“Thou shalt not lie,” does not hold only for men, as if other rational beings had no need to abide by it, and so with all other moral laws properly so called….the ground of moral obligation here must therefore be sough not in the nature of man nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason.
(Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, p2)


To get into the spirit of Kant’s ethical theory, we can first note that he made an important distinction between two kinds of “oughts” or “imperatives”.

1. Hypothetical Imperative: an action you should do if want to promote some goal or end you already have.

For example: “Study for the test” is a good command to heed if you want to pass. That is, it depends on your desires. Hypothetical imperatives stand in contrast to what Kant called categorical imperatives. These bind us no matter what our desires.

1. Categorical Imperative: A moral directive from reason that is binding without condition; a command that applies t
o all rational beings, no matter what.

Example: “Don’t just use someone for your own purposes”.

Kant held that there was in fact one supreme categorical principle of morality (expressed in various ways, but let's set that aside for now). This principle is stated as follows:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)



Using The Categorical Imperative

• Kantian ethics requires that moral rules are universalizable; that is, the rules of morality must apply to all people, indeed, to all rational beings at all times.

1. Determine the rule you are following. Note that this involves some careful thinking.

2. See if the rule can be followed or if is illogical or somehow self-defeating. To do this, ask yourself this question:

Can I consent to others acting simultaneously according to the same rule I use without underminding my own ability to act in accordance with it?



Case 1: Lying Promises

Rule: When it suits me, make a promise that I have no intention of keeping.

Question: What happens when we ask our question (above) to see if this rule is self-defeating?

Result: If everyone did this, promising would be meaningless. "I promise" would just mean "maybe." So there would be no point in promising: you would not be believed! Promising as such would disappear; and if there were no promises, there would be no lying promises.


How Would A Utilitarian Respond?

Respect snakes
I recently saw a report about a Texas man who was bottling vodka with baby rattlesnakes in it.Authorities recovered 400 bottles, but there are no animal cruelty charges being brought against him as Texas's animal cruelty laws do not apply to snakes. Maybe I'm alone here, but this is outrageous. Rattlesnakes are one of the most beneficial animals in this state because they consume rats, mice, gophers, rabbits, ground squirrels and other rodents that if overpopulated can destroy crops and ecosystems.If he had drowned kittens in the vodka people would send him death threats. Not everything in nature can be beautiful, but everything has its place as God intended and deserves our respect. Where are the animal rights groups on this one?
Letters to the Editor, Corpus Christi-Caller Times, 04.06.08

Some Key Points In Your Answer
• A clear statement of the basics of utilitarian ethics
• An attempt to take into account the facts of the situation.
• An assessment of all interests or happiness at stake.
• Application of the utilitarian calculus.
• Problems, objections.
• Possible replies.


Two Objections to Kant’s Deontology

Objection 1: Couldn’t we formulate the rule about lying so that in some cases it is not self-defeating? For example, our rule might be:

“It is permissible to lie when doing so would save someone’s life.”
• As Rachels suggests, this rule does not look self-defeating (p.124). The point is: how we formulate a rule is all-important for Kantian ethics.


Objection 2: The insistence on absolute rules is strange. Do we really have an obligation to always tell the truth, even if a murderer is at your door?!

• N.B. Kant’s reply on p.124.


Kant on Lying: A Second Look

To many, Kant’s views seem extreme. Yet we might also see him as touching on a some deep theoretical point about ethics.

1. First, we might agree with Rachels that Kant is stressing the point of demanding reasons for our actions and that:

“If we accept any considerations as reasons in one case, you must also accept them
as reasons in a different case.” (Rachels, p.128)
Example: Same-sex marriage.

N.B. That this point is weaker than the Categorical Imperative, but certainly captures something of the spirit of Kantianism.

2. Next, consider the notion of negative responsibility.

If we hold someone negatively responsible for an event, then we hold him responsible for for an outcome that he could have prevented but did not.

In other words, we can be responsible for some things that we just let passively happen.

Case 1: The drowning toddler that you could have easily saved but did not.

Case 2: Being coercively told to shoot one person in order to save 20 people being shot by some deranged person.

• Is there a moral difference between these two cases? In other words, would both parties be equally negatively responsible for the actions they allowed to happen?

Case 1: We might say that you are responsible since saving the baby would not have involved doing anything immoral.

Case 2: We might say you are not responsible since saving those 20 people would involve an inherently evil act: namely, murdering one innocent person.

What Kant might be expressing with the lying case is that we do not do anything wrong if we fail to prevent a bad act if the prevention of a bad act involves doing something inherently immoral, such as killing (or lying).