Tolerant according to Immanuel Kant
If the church is no longer in charge, how can we still know the difference between good and bad behaviour? Immanuel Kant showed how individuals could make up their own mind.
We move on to the next main moral movement, particularly the version developed by Immanuel Kant. Deontology, simply put, formulates our moral duties on the basis of rules. Those rules should apply to everyone. What you should do flows from those rules. Don't lie, don't steal, etc.
Aristoteles thought it was impossible to find these generally applicable rules. The world is too complex for that. Instead, work on creating happy, righteous people. They will figure it out together. That is the starting point of virtue ethics.
The consequentialists, who will be discussed next time, had other insights: it is not about the application of rules, but about the outcomes. Because with the rigid application of rules, accidents can happen. For example, imagine that you should never lie. Isn't it even okay to lie when people's lives are at stake?
We will certainly come back to that. But let us first delve into the views of Kant, whose influence is still immense. Starting with the context: who was he, and what did his world look like?
Kant and the Enlightenment
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) lived in Königsberg, on the Baltic Sea, then an important Prussian city, now the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. His parents were petit bourgeois, he was raised as a Lutheran, went to university, became a home teacher and librarian, obtained his doctorate, wrote mainly smaller works and finally became a professor at the age of 46. It was not until he was 57 that his first masterpiece, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, was published. Already at birth, Kant was small in stature and very frail. He never married, rarely left Königsberg, led an exceptionally regular existence, assisted by a faithful manservant. Yet Kant was not a lonely eccentric; he had a good sense of humour, and he had a fulfilling social life.
One of Kant's first fascinations was physics and astronomy. A century earlier, Isaac Newton had established the natural laws of mechanics, followed by Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle and many others. The world had fallen under the spell of the laws of nature. The world seemed to be describable in terms of general principles that would apply in all circumstances. And this applied not only to the natural sciences, but also to economics, for example: there was an 'invisible hand', according to Kant's contemporary Adam Smith, determined by the law of supply and demand. It was obvious to also try to capture morality in abstract laws.
An important element of Kant's moral philosophy is reciprocity: individuals are equal to each other: no one has priority because he has a higher rank or status. It will be no coincidence that the market of supply and demand also involves a form of reciprocity, just like Newton's third law (action ←→ reaction).
And in his time there was every reason to approach morality systematically. Pierre Bayle had previously established that there was no necessary connection between religion and morality. Anyone who is not religious is not necessarily a worse person. Could religion still be accepted as a source of morality? It was a time when the question of good and bad could no longer simply be answered by appealing to the will of God or by referring to the Bible. One couldn't get away with that anymore; an underlying system of morality had to be formulated that applies to all humanity, regardless of religion.
Kant lived at a time when the nation state was coming to fruition. Governments became more effective; states were increasingly gaining control over daily life. One could be lucky or unlucky with one’s monarch; his will was law. Kant's king was Friedrich II of Prussia, a fairly enlightened king with an interest in philosophy. But after Friedrich’s death, his nephew came to the throne in 1786 and took over the reins. It was the time of the French Revolution; the European monarchies were shitting their pants. Kant, who was moderately enthusiastic about events in France, had to be careful what he wrote, especially when it came to politics and religion.
Sources of morality
People are autonomous, equal beings who can use their minds. According to Kant, morality could only arise from reason. In doing so he excluded a whole range of other possible sources of morality. Let's take a look at what sources he excluded.
Kant did not consider religious norms suitable as universal norms: they exclude other people's freedom of choice. We need standards that can be applied by everyone, regardless of their religion.
Despite his fascination with natural laws, Kant also consciously turned away from “the meagre provision of our stepmother, nature”. Morality must be reasoned, he thought, with our intellect, without even appealing to the senses. One cannot derive moral principles from nature. Only by using our intellect can we escape the chain of causes and effects that characterise life. When you're hungry, you eat. When you are angry, you hit. When you're horny, you fuck. That is not a moral existence; that is living like an animal. We are only free when we can rise from that.
You can blame Kant for isolating man from his natural instincts and needs, and actually giving morality an artificial character, external to nature. But Kant did have good arguments for disregarding natural instincts. He gave the example of someone who has permission to indulge the greatest of his desires once, on the condition that he subsequently receives the irrevocable death penalty. Every sensible being will make the best of this bad bargain: they will choose to control their lusts. On the other hand, if someone is told to betray their friends, bear false witness, or kill an innocent man, most will refuse, even under threat of execution. Man is apparently quite capable of giving morality a higher priority than fulfilling natural inclinations.
The pursuit of happiness was also not part of Kant's moral system. Something can not be morally good merely because it causes happiness. Happiness is too vague and subjective to serve as a guideline; everyone has to find their own path to happiness without imposing the same path on others. Who can decide for someone else what they should do to become happy?
