View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

In his earlier work, Kant explained individual motivation to act morally in terms of a
struggle between various feelings (Pasternack, 2002, p. 7). However, strongly
influenced by the work of Rousseau, Kant made the link between morality, reason and
the intellect (Guyer, p. 315). Kant was also influenced by the work of Newton and
thought that moral law could have a priori status akin to Newton’s gravitational laws
(Guyer, p. 316). Kant developed the idea that people could use ‘pure reasoning’ and
established the categorical imperative as the rule for rational deduction of moral
obligations: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law” (Kant, 2002, p. 50).
Not surprisingly, Kant’s moral philosophy has been subject to considerable criticism
(De Luca, 2003, p. 69; Seedhouse, 1998, p. 123). For example, is it really possible to
deduce a moral duty without taking any account of its consequences? And is Kant’s
theory simply too demanding for individuals to apply in every day life? Unfortunately,
this thesis does not allow for a full critique of Kant’s moral philosophy. What is of
direct concern is that Kant’s theory takes no account of values. Is this possible?
Consider Kant’s response to the famous case of the inquiring murderer (taken from
MacIntyre, 1998, p. 188). A prospective murderer asks me the whereabouts of his
intended victim. I know the answer, but lie to conceal the victim’s whereabouts because
I am aware of the murderer’s intentions. The murderer follows my directions, but,
unbeknownst to me, the victim has since moved to the place where I have directed the
murderer. The murderer finds and kills their victim. According to Kant, the victim’s
death is a direct consequence of my lie. I am therefore responsible. Kant reasoned that
in this situation, my duty was not to lie. As long as I fulfilled my duty to follow the
categorical imperative not to lie, I would not be responsible, whatever the outcome.
But if we actually found ourselves in this situation, is it realistic to expect that we
would simply act on this maxim that we must not lie? Imagine, for example, that the
person the killer is searching for is also a murderer and has killed hundreds of innocent
people. Or that the murderer is threatening to kill your son if you do not reveal the
victim’s whereabouts. Your values become operative, and in deciding whether to lie or
not, you will be guided by your emotional and physiological response, the social
environment and your life experiences. Your response will be very different than if you
54