The Categorical Imperative: A Test for Maxims

The categorical imperative is not so much a rule about what to do but a rule about how to do it.  In other words, the categorical imperative provides us the form, or structure, of moral judgments.  According to Kant, an action is only good if the personal rule according to which you perform that action can be make a universal law.  In other words, you should only act in a way such that your personal maxim can become a universal law.

The categorical imperative is categorical insofar as it is how we should act at all times.  Contrast this with a hypothetical duty, which we only have if we have some other goal.  Kant thinks that the categorical imperative shows that we have a perfect duty to keep promises and to preserve our own lives.  In other words, you always have a duty not to break promises and not to kill yourself.  Let's see how the categorical imperative shows that we have a perfect duty to do these things.

In order to see if we have a perfect duty to preserve our own lives, we can ask if we could ever universalize a rule according to which we would kill ourselves.  For example, "It is ok to kill myself because it is good for me."  Kant says that it is contradictory to make such a law universal.  If I kill myself, then there is NO good for me.  There can be nothing good for me when I am dead because I am no longer alive to have things be good or bad for me.  Likewise, if everyone were allowed to kill themselves because it is 'good for them', then we would have a similar problem.  There could be no 'good' for anyone if there is nobody to have things be good for them!  Since we cannot universalize a law that condones suicide, then we have a perfect duty to avoid doing that thing.

The same can be said for promise-breaking.  To make a promise is to commit to do something.  You make this commitment to another person, who accepts your promise as evidence of your commitment.  Now if we tried to universalize "It is ok to break promises", then this would mean that nobody must follow through with their commitments.  If people felt like they could break commitments whenever they wanted, then nobody would believe anybody when they make promises.  So making a promise becomes impossible in itself, since making a promise requires that somebody believes my promise and takes my promise as evidence of my commitment.

In the case of breaking promises and committing suicide, rules that support this behavior become logically impossible if the law is universalized.  In the case of benefiting others and cultivating talents, the case is different.  Laws such as "I will not help other people" or "I will not cultivate my own talents" can be followed universally.  The universal application of the law does not preclude the possibility of its fulfillment.  So it passes the first test of the categorical imperative.  We can universalize the rule.  But would a rational person want to live in such a world?  It seems like so long as a  person wants, say either good things for himself or wants to be benefited by the skills and kindness of others, that it is rationally consistent to also do such things himself.  So while we do not have a perfect duty to help others and cultivate our own talent, we have an imperfect duty to cultivate our own talents and to help others.  In other words, there is a hypothetical imperative to perform these actions insofar as we should do these things to meet some goal we have (e.g., happiness).
.

Kant Vocab

Your will is your practical reason. In other words, your will is what allows you to identify what is good in terms of certain goals (23).

An imperative is the form that commands take. The representation of an objective principle insofar as it demands the will be a certain way is called a command of reason. The form of a command is the imperative (24).

Hypothetical imperatives are commands that must be followed in order to reach some goal (25). Hypothetical imperatives are commands to perform actions as a means to an end.

A categorical imperative is a command that must always be followed because the action is good in itself. In other words, a categorical imperative is a command to perform an action that is good as an end (ibid).

A perfect duty is a universally necessary duty (30).

Imperfect duties are duties that we must sometimes perform (ibid).

Properly speaking, Kant says that true 'duty' is always categorical (33).

There are three practical principles of the will. First, the ground of all duties lies objectively in the form of universality. Second, the end of all rational beings is rational beings. In other words, rational beings are ends in themselves. Third, the will of every rational being is a will that legislates universal law (autonomy of the will).

An end is a purpose or goal.  A means is the way of achieving that goal/end/purpose.

Acting from Duty vs. Merely Acting in Accord with Duty

Kant says that actions only have positive moral value if they are done from duty and not merely in accord with duty. One example that Kant talks about is a shopkeeper who does not overcharge his customers. We can say that this person has a duty to charge a fair price to all customers. Now, if the shopkeeper only does this because he doesn't want to lose business, then he is acting in accord with duty but not out of duty. He is only acting out of duty (or from duty) if he charges a fair price because he knows it is the right thing to do.