The last source of morality he excluded was behaviour to achieve something, or automatic behaviour without thinking. We will now dwell on this a little longer.
The noumenal self
A large part of the choices in our life are caused by others, or by previous choices or events, or because we expect a certain outcome. We speak with two words because we were raised that way, or because we expect a favourable outcome if we appear polite.
Freedom is the ability to realise a desired goal for yourself. To the extent that external factors (other people, natural factors, drives) influence us, we are not completely free, Kant believed. But even if we allow ourselves to be influenced by interests such as self-interest, we are not completely free.
According to Kant, true morality must be separate from external stimuli or rewards: someone who behaves well because they think they will be rewarded for it, is not intrinsically good, but a calculating person. The merchant who is honest out of self-interest, or someone who is impulsively friendly, is therefore not necessarily virtuous.
There is a part of our behaviour that is separate from action and reaction: the noumenal self. We are morally responsible for actions from our noumenal self, because we are free to choose. We do something not with a purpose, but simply because we think it is appropriate.
Imagine that, when you are home alone, you do not eat from the pan, but spoon your food onto a plate. Not because you were raised that way, not because it is more practical (eating from the pan is more practical; it saves on washing up), but because you don't want to live like an animal, even if no one else sees it. You are autonomous in that choice: you can choose how you eat, you are not concerned about the consequences; there is no one to see you. There’s your noumenal self at work.
You are only free when you consider an action and consciously choose it as an end in itself. According to Kant, this is how you escape external, natural forces and do not follow a chain of causality. Freedom arises spontaneously from the rational processes that together form your autonomous will.
According to Kant, moral value only exists when man acts from a sense of moral duty.
Our moral duty
In matters in which we are autonomous: what choices do we have to make? Then we must act according to your moral duty, Kant believed. But how do we determine what our duty is?
First of all, we should know that we can never have a duty to do something that we are not capable of doing. We cannot be obliged to move the sun a little closer.
Furthermore, duty presupposes that we have the freedom to do or refrain from doing it. If we have no choice, our behaviour is not a duty but a consequence.
Furthermore, it is about conscious behaviour. Random, impulsive or instinctive actions don't count.
And, as said, it is about behaviour from your noumenal self, not behaviour based on expectations from others, or to achieve a certain goal.
Your moral duty is therefore a freely made, conscious choice. But what choice should you make?
The categorical imperative
Kant introduced the categorical imperative as the formulation of our duty reduced to its core. An imperative is a commandment of reason: conscious behaviour. We already knew that. Categorical is opposed to hypothetical. A hypothetical imperative applies when you want to achieve a certain goal. A hypothetical imperative may be valid, but in itself it has no moral meaning. A categorical imperative is separate from a goal you want to achieve.
“Close the door” is an imperative, but you can always expect an answer when you ask “why?” In a categorical imperative, the “why” question is difficult to answer. The point is not that you have to want to achieve a certain goal, but that a certain course of action is objectively necessary, independent of a concrete goal. A typical categorical answer to the why question is: “because that is how it should be,” because it is our moral duty. “You shouldn't lie,” for example. Why not? Because that's how it should be. It is wrong in itself, Kant would answer.
But why is lying inherently wrong? Because it conflicts with the most abstract categorical imperative. There must be a categorical imperative from which all moral rules can be derived, Kant believed, to prevent rules from getting in the way of each other or contradicting each other. By abstracting we arrive at a supreme moral rule that is separate from anyone's personal experience, that can be embraced by any rational being regardless of their circumstances, a rule that applies universally to all rational beings. That supreme rule must therefore be acceptable to everyone as a universal law.
Here it is:
I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.
— Immanuel Kant, Die Metaphysik der Sitten (1797)
I'm going to explain. Kant is not easy to read; he used all kinds of words that require explanation. First of all, the word maxim, you may not know it. For convenience, read it as a principle.
Kant himself explained his imperative:
[A man] finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that nothing will be lent to him unless he promises stoutly to repay it in definite time. He desires to make this promise, but he has still so much conscience as to ask himself: Is it not unlawful and inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty in this way? Suppose, however, that he resolves to do so, then the maxim of his action would be expressed thus: When I think myself in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I never can do so. Now this principle of self-love or of one's own advantage may perhaps be consistent with my whole future welfare; but the question now is, Is it right? I change then the suggestion of self-love into a universal law, and state the question thus: How would it be if my maxim were a universal law? Then I see at once that it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but would necessarily contradict itself. For supposing it to be a universal law that everyone when he thinks himself in a difficulty should be able to promise whatever he pleases, with the purpose of not keeping his promise, the promise itself would become impossible, as well as the end that one might have in view in it, since no one would consider that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all such statements as vain pretenses.”
