Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Kant reiterates his argument that some people follow duty because they feel obligated to, not because they genuinely want to. In fact, he goes so far as to claim that “no reliable example can be cited of the disposition to act from pure duty [...]” (21, 4:406). It is much more common to see people act out of “self love,” in which they act for themselves and not others. Many people are able to convince themselves their selfish actions are good and they contain a maxim. Others do not believe in morality at all. While these observations seem to cast doubt on Kant’s project, he re-asserts that we know morality exists because we can recognize moral qualities a priori. This is exhibited in our understanding of God as “moral perfection” (23, 4:409). We possess innate knowledge of God’s moral character, which gives us the opportunity to define morality based on something we can never directly know. This further proves that experience alone is not enough to provide a comprehensive understanding of morality.

Since morality exists in nature, it must be governed by laws. Kant asserts that morals are ruled by imperatives, writing that “the representation of an objective principle in so far as it is necessitating for a will is called a command, and the formula of the command is called imperative” (27, 4:413). An imperative goes beyond telling us to do something—it also encompasses the logical steps necessary to complete this task. Imperatives are a crucial step in establishing a metaphysics of morals because they explain why a particular task is important to establishing a certain goal and how we can go about accomplishing it. Imperatives help us use reason to reach a desired outcome.

According to Kant, imperatives can be hypothetical or categorical. Hypothetical imperatives provide us with the means to reach a specific desired outcome. Categorical imperatives order us to pursue an outcome that is universally justified as both unequivocally necessary and unequivocally moral.

The key distinction between the two types of imperatives is how frequently they are used. Hypothetical imperatives are used often and for a variety of purposes. For example, if I want new clothes a hypothetical imperative tells me to go to a clothing store. This demonstrates that hypothetical imperatives govern many of our everyday actions. Kant notes this is complicated by the pursuit of happiness. He writes, “there is one end that can be presupposed as actual in all rational beings [...] that is the pursuit of happiness” (29, 4:416). Happiness is governed by hypothetical imperatives: though we all want it, there is no universal path that will bring everyone equal happiness. However, Kant argues that our frequent experiences seeking happiness help us understand the hypothetical imperative. Conversely, there are very few, if any, everyday examples of humans following categorical imperatives. One of the most prominent universal human experiences is morality. Therefore, the only categorical imperative that humans frequently encounter is one based around morality. Since we understand the importance of morality a priori, we know that it can be true in all circumstances. Kant describes the categorical imperative as follows: “There is therefore only a single categorical imperative, and it is this: act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (34, 4:421).

Kant then presents four examples of how we can connect duty to the categorical imperative. Firstly, someone may attempt to justify suicide by arguing a maxim of self love—if they take their life, they will no longer be in pain. However, killing themselves would ultimately support taking life, which contradicts fundamental laws of nature by removing nature entirely. In the second example, he returns to the idea of a false promise and posits someone borrowing money they know they cannot repay. Though this maxim could also be justified as self-help, it would contradict itself if universalized by leading to a future where borrowing money does not exist. In the third example, he visualizes a person who has a skill that could improve society but chooses not to pursue it. While the natural world would not immediately implode if this maxim were to become a universal justification, this person is going against the human instinct to develop their gifts to the highest possible level, and he cannot use his will to contradict natural laws. Finally, Kant mentions a person who is well off but refuses to help others. Though they do not want to take away from those suffering, by remaining neutral they are supporting a maxim that would lead to a world ruled by indifference. By forcing his readers to consider life under the categorical imperative, Kant proves that abandoning duty is often done while making selfish exceptions to a law. This leads us to exhibit contradictory behavior. These examples force the reader to consider the power of reason and encourage them to use their natural faculties wisely.

Having proven that duty can only be channeled through the categorical imperative, Kant hopes to explain why humans must follow universal laws despite their free will. He defines the human will as “a capacity to determine itself to action in conformity with the representation of certain laws” (39, 4:427). In this sense, our wills allow us to decide which laws to follow. Therefore, any universal law must be one that rational beings with free will could be incentivized to obey.

