It has been three months since my previous post. With regards to the content of the previous post, I am glad to reveal that my Ph.D. proposal was modified to be more grounded in mainstream economic theory, but retained the spirit of the exercise and hence left my faculty, my advisory committee and myself, better off. I have since submerged in getting back to intensive reading everything that was not related to my research but finally composed myself to start on my thesis, to be presented in three years from today ideally.

I, however, am glad though the absence from the blogosphere made me guilty, I am back with perhaps the most ambitious post to date, for I have lost my philosophical virginity to Immanuel Kant, the greatest and one of the most difficult philosophers to have existed, and have finished two-thirds of his writings and have made copious notes, and fairly confident of having understood his works somewhat. The present post outlines Kant’s ethical theory, from his celebrated ‘Groundwork for Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals‘(yeah try saying that 5 times!)

It is important to note that this is a purely theoretical exercise, and even if you agree with the system or not, take it as a piece of art at the least, and something to think about at the most. I have tried to be lucid and precise, however, I yet lack the skills to interpret his work well enough to explain like you’re five, and it is going to be a somewhat long post, but I request you to save it or bookmark it, and really stick with it because a) I have spent a lot of time in extracting Kant’s thought from a very dense book. b) It would be worthwhile at least as an entry to perhaps without question one of the greatest thinkers to have ever lived. And now, we shall start in our endeavor.

Disclaimer – Please don’t focus on the use of pronouns as I’ve used man as the mode of analysis, out of convenience since I have a penis and think like a male.

Of Good, Evil and all that Jazz- A Case for Objective Morality by Immanuel Kant

There is a fine distinction between Natural Science and Social Science, for, in the world of natural science, we use our senses to interpret external objects, that is, while we can be sure that there is a tree in front of us, we are limited by the resolution of our eyes to interpret what our brain shows us of the tree. An animal with far stronger eyesight might see a shade of colors unfathomable to us, thereby seeing a truer picture of the reality, but we can’t be sure that anything can grasp the true nature of any object, say, except for a perfect omniscient being, let us call it God.

Social Science, however, is different. Let’s start with the basis of all social science – Ethics. Why? Well, it is the foundation on which the premise of a civilization rests. The acknowledgment of principles of right and wrong is the source of Law and Justice. Politics and Economics derive from the interpretation of right, wrong; pleasure and pain which we derive from? Well – Ethics. It is bad to hurt another person can be within one’s conscience, but as a law means doing so would incur punishment formally. Ethics can these days be seen in a more metaphysical light thanks to anticipated developments in the not so distant future.

Suppose you design artificial intelligence and have to program an ethical system for the machine to follow. Would you want it to statistically emulate humans? I hope not. Humans would go extinct in a year. How to then program ethics into an intelligent machine, such that within the scope of a free will, the machines still make choices under the logical system supplanted by us, and which would not get us annihilated?

Ethics is a construction of human thought(or is it?) Unlike objects which can never be known in their true form because we are limited by sense, we can create an imagined world which has every property carefully laid out by us. To do so, we need to create a theory that is independent of all actual experience(No empirical observations, say when designing that machine.) Can we do that? How do we do that? Kant did that. And he did it pretty well. But the result is something that we would probably be underwhelmed with. The generality of theory to make it independent from all facets of how humans actually live makes it somewhat restrictive. But it’s not the result but the accomplishment of the construction of such a system that is important here. And so we start-

THE RECIPE OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY

We start with the first axiom –  Agency or Free Will (Remember this because it’s important in the last section)

Humans can make choices and can deliberately choose to not choose something just because well, they can. Nature has granted humans with two devices to take actions – Instinct and Reason. Instinct acts on two principles – Pleasure and Pain. Instinct is like an internal command, which may or may not be reasonable. (In fact, Daniel Kahneman has worked out the various cognitive biases inherent in instinctual actions, what we now call heuristics in modern psychology)

We seek things which provide pleasure and avoid things which cause pain. (This is the starting point of utilitarian theory). However, man can transcend and negate instincts. He can avoid immediate pleasure with a view that abstaining from such pleasure might benefit his health or yield future dividends. This higher faculty is that of Reason and is, to a degree, unique to humans. As individual humans are different in their biology, cultures, and dispositions, how do we abstract humanity to a homogeneous whole? Well, Reason. When properly applied, logical reasoning should deduce fixed conclusions from a set of premises.

