NASBA Center For Public Trust 
The first blog in this series focused on Aristotelian virtue ethics, which can be summed up in saying that it is the character of the actor, developed through time and experience, that fundamentally makes an act moral. This installment will focus on Immanual Kant and how he believed almost the exact opposite.
Kant lays out his theory of ethics primarily in his text Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant’s system of ethics is often referred to as “deontological ethics.” The name, derived from the Greek word for duty, deon, and the Greek word for “the study of,” logos, illustrates succinctly the main tenant of the theory. To Kant, the only moral acts are those that are in accordance with duty.
Duty: What Is It and How to Find It?
Kant’s work deals with the derivation (or the metaphysics) of morals. Duty, for Kant, is just another way of describing that which is moral. Our duties can only be determined by “pure reason”, which implies an inherent dutifulness found in nature that is true for all beings that possess the ability to reason. Duty, then, cannot be influenced by experience, culture, personal benefit, popularity or anything else.
Kant, then, goes on to explain the morality of actions can be classified into four cases:
- There are actions that are blatantly contrary to duty. This is where generally disagreeable acts like lying, stealing and cheating would go.
- There are actions that accord with duty but are not based on the avoidance of punishment. This is where Kant classifies things like paying taxes. People pay taxes primarily to avoid punishment and not simply because they should.
- There are actions that accord with duty, but also coincidentally coincide with personal desires. Kant explains this case with the illustration of a man who does not cheat on his wife, but his wife is beautiful, kind, thoughtful and wise. There is no adherence to duty in that case because the man would have no reason to want to cheat on his wife.
- The fourth case deals with actions that are in accordance with duty and done purely because of duty. Kant explains this again with the wife scenario, except in this case, the man’s wife is a horrible, gremlin-like nag. It is only through duty, reasons Kant, that a man would not cheat on such a woman.
While in three of the four cases above, a dutiful act is being committed, it is only in the fourth case that actions are considered to have moral content. This is true because the consequences of an action are irrelevant to Kant. The morality of an act cannot be determined based on the outcomes of that action, even if the outcomes are favorable. The only way that an action can be deemed moral is if it is done out of the intent to be dutiful. This eliminates cases two and three from having moral content as it cannot be determined with any degree of certainty why the doer has committed the act. It is the intention behind an act that determines its moral character.
The only way an act can be moral is if it is done for the sake of duty alone, and duty can only be determined by pure reason. Pure reason, however, is not actually accessible. Reason, for humans, is almost always coopted by some outside force be it popularity, personal desire, fear or a whole host of other factors. So, if duty is found through pure reason, which is inaccessible: how then does a person decide what they ought to do in each situation?
The Categorical Imperative
The most important takeaway from Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is the idea of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative states that a person should “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785). Put simply, the only way an act can be judged to be moral is if that act could be willed for every person as if it were a universal law. The classic example of the categorical imperative deals with lying. If the act of lying is evaluated by the categorical imperative, it is pretty easily determined to be immoral. A world where lying was the universal standard would be absolute chaos.
It is important to understand that the categorical imperative does not change dependent on situation or circumstances. If it is wrong to lie, then it is always wrong to lie no matter what. The consequences of an act are of little importance to Kant. Trying to evaluate actions as good or bad based on what kind of thing they might bring about is foolish. What will or won’t happen in the future is not only up to us, but our actions are. Ultimately, in Kant’s universe, you can only be judged on the act itself and never by the consequences. Remember from the cases of actions that it is the intent that determines the morality of an act. If the intent is in line with the categorical imperative, an act will be deemed good. There is no need to evaluate the consequences.
Leadership Lessons
While Kant does not touch on leadership in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, there are still lessons about leadership for those who wish to find them. Kant dictates that one should never commit an act unless one would want that act to become a universal law. Therefore, leaders should not act in a way they would not condone by those they lead.
Moral acts, are also always moral or immoral. To have a standard of acceptability that is dependent on a title or an office is the same, for Kant, as taking advantage of everyone beneath you. Those who choose to lie do so knowing that the universal law is telling the truth. One would only lie on the assumption that the lie would be successful, and a lie can only be successful if everyone else assumes that they are telling the truth. This assumption of truth is due to the adherence by most people to the categorical imperative that lying is bad. To lie, knowing that the lie will be assumed true, is to take advantage of the good intentions and the adherence to duty of others. When a leader decides that it’s okay to do the immoral thing one time because they know the reputation of their department or staff is on the whole good, they are in the same way, reaping the benefits of other’s good work.
The lessons are such:
- If an act is wrong, it’s wrong in all circumstances for all people.
- To commit a wrong act is to take advantage of other people.
- Even if doing a wrong act would theoretically bring about good results, it is still not permissible given that the results of an action are always uncertain. One must act in accordance to duty and duty alone and not in accordance with desired results.
Kant, I. (1785). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (3rd ed.). (J. W. Ellington, Trans.) Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
– Alyssa Gallas, Operations Manager