1

The moral status of an action is its moral rightness, wrongness, or permissibility.

The root word deon means duty in Greek. So the adjective deontic means of or
relating to duty.

Kant believed that moral truths are based on reason. He argues that all the correct
moral principles are logically derived from an ultimate standard of morality that any
rational person would accept. He calls this standard the Categorical Imperative.
Kants moral theory is a version of deontological ethics, since the Categorical
Imperative is a rule thats supposed to determine the moral status of actions, and the
Categorical Imperative requires or forbids actions regardless of an actions
consequences.
Image Source: "Immanuel Kant (painted portrait)" by unspecified /History/Carnegie/kant/portrait.html. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia
Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg#media
viewer/File:Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg

Kant insisted that all the formulas of the Categorical Imperative are practically
equivalent in that they imply the same conclusions about what we morally ought to
do.

By the Principle of Universalizability, any action that isuniversalizable is morally right.

On the other hand, according to the Principle, an action that is not universalizable is
immoral (morally wrong).
The agent is the individual who carries out the action in question.

Kant reasons that statement 1 would be false. In a world where everyone makes a lying
promise to repay a loan, the goal of lying in this way cannot be achieved. In such a
world, making a lying promise to repay a loan would not be an effective means of
getting money.
Here is Kants argument:
If everyone in the world makes a lying promise to repay a loan in cases like this one,
then everyone would see through the lie. In such a world, if I asked you for a loan to
buy a car I cant afford, and I promised that Id pay you back, you would know Im lying.
Youd know Im lying, because in this worldeveryone, including you, makes lying
promises to repay loans in order to get something they want. Knowing this, people
would not be so foolish as to give loans to those who make lying promises for them,
because they would know that they will never get the money back.
In a world where everyone makes lying promises to repay loans, the act of making such
lying promises would not be an effective means of achieving the goal of getting money.
So, Kant concludes, the act of making lying promises to repay loans is immoral.

10

NOTE: Strictly speaking, this question asks whether a non-actionnot helpingis

morally permissible. Kants Categorical Imperative can be used to evaluate non-actions,
too. Moral philosophers call non-actions omissions.

11

In this example, Kant argues that statement 2 would be false. In a world in which no
one helps other people in need, people whom he or she can easily help, something
essential to ones will would be endangered.
Here is Kants argument:
By a will, Kant means a faculty or set of faculties that enables a rational being to
choose, think, plan, and act. Kant also speaks of a persons will as the sum total of her
freely and self-reflectively approved choices, thoughts, plans, and actions. Something
essential to ones will is something someone needs in order to have a will at all.
Survival quickly comes to mind as something essential to your will: you cannot have a
will if you are dead. But other things may be essential to your will, such as health,
education, and political freedoms. Poor health can upset and even destroy your plans in
life. Education develops thinking skills, and thinking skills are need to make good
choices (many of which are related to your survival and health). Without political
freedoms, you may very well be forced to live a life under the control of others.
In any persons life, occasions may arise when one needs the help of others. You may
be afflicted by an accident, disaster, or disease. You may be the victim of a crime, or

12

you may be lost in an unfamiliar place. In these situations you would surely benefit from
the freely given help of others. Even your most basic needs for food, shelter, and
protection cannot be met without the assistance of others.
But imagine what it would be like in a world where no one ever helps others whom he
or she can easily help. The severity of world poverty today gives us a hint of what such a
world would be like. Millions of people are dying of preventable malnutrition and
disease, because they are not getting the help they need. Thats what the real world is
like. Just imagine how difficult it would be to live in a world where no one ever helps
others, even when they could easily do it! Many things essential to ones will would be
endangered in this world. And for this reason, Kant concludes that not helping others
whom one could easily help is not morally permissible.

12

The fundamental thought behind Kants Principle of Universalizability is that acting

morally requires being impartial.
To be impartial is to treat similar cases similarly, and not to treat people differently for
no good reason.
Kant seems to be right about the importance of being impartial to leading an ethical
life. It seems that failures to be impartial are prototypical instances of immorality. Think
of cheating on an exam when the cheater knows she can get away with it. A reason this
sort of cheating is wrong is precisely that it involves a failure of impartiality. Cheaters
dont want (too many) others to cheat on their exams too, since the whole point of
cheating is to gain an advantage over others. Instead, cheaters want to be able to do
well on exams the easy wayby cheatingwhile they want others to prepare for
exams the hard wayby actually learning the material. In this sense, cheaters are
making an exception of themselves: they act as if they are more important than others,
and as if rules that apply to others do not apply to them.
The Principle of Universalizability is meant to be a test for being impartial in the way
one treats others. Actions that pass the universalizability test are actions that everyone

13

could do, without making the actions pointless and without threatening the wills of the
agents themselves. Therefore, if you follow the Principle of Universalizability, you will be
following a rule that can apply to everyone, and you will not be making a special
exception of yourself by taking actions that couldnt be justified under a rule that
applies to everyone.
The Principle of Universalizability is a plausible moral principle, since it captures
the importance of being impartial and it provides a test to help us figure out when
we are impartial in our actions.

13

14

To use other people as mere means is to use them as tools for purposes that are not
their purposes. For example, a lying promise to repay a debt.
However, the Principle of Humanity permits using others for purposes that theydo
share with you. For example, voluntary exchanges between buyers and sellers.
According to Kant, treating human beings as ends-in-themselves means treating them
with respect, as beings endowed with intrinsic value and dignity.
To say that something has intrinsic value means that it has value just because of its
existence, and that its value does not depend on any other good things.
Dignity is the quality of being worthy of respect.

15

According to Kant, all rational, autonomous agents are intrinsically valuable. Moreover,
they have equal intrinsic value. This fundamental equality is not affected in any way by
social and economic status, racial or ethnic characteristics, the possession of power,
etc.

16

17

Onora Oneill, a contemporary Kantian, uses the PH to argue that there is a moral
obligation to help reduce hunger, great poverty, and powerlessness (ONeill 1980).
These conditions undermine peoples autonomy, because people in these conditions
cannot form and pursue a freely chosen plan of life as effectively as others.

18

It seems that there is something about persons that is valuable and demands respect.
The Principle of Humanity offers a plausible explanation of what this something is:
persons are intrinsically valuable due to being rational and autonomous.
The Principle of Humanity implies that all people have moral rights based on their
rationality and autonomy. This is consistent with some powerful intuitions.
The PH explains why people are morally responsible for what they do. Because we are
autonomous agents, we can make free choices and are thus responsible for those
choices.

19

20

21