— Immanuel Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (1785)
I'll put it more simply. Are you allowed to lie? Then you first look for the “maxim”, the principle that forms the basis of your intention to lie. It could then be: lie whenever it suits you. Then you ask: would you like that rule to apply to yourself and at the same time to everyone else? Your answer is probably no: a world where everyone lies when it suits them is not an improvement. If that is your view, then the conclusion is clear: you should not lie.
(You can refine the rules yourself as you see fit. After all, you are morally autonomous. Kant might not have objected if your maxim were: you cannot lie unless lives are at stake.)
With this categorical imperative, Kant gave a variation on the so-called golden rule that existed at the core of every major religion: treat others as you would like to be treated by them. In the 6th century BC the rule was already placed in the tradition of Confucius. The rule is also attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament.
And he linked that golden rule with the well-known clincher: “if everyone would do that…” In a rebellious mood I retort: but not everyone does it, so it doesn't matter if I do. But that's besides the point.
With his categorical imperative, Kant made an authoritative attempt to define what is inherently good and especially what is inherently bad, without reference to supposed natural law or utility maximisation, let alone to religious views.
Don't use each other merely as a means
The categorical imperative formulates the abstract goal of behaviour: that the autonomous human being is an end in itself. You make up your own mind, but bearing in mind that all the others have the same capacity, while possibly not applying the same ethical rules. Each has to respect the existence and efforts of other rational beings.
It follows that we should never use someone without taking into account their autonomy; we should never treat others merely as a means. This brings us to the second important formulation of the categorical imperative: always treat yourself and others (partly) as ends, and never exclusively as means.
Everyone uses each other as a means, in a sense. Employers use their employees, and employees use their employer. When you order a cup of coffee, you use the barista. Lovers also use each other. There is nothing wrong with that, Kant thought. But you are doing it wrong if you use others only as a means. By using others only as objects of exploitation, instead of with respect for the other as an equal individual. You do this, if you apply different moral rules for yourself than for others. For example, people who expect you to always be there for them, but never answer the phone themselves. Because by doing so, they ignore the humanity of the other, the moral relevance of the other. In that sense, we are all morally autonomous and morally equal to each other. That is the dignity (“Würde”) that Kant meant, and that I wrote about earlier.
Scary cults and Nazis hijacking Kant
The beauty of the categorical imperative is that it gives each of us the freedom to live according to our own beliefs, according to our own religious views, or in the way we think will make us happiest, as long as we keep asking ourselves whether we would like to live in a world where everyone follows the same moral rules as we do. This provides optimal freedom for society as a whole: all behaviour is permitted, unless it would bother us if everyone did it.
But the relationship between Kant's categorical imperative and religion is difficult. Suppose you want the freedom to join a scary cult. So far there is nothing to worry about. Your maxim is: everyone can believe whatever they want. Or: everyone has the freedom to join scary cults if they want to. Fine.
But now that scary sect believes that the end of times needs a helping hand. Or that everyone is bound to absolute obedience to the leader of the cult. What is your maxim then? That everyone must do what the leader says. Or that everyone should commit terrorist attacks. The assessment is then normally whether you think the world will improve as a result. Normal people will think not. But yes, you are a member of a scary cult, and you think so. With Kant in hand you can then legitimise very scary beliefs. (Although you cannot legitimise terrorist attacks with Kant in hand, because then you use others only as a means.)
Bizarrely, Nazi leaders such as Hans Frank and Adolf Eichmann had formulated their own version of Kant's categorical imperative: act in such a way that the principles of your actions are the same as those of the legislature or the law of the land, or in other words: the will of the führer. Eichmann even brought in Kant in his defence at his trial in Jerusalem, to the consternation of Hannah Arendt present (who, like Kant, came from Königsberg). The Nazis used the perverse logic of the Führerprinzip, applied rules for themselves that they did not consider applicable to others, used people merely as a means, and did not at all strive for freedom (more about that later). Arendt's consternation was justified.
Yet, you see that Kant not only let everyone formulate their own maxims, but also left the assessment of that maxim open. Do you think the whole world should obey the Supreme Leader? Do you think the world would benefit if drowning people were no longer saved, including yourself? You have Kant's blessing. It doesn't matter to him how you arrive at that judgment: it's fine to follow your moral intuition, without thinking things through thoroughly. As long as you are in your right mind, and you think that the world will benefit from your maxim, then Kant will not stop you.