Rational beings can exert their wills by setting certain goals and deciding how they will accomplish them. Their chosen method of doing something is called a means, and the desired outcome is called an end (40). Most of the means we pursue regularly are done with a specific end in mind and are therefore hypothetical imperatives. However, Kant invites us to consider the existence of something we pursue as an “end in itself” and want for its own sake. He claims that “a human being and generally every rational being exists as an end in itself, not merely as a means for the discretionary use for this or that will, but must in all actions, whether directed towards itself or also to other rational beings, always be considered at the same time as an end” (40, 4:428). Reason tells us rational beings are ends in themselves—if not, they would exist specifically for some other purpose. Any maxim not in line with universal law ought to be rejected, which proves humans can self-legislate their will. Therefore, the rational will is understood as something universally legislating. As authors of a universally legislating will, humans are both subjects to and creators of universal law. We cannot act against it because we would be contradicting our nature. This proves universal laws are binding for free-willed rational beings.

In an ideal community where every human acknowledges their peers as rational beings with universally legislated wills, we would find ourselves in the kingdom of ends. Here, Kant is using kingdom to describe an association and proposes a “systematic union of several rational beings through common laws” (45, 4:433). A rational being participates in the kingdom of ends by acting in accordance with universal legislation while simultaneously using their wills to create universal legislation. Therefore, morality can be attained by following any maxim that would lead to a creation of the kingdom of ends. Kant’s choice to describe humans as rulers in their own right could explain his choice to use the word kingdom, as he is espousing the sovereignty of the rational will. His assertion that human beings are ends in themselves connects to overall intellectual trends in Enlightenment thought, which was the dominant ideology while Kant was active.

The kingdom of ends is only possible if all rational beings are treated with “dignity.” Kant notes we might notice other communities are run by “price”—whether that be literal market activity or having set expectations of its members. Treating people with dignity means acknowledging a person has innate worth. If we can all acknowledge each other as rational beings with equal capacity for self-legislation, we will be in the kingdom of ends.

As a result, there are three qualities that all moral maxims in the kingdom of ends must possess. Firstly, all maxims must be treated as though their form is based on universal principle. Secondly, each maxim must have a matter that treats rational beings as ends in themselves. Finally, to reach the kingdom of ends, each maxim should be underscored by the categorical imperative. We can now express the categorical imperative as a command to pursue a universal law that could bring about a kingdom of ends. The existence of a kingdom of ends relies on a group of rational beings actively agreeing to follow the categorical imperative.

By choosing to pursue the kingdom of ends, rational beings prove their moral worth by respecting natural laws. If they can do this despite material circumstances, they are proving they have an autonomous will. Kant defines an autonomous will as one that has “a law to itself (independently of any characteristic of the objects of willing)” (51, 4:440). In this case, people are choosing to treat universal laws as ends in themselves. Though Kant was not initially writing in a political context, this ideal has been used by political philosophers to provide a moral defense for democracy.

The opposite of autonomy is heteronomy. Acting according to a heteronomous will entails setting maxims to fulfill a set purpose. Since heteronomy encourages people to have specific ends in mind, it is the foundation of immoral action. Heteronomy has also led to failings of human reason at past points in philosophical history. Systems that relied too much on empirical logic emphasized subjective individual experience, meaning they can never be universalized. Similarly, an over-reliance on rational logic, especially as it pertains to religion, can stop us from honing our own reason. For example, if I choose to act morally because I expect a reward in the afterlife, I am pursuing morality based on rational principles associated with my religion and not as an end in itself.

Kant ends the section by arguing that the best and most moral will is the autonomous will. He concedes he has not yet proven the presence of a law that binds humans to follow the categorical imperative but demonstrates our ideas of morality that exist a priori are connected to a free will. While this may strike readers as an incomplete analysis, recall that Kant’s project was to establish a groundwork for a future metaphysics of morals, not to establish one.