Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy is a cornerstone of deontological ethics (an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong), centred around the concept of the categorical imperative. Kant asserts that moral actions are those performed out of a sense of duty and guided by reason, as opposed to inclination or consequence. His categorical imperative, articulated in several formulations, mandates that one should act only according to maxims that can be universalised—applied consistently without contradiction. For instance, the maxim “One should not lie” can be universalised because if everyone lied, trust and communication would collapse, leading to societal chaos. This universality principle underscores the intrinsic value of rational agents and the necessity of respecting individuals as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. Kantian ethics, therefore, emphasises the importance of intentions and the adherence to duty over the consequences of actions.
Kant’s philosophy also includes the notion of autonomy and the kingdom of ends. Autonomy, in the Kantian sense, means self-legislation; moral agents are bound by laws they give to themselves through rational will. This contrasts with heteronomy, where actions are influenced by external forces. The kingdom of ends is a conceptual society where all individuals are both authors and subjects of the moral law, treating each other with equal dignity and respect. Kant’s vision of morality is thus one of principled, rational self-governance in a community of equals.
In contrast, Elizabeth Anscombe, a pivotal figure in 20th-century moral philosophy, challenges modern moral theories, including Kantian deontology, for their reliance on law-like prescriptions without a foundation in virtue. In her seminal essay “Modern Moral Philosophy,” Anscombe argues that the concept of moral obligation makes little sense outside of a theistic framework, which historically provided the context for moral laws. She criticises the predominant focus on duty and utility in modern ethics, advocating instead for a return to Aristotelian virtue ethics, where the focus is on the development of good character traits and the pursuit of human flourishing (eudaimonia). According to Anscombe, virtues like courage, temperance, and justice are integral to moral philosophy, guiding individuals to act rightly by fostering moral character rather than merely following rules.
Anscombe’s critique extends to the language of modern moral philosophy, particularly the use of terms like “ought” and “should” without clear foundations. She argues for a moral philosophy rooted in the reality of human practices and the cultivation of virtues that enable individuals to live well. Her approach shifts the emphasis from abstract principles to the lived experiences and character development that form the basis of ethical life.
Philippa Foot, building on Anscombe’s revival of virtue ethics, offers further development and refinement of this tradition. Foot critiques both Kantian deontology and utilitarianism for their inadequate treatment of moral character and practical reasoning. In her influential work “Natural Goodness,” Foot proposes that virtues are grounded in human nature and the life form of human beings. She argues that moral evaluations are rooted in facts about human life and what is necessary for human beings to thrive. Foot’s naturalistic approach suggests that virtues are those characteristics that enable humans to fulfil their potential and live well in a manner congruent with their nature.
Foot differentiates between virtues and mere skills or traits by their role in human flourishing. Virtues, in her view, are those traits that enable individuals to live in accordance with their rational nature. For example, courage is not just the ability to face danger but the appropriate response to fear, aligned with rational understanding and the good of the individual and community. Foot’s naturalism asserts that moral judgments are based on how well actions and dispositions align with the life form of humans, providing a robust framework for understanding moral goodness.
The integration of these philosophical perspectives provides a richer understanding of morality. Kant’s insistence on the rational basis of moral duty highlights the importance of consistent and principled action, governed by universal laws of reason. Meanwhile, Anscombe’s critique and advocacy for virtue ethics bring attention to the significance of moral character and the context in which moral actions are situated. Foot’s naturalistic interpretation of virtue ethics bridges these views by grounding moral virtues in the objective conditions of human life, thereby offering a more holistic account of moral evaluation.
To conclude, the exploration of morality through the lenses of Kant, Anscombe, and Foot reveals the complexity of ethical thought and the necessity of considering various dimensions of moral theory. Kant’s deontological ethics provide a rigorous framework for understanding duty and intention, emphasising the universality and rationality of moral laws. Anscombe’s revival of virtue ethics calls for a focus on character and the contextual understanding of moral actions, critiquing modern ethical theories for their lack of grounding in real human practices. Foot’s naturalism further anchors virtues in the realities of human existence, presenting a compelling synthesis of rational duty and virtuous living. Together, these thinkers contribute to a comprehensive and nuanced approach to morality, one that respects the role of reason, character, and the human condition.
Real-Life Examples
Kantian Ethics:
- Truth-telling in Business: A CEO discovers that their company’s product has a serious defect. According to Kantian ethics, the CEO should inform the customers immediately, even though this might lead to financial loss and a drop in stock prices. The duty to tell the truth and respect the customers as rational agents capable of making informed decisions is paramount.
- Respecting Autonomy in Healthcare: A doctor encounters a terminally ill patient who refuses further treatment. Following Kant’s principle of autonomy, the doctor respects the patient’s decision, recognising their right to self-governance, despite believing that treatment might extend their life.
Anscombe’s Virtue Ethics:
- Courage in Everyday Life: An employee witnesses a colleague engaging in unethical behaviour. Despite fear of retaliation, the employee decides to report the misconduct. This act of courage is not just about confronting fear but doing so for the sake of integrity and justice, virtues central to a well-lived life.
- Prudence in Financial Decisions: A young professional decides to save a portion of their income instead of spending it all. This prudent decision reflects a virtue ethic’s focus on character and long-term flourishing rather than immediate gratification.
Foot’s Naturalistic Virtue Ethics:
- Community Support: A person volunteers at a local shelter, helping those in need. According to Foot, this act of charity is grounded in the natural human inclination towards sociability and compassion, which are necessary for human flourishing.
- Environmental Stewardship: An individual chooses to adopt a sustainable lifestyle, reducing waste and conserving resources. Foot would argue that this aligns with the virtue of temperance and respects the interconnectedness of human life and the environment, contributing to the overall good of the community and future generations.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