Here is another example. You have a duty to preserve your own life. In other words, you have a duty to keep yourself alive. The person who loves life and continues to live because they love life is acting in accord with duty but not out of duty. However, the person who hates life and only continues to live because it is the right thing to do is acting from duty. The person who continues to live because they want to is not doing anything morally good (they are not doing anything bad, either). But the person who continues to live even though they don't want to but because they know it is the right thing to do is doing something morally good.

Kant: The Good Will, Maxims and the Categorical Imperative

The basis of Kant's ethics is a good will.  The good will is the only thing that is good without qualification.  It is also the highest good.  It is good not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself.  Compare this with intelligence.  Being smart is good for lots of reasons; it can help to achieve many ends.  But being smart can also be used for bad goals, such as robbing a bank or assassinating someone and getting away with it.  Unlike intelligence, the good will is always good.  It is good not because it brings about some consequences but because it wills correctly.  Actions are good actions if they are actions of a good will.

But how do we tell if an action is an action of a good will?  Well, we text the maxim, or the personal rule according to which a person was acting.  Another name for a maxim is a principle of volition.  The idea is this.  For every action, there is some personal rule that a person is following.  In order to test if this maxim is good, we must use a certain kind of test for this rule.

The test we use is the Categorical Imperative.  The categorical imperative states that one should only act according to rules that can be made into universal law.  For some rules, it is logically impossible to make them a universal law.  For example, if you wanted to make "It is ok to tell a lie whenever you want" a universal rule, this would be logically impossible.  Lying means telling someone falsehoods under the pretense that they are truths.  In other words, lying means telling someone something false under the assumption that they will believe your words anyway.  If everyone lied whenever they wanted to, then nobody would ever believe anyone.  Lying would be impossible because lying requires that the person to whom you are lying believes your lies.

Here is another example.  Say I am in a hurry at Starbucks and I want to cut in line.  So I act according to the maxim, "It is ok to cut in line when I want".  If this rule became a universal law and everyone cut in line whenever they wanted, then lines would cease to exist.  If the rule became universalized, then it would become logically impossible to follow that rule.  The point is not just that it would be an impractical rule to be universalized.  Rather, it would be logically impossible to universalize this rule because if everyone followed it, then following it would become impossible!

Power, Hip Hop and Two Kinds of Claims

In "Positions of Strength", by The Heiruspecs (an act from Rhymesayers Entertainment), MC Felix describes a number of positions of power that exist in our society.  Recall that there is a difference between making the descriptive claim that there are these power dynamics in our society and the normative claim that there should be these power dynamics.

Crito: Socrates Obeys

Whereas Socrates adamantly defended his personal lifestyle in Apology, in Crito he is resigned to accept the punishment decided by the jury: death.  Crito, his buddy, has come to Socrates to try to convince him one last time why he should leave the city.  Crito gives four main reasons.  First, he says that if Socrates dies, he will lose a great friend.  Second, he says that if Socrates dies that people will think that Crito was just too cheap to save his friend.  Third, he says that Socrates is betraying his family by letting himself be put to death.  Fourth, Crito tells Socrates that letting himself be put to death is evil and shameful.  Socrates responds to each of these reasons during the course of the dialogue.

