Kant's Foundations of Ethics

By Immanuel Kant

These works articulate the most fundamental principles of Kant's ethical and political world-view. "What is Enlightenment?" (1784) and "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals" (1785) challenge all free people to think about the requirements for self-determination both in our individual lives and in our public and private institutions. Kant's "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals" is dedicated to the proposition that all people can know what they need to know to be honest, good, wise, and virtuous. The purpose of Kant's moral philosophy is to help us become aware of the principles that are already contained within us. Innocence and dependence must be replaced with wisdom and good will if we are to avoid being vulnerable and misguided. According to Kant, freedom of thought leads naturally to freedom of action. When that happens, governments begin to treat human beings, not as machines, but as persons with dignity. Immanuel Kant begins "Toward Lasting Peace" by contrasting the realism of practical politicians with the high-minded theories of philosophers who "dream their sweet dreams." His opening line provides a grim reminder that the only alternative to finding a way to avoid the war of each against all is the lasting peace of the graveyard. The advent of total war and the development of nuclear weapons in the twentieth century give Kant's reflections an urgency he could not have anticipated. Kant published this work in 1795, during the aftermath of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The high hopes of the European Enlightenment had been dampened by the Reign of Terror in which tens of thousands of people died, and the perpetual cycle of war and temporary armistice seemed to be inescapable. Kant's essay is best known as an early articulation of the idea of a league of nations that could bring "an end to all hostilities." Today The United Nations continues to pursue that dream, but lasting peace still seems to be wishful thinking.-

• Language: English
• Publisher: SAGA Egmont
• Release date: Jul 30, 2020
• ISBN: 9788726627466

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher and is known as one of the foremost thinkers of Enlightenment. He is widely recognized for his contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics.

Book preview

Immanuel Kant

Kant’s Foundations of Ethics

SAGA Egmont

Kant’s Foundations of Ethics

Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?; Die Metaphysik der Sitten

Copyright © 1784; 1797, 2020 Immanuel Kant and SAGA Egmont

All rights reserved

ISBN: 9788726627466

1. e-book edition, 2020

Format: EPUB 2.0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievial system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher, nor, be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than in which it is published and without a similar condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

SAGA Egmont www.saga-books.com – a part of Egmont, www.egmont.com

Introduction

Albert A. Anderson

The three works by Immanuel Kant presented in this volume focus on important aspects of what it means to live a responsible life. As Kant approaches the subject, ethics differs from morality by seeking a philosophical perspective on issues such as what is right and wrong, good and bad, or just and unjust.

Already in What is Enlightenment? Kant identifies the philosophical nature of the topic, emphasizing the centrality of learning how to think for oneself. Written in 1784, between the American Revolution and the French Revolution, this work also shows the political importance of thinking ethically. The only way to avoid tyranny and to establish as well as preserve democracy is to extend to all citizens the opportunity to think about ethical questions.

In Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, this injunction becomes what Kant calls the principle of autonomy, the foundation of the highest principle of morality, the categorical imperative. Although there is but one categorical imperative, Kant distinguishes and explains three formulations of that single principle. By analogy, if we think of a triangle, there is only one object, but it necessarily has three sides. The various relationships between and among those three sides and the angles they create give rise to a complex branch of mathematics called trigonometry.

The categorical imperative is also a single concept, but three formulations are required to explicate the complexity of living responsibly. To continue the analogy, think of the two sides of the triangle as the first two formulations of the categorical imperative. The first formulation presents the principle of universality, and the second formulation displays the intrinsic value of persons. The base of the triangle is the third formulation, the principle of autonomy. In Kant’s hands, these basic principles become a full-blown branch of philosophy — ethics, which, in turn, lays the groundwork for politics.

Kant begins Toward Lasting Peace by contrasting the realism of practical politicians with the high-minded theories of philosophers who dream their sweet dreams. But his opening line provides a grim reminder that the only alternative to finding a way to avoid the war of each against all is the lasting peace of the graveyard. The advent of total war and the development of nuclear weapons in the twentieth century give Kant’s reflections an urgency he could not have anticipated. Kant published this work in 1795, during the aftermath of the French Revolution. The high hopes of the European Enlightenment had been dampened by the Reign of Terror in which tens of thousands of people died, and the perpetual cycle of war and temporary armistice seemed to be inescapable. Kant’s essay is best known as an early articulation of a league of nations that could bring an end to all hostilities. Today the United Nations continues to pursue what Kant called the cosmopolitan idea, but lasting peace still seems to be a sweet dream.

Kant was a philosopher, not a practical politician, so it is a mistake to read Toward Lasting Peace as a proposal for political action. Most important is Kant’s ability to probe the fundamental principles that shape relations among nations, with specific attention to the dynamics of war and peace. For Kant, politics must be grounded in ethics. Neither ethics nor politics can be based on religious revelation, because there is no common authority to which all human beings can appeal to resolve ethical and political questions. Reason is the only common court of appeal for all human beings.

