The utilitarianism studied in the previous lesson judged good and evil by “results”; this lesson examines a position that emphasizes “motives” and “duty.” Kant’s deontological ethics and Rawls’s theory of fairness are important ideas that form the foundation of modern theories of justice.
Basic Knowledge
The German philosopher Kant (1724〜1804) believed that the moral value of an action is determined not by its result but by its motive (will). A good action is based on duty and follows a rule that “everyone could follow in the same way” (categorical imperative). For example, even if telling a lie produces a convenient result, lying is considered morally impermissible because one cannot say that “everyone may lie.” This is called deontological ethics. In contrast, the American philosopher Rawls (1921〜2002) argued that principles of justice should be decided behind a veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is a hypothetical situation in which one does not know one’s own talents, wealth, or social position; the rules agreed upon under those conditions are considered fair. Rawls derived two principles of justice: ① the principle of equal liberty and ② the difference principle (inequalities are permitted only when they improve the situation of the least advantaged).
Kant (a German philosopher who established deontological ethics, the categorical imperative, and the moral law; a giant of modern philosophy)
Deontological ethics (the ethical position that the moral value of an action is determined by duty and motive rather than its result)
Categorical imperative (Kant’s moral principle: an unconditional command to follow maxims that everyone could follow)
Rawls (an American philosopher who discussed justice as fairness in A Theory of Justice and was one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century)
Veil of ignorance (a hypothetical state in which one does not know one’s social conditions; Rawls’s thought experiment in which the rules chosen are considered fair)
Difference principle (Rawls’s principle of justice, which permits inequality only when it improves the situation of the least advantaged)
Further Exploration (Background and Significance)
Kant’s deontological ethics is important as a response to utilitarianism. Whereas utilitarianism may justify sacrificing a minority for the happiness of the majority, deontological ethics treats “never treat a person merely as a means” (the dignity of the individual) as an absolute principle. This also became a foundation of human-rights thought. Rawls’s veil of ignorance theoretically justifies correcting inequality by asking, “If you might be born into the lowest social class, what rules would you support?” Rawls’s ideas are widely referenced as a basis for modern welfare states, including taxation, social security, and equal educational opportunities.
- Kant rejected the utilitarian idea that “good results are all that matter” and made motives and duty the standards of morality.
- The categorical imperative is a principle of universalization that asks, “What would happen if everyone did this?”
- Kant presented the principle that people should be treated as ends and never merely as means, emphasizing human dignity.
- Rawls’s veil of ignorance is a thought experiment for deriving the rules of a fair society.
- The difference principle does not demand complete equality; it permits inequalities that most improve the position of the disadvantaged.
- Kant and Rawls can be understood together as thinkers who emphasize duty and fairness.
Points to Note (Easily Confused Concepts)
① Organize deontological ethics (Kant) and utilitarianism (Bentham) along the contrast of “emphasis on motives versus emphasis on results.” ② The categorical imperative is an unconditional moral command, unlike a conditional command such as “If you want to do something, do this” (a hypothetical imperative). ③ The veil of ignorance does not mean simply “not knowing things”; it refers to a hypothetical state in which one does not know one’s social position or talents. ④ The difference principle does not permit all inequalities; it has the limiting condition that they must benefit the least advantaged.
Practice
- Using the idea of the categorical imperative, explain why Kant’s deontological ethics says that one must not lie.
- Explain Rawls’s veil of ignorance as a thought experiment and state why it leads to the creation of fair rules.
- Summarize the greatest difference between utilitarianism and Kant’s deontological ethics from the perspective of their standards of judgment.