Kant lies down on the ground to study the stars and, following his example, you take your place on the hard, cold ground. Hmm, this might not be too comfortable, you think to yourself. But you are here to learn from one of the most studied philosophers of all time, so you bear with the austere accommodations and ready yourself for a lecture from the master.
“Reason and rational thought?” you question.
“Yes, the ability of persons to engage in reason is what sets us apart from objects or things,” Kant explains, his body rigidly aligned with the North Star. Noticing his attention to detail and Kant’s affinity for following certain habits, you quickly straighten out and assume an equally unyielding position on the ground. Kant nods approvingly and continues. “Rational thought provides the ability to act according to moral principles. A person uses reason to evaluate his or her intentions and motives before choosing to act and is responsible or morally accountable for his or her actions. The moral person will act according to moral law. And that, young scholar, is the basis of my theory of ethics!”
“So human beings that are capable of rational thought are a type of moral agent and thus are responsible for their actions?” you question.
“Yes, and not just human beings, mind you. Just look up! There are galaxies beyond galaxies in the heavens. ‘I should not hesitate to stake all on the truth of the proposition ... that, at least, one of the planets, which we see, is inhabited.’[3] Now, if some of those inhabitants are rational and make moral decisions, then they too would be included in our moral community just as humans.”
“Extraterrestrial life! That is progressive thinking,” you exclaim marveling that this straight-laced professor would be contemplating such ideas.
“Yes, of course it is within the realm of possibilities I’ve considered. You know, I consider myself the Copernicus of philosophy and have even made contributions to the study of astronomy.”
“Yes, sir,” you reply careful to demonstrate your respect. Turning back the matter at hand, you decide to make sure you are following Kant’s theories. “So the foundations of your ethical principles rest on rationality, moral law, and morally correct intentions?” you ask to clarify. “But what do you mean by moral law? How does one determine the moral law?”
“Well, moral law, or the type of moral law that I am interested in, is a type of imperative that provides direction on what we ought or ought not do,” Kant replies. “These categorical imperatives, as I like to call them, are universal in that they apply to everyone, and they are resolute meaning that they cannot be modified depending on the circumstances.”
“Ok,” you say hesitantly. “But I don’t understand how I should act.”
“Let me offer some guidelines. You should always act as though your actions could become a universal law. So, when you are making an ethical decision, first state the maxim on which you are basing your decision. Now think about this, could your maxim be followed consistently and rationally by everyone in the world? If so, then your maxim can be universalized and it passes the test.”
“I see. So I made a promise to my clan to search for ethical knowledge. But the journey has been arduous, and I’ve been thinking about the ethics of keeping my promises. So my maxim is that one should always keep her promises. And I do agree that this maxim could be universalized without contradiction. So I guess that could be a universal law.”
“Precisely!” exclaims Kant. “You are beginning to understand. This exercise will help you navigate through ethical dilemmas. Also, another categorical imperative is to always respect other persons and never use people for your own gain. In other words, treat them as ends rather than a means to an end.”
“Ok, I think I understand,” you reply deep in thought. “Let me recap just to make sure I’ve got this. The first categorical imperative is: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. The second categorical imperative is: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. Is the correct?”
“In a nutshell, yes.” Kant replies looking pleased. Kant pushes himself up on his elbows as if to emphasize his point. You can’t help but think that the sharp rocks of the ground are sinking into his elbows, but Kant doesn’t seem to mind. Kant’s enthusiasm for explaining his theories coupled with his disciplined nature seem to mask any physical discomforts he might feel. You can tell that Kant is the type of person that would persevere through both physical and emotional discomfort in order to pursue his duties. You struggle to follow his lead. Kant continues, his back stiff and his face not displaying any sign of discomfort, “Now think about why we follow laws that are moral and just. We follow these laws precisely because they are moral, and as autonomous, rational agents we choose to do our duty. Thus, the third imperative is: Act as if in choosing a maxim you are legislating it as a universal law for yourself and all the other persons. This will lead you on the right path in setting up your community.”
“I agree with your ideas,” you respond as you begin to sit up and give your aching joints a break from the hard ground. “There is something to be said for the ideals of fairness and consistency that are implicit in your moral philosophy. And I especially like the idea of treating other persons as autonomous and equal beings. Besides, I’m not the kind of person who would use other people anyway. I think I naturally wouldn’t violate this imperative.”
“That is not enough, ,” Kant scolds. “You must follow the imperatives for duty’s sake and not any other reason such as habit, inclination, or your personality. The good will involves a rational calculation in which one deliberately chooses to follow one’s duty to obey rules of conduct. Here, take this book. You need to study more!”
Feeling a little contrite, you managed to squeak out a “Yes, sir.” You thank him for the book and slip out of the observatory before Kant can further chastise you. But Kant is already back to studying the stars and jotting down notes for his next treatise.
[3]Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1787.