But what is reason? In his other works, especially the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant makes it clear that reason is not the kind of rationalism that was articulated by Descartes and Leibniz. Kant’s way of thinking about reason is closer to that of Plato, who used a dialectical model to struggle against the rationalism of Parmenides, on one hand, and the relativism of the Sophists, on the other. In What is Enlightenment? Kant distinguished between private reason and public reason, insisting that it is public reason that must always be free; it alone can bring about enlightenment among people.

Perhaps the best way to clarify what Kant has in mind is through an example from the realm of practical politics.

When a member of a political party uses reason to defend a particular policy or proposal, that person will necessarily use private reason. The objective is to present and defend a particular point of view for specific practical purposes. In that case, as with all partisan or parochial battles, the goal is to win or convert, not to seek the truth. Practical politics — whether within a single nation, between nations, or among all the nations of the world — can never go beyond private reason. To do so would be to betray the cause and risk losing to the opponents who are also seeking victory. But public reason is concerned with what is true for all, not for advancing the interests of a particular individual, party, nation, or alliance. In trying to understand how a reasonable person should think about war and peace, Kant argues that we must find a way that brings lasting peace to all humanity or accept the lasting peace of the graveyard. This way of thinking about rationality embodies the logic that underlies the categorical imperative. Whatever applies to me must also apply to every other rational being. In this way, politics is grounded in ethics, which is grounded in reason.

All three works in this publication are unabridged; however Kant’s original German version of Toward Lasting Peace contains numerous elaborate footnotes, two supplements, and two appendices. The essence of Kant’s thinking on this topic is presented in the main text, so the footnotes, supplements, and appendices are not only unnecessary but also confusing and distracting. The peripheral material from Toward Lasting Peace has been omitted so that Kant’s philosophy can be presented clearly and elegantly for use in the Agora of the contemporary world.

What is enlightenment?

Enlightenment is our release from self-imposed dependence. Dependence is the inability to use our own reasoning. Instead, we rely on others to do our thinking for us. It is self-imposed not because we lack understanding but because we lack decisiveness: Sapere aude! Have the courage to think for yourself! This is the motto of the Enlightenment.

Why do so many people remain dependent? The answer is laziness and cowardice. Even after nature allows us to be free of external direction by others, we still look to authorities to speak for us. It is all too easy to remain dependent if I have a certain book that provides me with knowledge, a preacher who provides me with a conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on, just so long as I need not take the trouble to think for myself. I merely pay the required fee, and someone will go to the trouble for me.

Most people see the road to independence riddled with difficulties and dangers. Those who have so generously taken on responsibility for us will see to it that we submit like animals hitched to a wagon, afraid of the consequences of taking any steps on our own. But our struggles are not so dangerous when we realize that we need them in order to learn to walk by ourselves; otherwise we might never try.

It is therefore difficult for us, as individuals, to work our way out of a dependence that has become second nature to us. We might even be fond of our own foolishness, and thus be incapable of serving our own best interest, simply because no one has made us try. Formulas and rules — those mechanical tools of rational use, or rather misuse, of our natural gifts — are the shackles of eternal dependence. To cast them off for a leap over even the narrowest ditch is risky if we are not accustomed to it. This is why few people can free themselves from dependence by their own wits and pursue their own steady course.

But surely it is possible for people to enlighten themselves. If given sufficient freedom, the process of self-enlightenment is almost inevitable. Even among the mass-educators of the establishment, there will always be some who think independently. Having cast off the yoke of dependence from their own shoulders, they will spread the spirit of rational discourse regarding the value and vocation of individuals. However, it is truly remarkable how an enslaved people, aroused by others who likewise were unable to free themselves, will still try to force its enlightened educators into submission. The process of enlightenment may well be slow. Revolutions may bring about a rejection of individual despotism and of greedy and oppressive subjection, but they will never lead to a true change of mind. Rather, new prejudices as well as old ones will direct the thoughtless masses.

To reach enlightenment we need freedom, that is, the least harmful form of what we call freedom, namely the use of one’s ability to reason openly about things. But on all sides we hear the voices of authorities telling us what to do. The drill sergeant tells us: Don’t argue, just follow orders! The tax collector says: Don’t question, just pay up! The pastor says:

Don’t challenge, just believe! One master tells us: Reason as much as you want and about whatever you like — but obey! On all sides we encounter limitations to our freedom. But which of these limitations are obstacles to enlightenment?

And which of them are conducive to it?

I reply: It is the public use of reason that must always be free; it alone can bring about enlightenment among people. Its private use, on the other hand, can be narrowly limited without becoming an obstacle to the process of enlightenment. By public use of reason I am referring to its use by a scholar before a readership. By private use I mean its use by people who apply reason within a civic office or function entrusted to them.

To be sure, some affairs of public interest require a certain mechanism whereby some of its members merely remain passive in order to achieve an artificial unanimity required for government — or at least to avoid destructive interference.

In this, of course, we are not permitted to reason; but, instead, we must obey. But to the extent that we consider ourselves members of the public interest and of human society at large — let us say a scholar who addresses the public through writing — we can employ our reasoning without harming the affairs of the machinery to which we passively belong.

Thus it would be senseless to reason about the purpose and usefulness of a military command, for it must be obeyed.

But, as a scholar, I should not