First, Socrates says that if he runs away, his friends will be under suspicion by the government and will be in danger of losing their own property.  Second, Socrates says that we ought not listen to the opinion of the majority.  Only the opinion of the few experts is important.  To prove this point, Socrates uses an analogy.  He says that if you want to do physical training, you should seek the advice of a doctor or a trainer.  If you disobey this person's advice, you are likely to end up hurting yourself.  When you disobey a doctor, you harm your body.  But when you listen to bad advice about morality, you harm a much more valuable part of yourself (soul/morality/character).  Third, Socrates says that if he left the city, he would be making his children strangers in a new place.  If he left them behind in Athens, they will have friends of the family to take care of them whether Socrates is dead or alive.  Fourth, Socrates says the right thing to do is to stay in the city and accept his death.  There are three main reasons he gives for this.  He says that he has made a just agreement with the city (rather, he imagines a conversation with the city's laws about whether or not he would be wronging the city by fleeing).  He says that by staying in the city, he has tacitly agreed to obey its laws and accept its rules.  Socrates never left the city except for military service.  He had ample time to leave if he had objected to the rules and laws of the city.  If he disagreed, he either should have persuaded the city or leave.  Socrates did neither.  It also seems like he should be grateful to the city.  If not for the city's laws, his parents never could have gotten married.  The city also provided for his education and helped in his upbringing.  In addition to the tacit just agreement and the principle of gratitude, Socrates also says that the city is to a citizen as a parent is to a child (or like a master is to a slave).  In other words, the city is in a position of superior power over the citizen.  A citizen must accept the punishment of the government just as a slave must accept the punishment of its master.

Socrates on Death

In Apology, Socrates talks a lot about death.  He first says that fear of death is the result of ignorance, since we do not really know if death is an evil or a blessing.  He says that it is better to fear known evils, such as being wicked, than it is to fear unknown things, such as death.  He also says that there is good reason to think that death is a blessing.  Either death is lack of perception or death is a relocation of the soul.  If death is lack of perception, then it is much like a very restful sleep, so it must be good!  If death is relocation of the soul, then one can spend time with interesting people (and even philosophizing), so it must be good!  Socrates says that either way, one cannot harm a good man in life or in death.  Since the only real harm is harm to your virtue (morality), nobody can harm you but yourself.  The only real harm you should worry about is harm to your soul (harm to your virtue/morality).  It is easier to avoid death than it is to avoid being wicked.  So really, if we fear anything, we should fear being wicked.

Counter-Assessment: Free Food!

After the jury finds Socrates guilty and Meletus asks for a penalty of death, Socrates has the option to provide a counter-proposal for his punishment. He begins by saying that he has done a great service to the people of Athens because he was constantly questioning them about their lives and trying to get them to think about important things like virtue and morality. For such a service, he says he should be treated to free meals at the Prytaneum (where people like Olympians were honored). He then says the he will not do himself harm by saying that he deserved punishment. He says even if he were exiled, he would get kicked out the next city for the same thing probably, so he would have to continue wandering. He says he cannot stop asking questions because "the unexamined life is not worth living". He finally says that he could afford a 1 mina fine, although maybe his sons could help him with up to 30 mina. Unsurprisingly, the jury rejects his counter-proposal and they sentence Socrates to death.

Do You Choose What You Want?

Here is the video from class today where the great Derren Brown is able to convince Simon Pegg that he's always wanted a red BMX bike for his birthday!

This video raises serious concerns about the extent to which we are in control of our own desires!

The Defiant Defense of Socrates

The Apology of Socrates: A Defiant Defense

1. No appeals to pity (34c-35c).  It was common practice for defendants to bring family to court to make a show of pity.  Socrates notes this and explicitly rejects this as a strategy for persuasion.  He thinks it is best to appeal to reason than to appeal to emotions.  He also asks his audience to focus on the content of his speech and not his style (18a).
2. Ridicule of accusers
   1. Why would I corrupt others and thereby risk harming myself? (25e)  Socrates points out that to corrupt someone is to make them wicked.  Wicked people harm those who are close to them.  So why would he knowingly want to make the people around him harmful?
   2. I cannot be harmed by anyone! (30d)  Socrates says that the real harm is to harm your soul, or our virtue.  It is worse to execute a man unjustly than to be executed unjustly.  Meletus is a worse man than him, so he cannot harm Socrates simply by being unjust.
   3. Why don’t the victims of my corruption accuse me themselves? (33d)  Socrates points out that none of those he has apparently corrupted have stepped forward to accuse him of crimes.  Their families have not complained, either.
3. Appeal to Oracle (21a)  Socrates explains how his friend was told my the Oracle at Delphi that there is no man wiser than Socrates.  This got him started on his quest to try to find someone who was truly wise.  After questioning poets, politicians and craftsmen, Socrates was unable to find someone who possessed wisdom.  He figures that this is why he is so unpopular, but he things of it as a divine quest.
4. Reminds jury of his divine sign (31d)  Socrates also talks about his divine sign, which is a voice that speaks to him to warn him not to do something.  The voice never tells him what he should do.  It only tells him what he should not do.
5. I am god’s gift to this city (literally!) (30e-31a) I was placed at this post (28d)  Socrates claims that the gods got him started on his quest to find a wise man, and that he has been sent to Athens to be a kind of gadfly.  His role is to wake people up and make them examine their own lives.  He says that he will be hard to replace unless the gods decide to provide Athens with another gift.  