The Faculty of Reason, in other words, is universal in all Rational Beings.

Reason stands above Instinct since it can validate instinctual actions but not vice versa. The faculty of reason is what separates us from the animal, for instinctual actions occur in both. Just as Science is not necessary for humans to live but can indeed be used as a faculty to make life convenient and better, Reason, similarly, is a powerful faculty for us to make civilization possible.

So to start, we have Free Will as an axiom and Reason as the optimum faculty to take actions, we can proceed towards an Ethical Theory. A theory starts with definitions, and the first and foremost definition we require is that of a  Good Action.

 Kant defines Good as Goodness-in-itself. (Ha! but let me explain)

Though there can be possibly many virtues(intelligence, patience etc.,), they lose their essence when used as means towards some goal. Say donation of wealth to save taxes or raise one’s position in society. The Good Will is the only source of moral value. But we still haven’t defined the Good Will, and shall proceed towards that.

Many consider stoic living or frugality to be a virtue, but is it though? Moderation or detachment can be attributes of evil(Michael Corleone comes to mind)

DUTY AS THE “GOOD” WILL

The Human Will exercises judgment through three methods: – Self Interest, Inclinations, and Duty. Those who have studied economics can understand it in terms of the utility approach(Kantian ethics are opposed to Utilitarianism- I use it just for easier exposition)

Suppose we take a good action – say philanthropy is good. For some, what matters is that the deed was done, but not so for Kant.

If an act of charity is done in expectation of recognition or to save taxes, then it is an action borne out of self-interest. For Kant, this doesn’t entail moral worth since the person doing the action is deriving value directly out of it.

Suppose that the philanthropic action is done not from self-interest, but simply because it makes one happy. For Kant, even such actions don’t entail objective moral worth, since it is done out of an individual’s inclinations or preferences. An example would drive the argument better:-

Let there be two persons A and B where B derives happiness from donating food, while A does not. Suppose A and B then both perform the philanthropic deed. For the utilitarian, there’s no difference in the actions of A and B, but for Kant, the action was easier for B since he derives happiness from it, the total value of the deed goes to his utility function, and the rest as say moral value. For A instead, who doesn’t derive any happiness from the deed, the value from action doesn’t exist as individual utility, but solely as moral value. Thus A has done something more moral than B in performing the same action.

Hence, Duty is the sole generator of moral value, for if done by actions of preference or self-interest would not be objective, as preferences vary among people, and then the only outcome to generate objective moral value is not to see the actions as a means to happiness, but rather the action itself, even if it provides discomfort, so that one need not even consider utility concerns when taking certain actions.

Here, two clarifications are required:-

• There might be objections that since Kant started with  Free Will, then isn’t a binding duty self-contradictory?

Kant answers that though the will must indeed submit to duty, the will does so willingly i.e. out of respect since the rational will acknowledges that such duty transcends the will so that any rational person can determine the sanctity of a duty through the application of transparent reason.

• What if the laws and duties represent the self-interest of the legislator?

The answer to this question is the focus of the next section and introduction of the crux of Kant’s system – The Categorical Imperative.

THE LEGISLATION OF LAWS/DUTIES

It would be prudent to start with a definition.

A Maxim is any principle an individual might consider to be good. Once a maxim passes Kant’s criterion of legislation it can hence be enacted as a Law.

Take any maxim, say a person believing that white lies to be good. Can such a maxim be objectively good? Surely not. A way to test it is through the Principle of Universality(Kant’s criterion) – 

Let’s suppose that the maxim of white lies is a universal law to which every person is subject. Is it good? It would then imply that even the government could lie to its people whose duty then is to “protect people” by lying about policy enactments. But this is a logical contradiction since the only cause to lie would be as a means to protect its own interests rather than as a good-in-itself.

It is hence stated as thus:-

Any individual maxim which is not a universally applicable as a law must contradict itself . 