It is about freedom
It raises the question of what Kant believed to be the political implications of his categorical imperative. For the categorical imperative is an individual matter par excellence: it regards everyone as morally autonomous; everyone can go their own way and are free to use their own moral principles. People must decide for themselves whether their behaviour is acceptable.
Kant was averse to paternalism. Freedom is our only innate right: we should not be limited by other people's choices, as long as we do not get in the way of someone else's freedom. Everyone should try to be happy in their own way.
All modern countries strive for economic growth and maximum prosperity of their citizens (among many other goals). Kant rejected this because it inevitably involves coercion. Tax liability, for example, is a form of coercion. If you have no need for more prosperity or well-being, it would be wrong for a government to force you to contribute to it.
Was Kant then an anarchist? No, not at all. Because the task of the state is to pursue maximum freedom for its citizens, even through coercion, if necessary. The purpose of the state is freedom, Spinoza had already written.
For example, criminals restrict other people's freedom, say through extortion, or because we no longer dare to go out on the street. Kant thought it was completely logical for a state to take action against this restriction of freedom. And it is logical that this state power must be paid for, through (forced) taxation. As long as the bottom line results in maximum collective freedom, Kant was fine with it.
Kant and the law
So there is a regulating government, which according to Kant was undisputable. But how does this regulation come about?
In the abstract, Kant believed in a social contract. He believed that legislation is only legitimate if it has been established with the involvement of all free citizens. Governments may only restrict the freedom of autonomous citizens with their consent. Kant's political theory is not his best work though. He was already old when he started it, he was no longer at his sharpest, and after the death of Friedrich II he had to pay extra attention to his words.
But about criminal law had he written before, and he left little to guess. Morality was a private matter, but states had a duty to protect the freedom of its citizens. Crime must therefore be punished to maximise collective freedom. Anyone who takes away someone else's life, property or freedom must be paid in kind.
Kant was firm and strict about punishment. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Deterrence or the good of the criminal are not independent motives of criminal law, because that is paternalism, and that is wrong. If punishment has a deterrent effect, that is a bonus, but not an end in itself. The only 'clean' approach to criminal law is retaliation. Anyone who kills, apparently has no respect for life, so he himself has no right to life. This is how criminals should be punished. Anyone who violates other people's rights forfeits their own rights. That sounds harsh, but on the other hand, Kant would not approve of the death penalty for heresy, high treason, or rape, for example. Punishments must be proportionate to the rights that were violated.
Tolerant according to Immanuel Kant
Kant was a liberal par excellence, and a very influential one. Morality and religion are private matters. Freedom and autonomy are core concepts. Individuals are equal to each other. As long as you don't get in the way of other people's freedom, you can indulge yourself. The government has a very limited task. The sole purpose of the state is freedom. He categorically rejected paternalism: governments should not treat citizens like children. Citizens may only be bound by laws with their consent.
There are all kinds of criticisms of Kant. For example, he believed that women should keep their mouths shut and he was not too complimentary about other races. He was not in every way an egalitarian either: he strongly disapproved of forced redistribution. His categorical imperative can seemingly legitimise freakish ideology. And there is something contradictory in his refusal to restrict people’s moral intuitions (more about that in the next episode).
His straightforwardness commands admiration. But there is something to be said about that too. His attitude towards crime was very harsh. The elimination of natural behaviour from his ethical system raises questions. Property and retribution are innate moral human qualities and are given a place in Kant's moral system, but why not compassion, for example?
And a well-known criticism of Kant's deontology is also that his morality does not pay attention to the consequences of behaviour, only to the intention. That is the criticism of consequentialism; we will talk about that next time.
For further reading
Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781), also available online in English: The critique of pure reason
Immanuel Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (1785), also available online in English: Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals
Immanuel Kant, Die Metaphysik der Sitten (1797), also available online in English: Metaphysics of morals
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil (1963)
Harry Frankfurt, Freedom of the will and the concept of a person, The Journal of Philosophy (1971)
Henry E. Allison, Kant’s theory of freedom (1990)
Roger Scruton, Kant, a very short introduction (2001)
Rainer Forst, Toleranz im Konflikt: Geschichte, Gehalt und Gegenwart eines umstrittenen Begriffs (2004), translated as: Toleration in Conflict. Past and Present (2013)
Dietmar von der Pfordten, Five elements of normative ethics - A general theory of normative individualism, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (2012)
Michael Rohlf, Immanuel Kant, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016)
Robert Johnson, Kant’s moral philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016)
Larry Alexander, Michael Moore, Deontological ethics, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007/2020)
Frederick Rauscher, Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022)
This was the sixth episode in the series about morality and toleration. An overview of all episodes can be found in the overview article about Morality.
The next episode in this series will be about consequentialism, and in particular the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.