Many Definitions of 'Pious' in Euthyphro

Over the course of Euthryphro, Socrates and the title character have a long discussion about what is 'pious'.  Euthyphro begins by giving an ostensive definition, or definition by example.  Socrates rejects this and asks for an abstract conceptual definition.  Euthyphro then says that what is pious is what the gods love.  Socrates that since the gods disagree, some will hate something that others love--making that thing both god-loved and god-hated.  This is a contradiction, so we must reject this definition.  Euthyphro then modifies his definition to include only what ALL the gods love.  Socrates then asks if the gods love it because it is pious or if it is pious because the gods love it.  Euthyphro asserts that the gods love it because it is pious.  Here we have an example of circular reasoning.  To define piety in terms of gods' love and to claim that the gods love it because it is pious is a circular argument.  It is logically valid (If P, then Q.  If Q, then P.  Therefore, P if and only if Q).  Yet we have not actually learned anything about piety.  Socrates then tries to help out his interlocutor and offers up this distinction: piety is a part of justice.  Euthyphro then insists that it is the part of justice that is concerned with taking care of the gods.  Socrates clarifies that most examples of care mean that the thing that is cared for is made better in some way, but surely this cannot be the kind of care with which we provide the gods.  Euthyphro says that to be pious is to care for the gods like slaves care for their master.  Socrates asks what the purpose of our service is.  Euthyphro says that we are to make sacrifice and pray.  Socrates characterizes this as a sort of trade between gods and humans, according to which we sacrifice something and then ask for something in return in the form of prayer.  Socrates then asks if this trade somehow benefits the gods.  Euthyphro says no, there is no benefit, but agrees that the gods are pleased by this trade.  And here we end up back at a previously rejected definition.

Euthyphro's Dilemma

There is a philosophical-theological question that has been addressed by many different writers.  The question is whether something is pious (or good or just) because divinity loves it, or is it good for some other reason and divinity only loves is or says it is good because it is good.

Today in lecture, we talked about two possible solutions.

Solution #1 to Euthyphro's Dilemma: What is pious (or good or just) is pious just because divinity says so.	Solution #2 to Euthyphro's Dilemma: What is pious (or good or just) is so because it is so. Divinity loves it or says it is good because it is good, but there is some independent reason why it is good.
If there are many gods, they will disagree about what is pious.	If there are many gods, they will disagree about what is pious.
There is no reason for morality. If divinity can decide that anything is just, good or pious, then it seems somewhat arbitrary. Also, if morality is entirely contingent upon the will of divinity, then if it turns out that there is no divinity, then there is no morality.	Divinity's freedom to decide what is good is limited by an external reason or principle. It seems that divinity is not omnipotent if it cannot decide what is good.
If things are only good because divinity says so, then why is divinity good? Does divinity have to say it is good? Many people think that divinity is good in itself, regardless of any assessment of it.	Divinity's independence, or sovereignty, is limited. Divinity cannot decide that just anything is good.
This solution requires that we commit the naturalistic fallacy. In other words, we ignore the is/ought distinction. Simply put, just because something is a certain way does not mean that something should be that way. For example, if people are racist, that doesn't mean they should be.	How do we have access to these reasons?  How do we know what independent criteria make something good?