an actions affect on the overall happiness of humanity.

Kant designed the categorical imperative as a standard for judging morality.  He separated this concept into three maxims detailing the entire process. 

Kant’s first maxim states that one should “Act upon a maxim only if the act could become a universal law.”  In other words, if the same decision was made by every person, it would be seen as morally correct so long as it does not contain any logical contradictions.  For example, when determining the moral correctness of a decision to shoot an enemy, one might find an abundance of logical contradictions.  Ultimately, if everyone made this decision there would not be any people left and the decision would fail to meet the “zero logical contradictions” criteria. 

Morality issues involving murder, slavery, rape and other generally forbidden acts across all cultures are considered to be objective.  There is no alternative in which they are logically universal.  Other issues, such as helping others, are considered to be subjective because failing to carry out these actions would not be morally wrong.  Variations between objective and subjective actions force Kant to develop separate validity criteria. 

During the current economic crisis, I have seen a significant increase in businesses that take advantage of our struggling population; a population known for its attraction to quick-fix, too-good-to-be-true ideas. Payday loan franchises are potentially the most obvious scam as they constantly interrupt our lives with loud, exciting advertising. During the previous economic boom, it was not uncommon to see new Starbucks locations around every corner, but now equally as prominent are the neon signs with cartoon dollar bills floating through the air. These businesses are wonderful when you have to pay rent for the apartment, court fees from last month’s driving ticket, and of course the minimum monthly payment on the brand new Mazda RX8! But, by offering such a convenient service to people with little or no credit, the companies offering these loans can justify outrageously high interest rates. Customers become trapped within the tangles of debt while the owners of the loan company cash in. Profiting from others misfortune, these business owners have ignored Kant’s fundamental principle of perfect duty.

Imperfect duty then, as it relates to the second maxim of the categorical imperative, is the moral duty of all people to help promote perfection in others.  This makes sense as acts are judged valid as long as they are universally applicable.  If one seeks rightness within themselves, they must also strive to aid others towards perfection.

Kant states in his second maxim that one should make decisions where the results are equally advantageous for all.  Every action should be judged as right or wrong based on how it fulfills the requirements of the categorical imperative.  An end is only worthwhile if the means to its fulfillment are methodically validated for “moral correctness.”  Every person has the perfect duty to avoid harming others by their actions.  An act is judged immoral by perfect duty if the actions of some are restrained or restricted by the discretion of others; even if the end result is desirable. 

Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” for example, uses a satirical recommendation for the Irish peasants to sell their children to the rich upper-class society for money.  During the time of its writing, the Irish were being forced into an economic crisis by the British.  His morbid proposal suggests that the wealthy children consumers could actually eat the peasant’s children as a delicacy.  Swift details his argument in such a way that logically… selling and eating babies might actually make sense.  Of course, if this proposal were universalized, imperfect duty would not be fulfilled.  Very few mothers would actually sell their own children and maternal instincts would probably create a world that would be undesirable at best.  Swift took advantage of the emotional shock associated with his proposal to mock the ruthless proposals and regulations made by the British.  He shows that even if an action can be proven statistically, it can still be morally wrong.

Kant’s maxims can be divided into perfect and imperfect duties.  A perfect duty based upon the first maxim is a moral standard that could logically be universalized.  Imperfect duty is a bit more subjective in that it tests the moral standard for validity based upon the desirability of its universal existence.  Both eating healthy and not overeating might be considered imperfect duties because they promote an improved lifestyle that would have a positive universal application.  An act that makes sense logically could be judged immoral if the outcome causes an unfavorable world to live in. 

Fulfilling the first two maxims is not very practical as the vast spread of beliefs, seen throughout the world, are in constant contrast with each other.  Developing a universal moral code would be an impossible feat.  Instead, Kant asks us to imagine a perfect world in which our behavior is an exact model of absolute moral correctness.  The third maxim states that people should act as though they were a leader of a universal kingdom of ends; a kingdom where all behavior committed must be morally correct; where every person fulfills his perfect and imperfect duties to the best of his ability.

Both types of duty are quite important, but they have some distinction.  Actions that require the judgment of one’s perfect duty create conflict if morally wrong, such as the killing of others.  Perfect duty is, in a way, a human’s natural instinct of right and wrong.  All members of society are simply expected to follow these standards in order to cooperate with one another.  An imperfect duty however, will not result negatively if not satisfied.  On the other hand, if one fulfills an imperfect duty, such as giving away unused clothing to the homeless, his efforts could earn him the respect of others because these actions are not required for a logical existence of humanity.

I think that Immanuel Kant has developed a very thorough, yet unrealistic basis for moral philosophy.  In a perfect world, Kantian ethics might be a viable concept.  Unfortunately, we live in a world with such infinite possibilities of beliefs and lifestyles that Kantianism, a model that holds an extremely narrow definition of right and wrong, is just not practical. Why would Kant prohibit actions if they cannot be carried out universally?  I only find this applicable for serious offenses against mankind; murder for example.  People of all cultures act in their own unique ways and should any of their behavior be universalized, society would be unable to function properly. 

For this reason I find utilitarianism to be a much more valid concept.  Regardless of their intentions, people must generally “fit in” with society in order to survive.  Fitting in often requires an individual to make careful application of his behavior in a way that parallels the behavior of surrounding persons.  By following these standards of right and wrong, one would likely find that both personal and public happiness benefit tremendously.  It seems that humanity naturally follows utilitarian moral codes to which they can best integrate and form a productive society.