When is a maxim then applicable as a law? For Kant, only when it is categorical.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE and THE KINGDOM OF ENDS

An imperative or a command can either be Hypothetical(Conditional) or Categorical(Unconditional). 

So if the command is – You shall not lie, it is non-contingent, and a universal principle, but however if the command is – You shall not lie for lest it destroy your credibility, the maxim is then conditional. The difference between both is that while the first holds value in itself, that is not lying, the second derives value as a means to something, that is, credibility. So even if the action is the same, that is not lying, the moral worth of the first is clearly more than the second, and while the first principle is applicable universally and hence objective, the second applies to the subject in question.

Law within a society could arise from divine, sovereign, or through modern democratic sources. The legislator can issue commands for his own self-interest, but if the law is categorical and not hypothetical, two things prevent such a happening.

1. The legislator himself then must be the object of the law, which prevents him from creating exigencies through which he could create exceptions possible only in the Hypothetical imperative.
2. Self-interest can still manifest itself in categorical imperative when universal commands still serve the interests of the legislators. However, the only solution to such a problem is Kant’s final solution, stated as follows:-

 The Universal Law(The Categorical Imperative) can only be realized when Man is viewed as an end-in-himself.

What does Kant mean when he says that every rational human is an end in itself? He means that any law which aims at maximization of social welfare cannot use humans as means towards such a goal, because human welfare is exactly the goal of such a law. A ruler using slavery as a means to achieve economic progress contradicts this principle even if the country benefits through rapid development and might increase overall social utility. This is better illustrated in the following example:-

When humans are ends-in-themselves, a person’s utility should come from the increase in utility of the other in the same proportion. That is:-

U(A/[AB]) = U(A/[AA]) = U(B/[BA]) = U(B/[BB]) {Here “/” signifies given or “if” – interpreted as utility to A from an action of A to B should be equal to utility to A when he does an action for himself – Note that this is only applicable for “Duties” or “Laws” and not all actions or moral principles – Moral Laws can be imagined as Fundamental Rights as maxims.) 

Since the increase(decrease) in A’s utility from an action means the increase(decrease) in B’s utility from the same action, this satisfies Kan’ts criterion as a universal law of nature which is the categorical imperative. Now when we remove utility from this system such that it is a law bound by duty, which the rational will can ascertain, we are left with pure moral worth maximization. (of course inclinations, in reality, do differ, but when everything is determined by law, inclinations don’t really matter, as they introduce subjectivity into an objective system). The above final proof may seem convoluted but it has remarkably intuitive implications. This sums up Kant’s entire moral theory.

At the most basic level, as pure humans, all humans hold the same intrinsic value, regardless of social status or skills, which can add market value or fancy value over and above the absolute intrinsic value.

All rational beings are equal by law. This includes the legislator of laws who must be equally subject to the laws for the system to be consistent.

IS ETHICS REAL OR A CONSTRUCT OF OUR BRAINS?

If you remember from the first section, we started with Free Will as the only axiom. That is the entire theory is contingent on that axiom through which Kant proceeded with his ethical system. Now Kant prepares us for the Grand Finale.

Kant now shows that if this axiom is a truth, the whole system would become real and independent purely constituted from Reason. Free Will is tautological with the autonomy of the will. Kant argues that Free Will cannot be an assumption which we start with since it’s a necessary truth. In ignoring the affectations of senses in forming our morality and starting the system from reason itself is an act of free will, through which we uncover the concept of freedom as well.

The will doesn’t define freedom but exercises it. Without freedom there is no will. Without a will there is no freedom.

The faculty of creating an intelligible world through the application of reason to the will is what Kant terms ‘Practical Reason’ as opposed to the faculty of ‘Pure Reason’ applied in understanding our external world.

Ethics as opposed to Metaphysics of Nature starts with the Subject creating the Object and can hence know its reality in full. Here, in theory, we are Gods and hence understand the objects for we are the ones who have designed it. In nature, the object stands apart from us, We start with the object and attempt to understand it, while in ethics, understanding precedes the object of our exercise.

Now that Freedom is real, what causes Freedom of the Will to arise? That is a question best left to the scientists, and not the philosopher since philosophy can only go so far to prove that it exists and is real, but not how it came to be…