3.3 Kantian Justice

There is no doubt that Americans care very much about protecting life, the first value specified in the Declaration of Independence. When they see people in danger, many Americans believe they have a duty to provide assistance–or at least that providing aid is the right thing to do. This is particularly true when the people at risk are victims of a natural disaster such as a flood, earthquake, or tsunami–even if they are in a faraway country. Americans’ charitable donations that far exceed those of people in any other country.^[1]

This perspective is not limited to just giving money. Americans also take action when they witness individuals in urgent need. Bystanders sometimes risk their lives attempting to save people who are drowning or trapped in a burning building. If they see a crash on the highway, or someone collapse on the street, they are likely to stop whatever they are doing and see if they can help. Of course, this is not everyone, but many Americans put aside their personal pursuits when they encounter people whose lives are at risk.

For many, these actions reflect their religious beliefs. But not all Americans are religious, and many who are agnostic or even atheistic act in similar ways. So where can we turn for a value that justifies a duty to protect life that is independent of religion? Immanuel Kant sought to identify such a duty in his quest to create a theory of justice.

The Moral Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant^[2] was a contemporary of Jeremy Bentham. Five years after Bentham published his defense of utilitarianism, Kant responded with a comprehensive attack in Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals. Bentham’s consequentialism had led him to embrace utilitarianism, which evaluates actions according to their consequences. Kant’s theory was deontological, evaluating actions according to whether they complied with universal duties.

To illustrate the difference between these two theories, consider the advice Bentham and Kant would give to a prosecutor facing public pressure to get a conviction for the murder of a young child. Suppose that the media claim a repeat offender found near the child’s home is the likely killer. If fabricating evidence would increase overall utility by securing a conviction and making the community feel more secure, Bentham’s utilitarianism would justify using such evidence at trial. Kant’s philosophy would require the prosector to comply with the universal rule that prosecutors only use reliable evidence, even though it might result in the alleged killer going free.

How does Kant determine what principles should guide our decisions? This is not an easy question to answer because Kant believed that our ability to understand the world is limited by our capacity to acquire knowledge. Our mind structures the phenomena of our existence–our physical bodies and our personal experiences–according to the concepts we use to understand our experience, such as causality, space and time. However, we cannot fully understand reality because our perceptions are influenced by the physical limitations of our minds and bodies. This mean that we can only understand what is real by reasoning independently from our perception. Kant called this the noumenal world, or the world of things-as-they-truly-are. 

Kant’s epistemology may sound familiar to those who have heard about Plato’s allegory of the cave. In Book IV of the Republic, Plato described a group of people who had spent their lives chained inside a dark cave. Unable to see anything more than shadows, they reason that the shadows were real. For Plato, the shadows signify the world that the people can experience through their senses, which the cave-dwellers think is reality. However, true reality exists beyond what they are capable of perceiving, as they are locked into their beliefs by the chains that inhibit them from attaining true knowledge of the world. Plato believed that they could only understand the world of the Forms (i.e., reality) through the enlightenment of philosophy–which required them to leave the cave and abandon their false beliefs acquired in the world of the shadows.^[3]

Although we can never completely understand the noumenal world, Kant believed we could use pure practical reason to logically deduce our duties as humans. If we are free and equal beings, we must assume that everyone else is as well, or else the world would collapse into perpetual conflict. Therefore, Kant begins from the premise that all humans are equal, and that they all have the capacity to act freely. Reconciling our freedom with that of everyone else by requires us to follow a basic rule that he calls a categorical imperative, “a practical law that by itself commands absolutely and without any further motives.”^[4] This rule is that everyone should “act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”^[5] In other words, we should act only according to rules that can rationally be conceived as universal laws.

Kant recognized that people needed guidance in applying the categorical imperative. Kant reasoned that “man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will.”^[6] Therefore, everyone has the duty to follow the principle “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any another, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”^[7] This is a very stringent requirement since it means that every decision that everyone makes must reflect respect for the autonomy of everyone else.

Furthermore, Kant believed that moral actions require accepting the categorical imperative as binding and acting accordingly. According to Kant, “what is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may.”^[8] Therefore, actions performed out of self-interest do not qualify as moral even if they are consistent with universal maxims of conduct. Kant gave the example of a merchant who knew he could charge higher prices to children due to their ignorance of usual prices. He chose not to do so because he feared that if his customers learned he was cheating children, they would go elsewhere. Beecause the merchant was not motivated by the duty to abide by the categorical imperative, his actions could not be called moral. In order to act morally, his motivation must be the duty to comply with universal law, not the pursuit of future sales.

Kant’s philosophy is demanding since it requires people living in the phenomenal world to avoid acting on their inclinations and instead follow universal principles that can only be understood in the noumenal world. People can only act freely if they escape the lure of those inclinations, much as the prisoners in Plato’s cave can only be free if they escape the world of the cave.

Kant and the Duty to Speak Truthfully

One of Kant’s most controversial universal laws is that people should always tell the truth: “The greatest violation of a human being’s duty to himself . . . is the contrary of truthfulness, lying.”^[9] As he explained in a later essay, “To be truthful in all declarations is, therefore, a sacred and unconditionally commanding law of reason which admit of no expediency whatever.”^[10] He discussed the example of a person who considers whether it could ever be moral to obtain a loan through a lie and concludes that it would be impossible because it could not logically be in everyone’s interest to live in a world where such lying was normalized.

Kant is perhaps most famous for his discussion of the right to lie to someone identified as a murderer. Suppose someone asks you if he can hide in your house to escape a murderer who is pursuing him. After you allow him in, the alleged murderer knocks on the door and asks if his target is in the house. Kant says that you must answer truthfully even though you owe no duty to the man asking the question, since lying would violate the universal maxim requiring that people always speak the truth. According to Kant, a lie “always injures another; if not another individual, yet mankind generally, since it vitiates the source of justice.”^[11] To deviate from the universal maxim would cause him to treat the murderer as a means to the safety of the person who is hiding.

Very few would agree with Kant that lying in this case would be wrong. Benjamin Constant responded to Kant that he was wrong to assume that the homeowner was required to tell the truth, as he had no duty toward the murderer that would require him to tell the truth.^[12] Today, internet phishing presents a similar challenge. Suppose you receive a phone call claiming that your bank account or credit card has been compromised, and the caller threatens to close or cancel it if you do not provide identifying information. Most people would believe they had no duty to the caller and refuse to respond–or even give a false answer to prevent the account from being compromised. Kant’s absolute duty to always tell the truth is not a principle that would compel the support of many audiences.

Despite the recognition that there must be exceptions to Kant’s maxim that lying is always wrong, many Americans agree with Kant that telling the truth is the right thing to do, and that lies are usually (though not always) wrong. This value is reflected in several principles of American law that either punish lies or allow people to avoid situations that create tension between telling the truth and pursuing another important value.

First, American law permits the punishment of perjury, which occurs when one takes an oath to speak truthfully and subsequently makes one or more statements that one knows to be false.^[13] The oath signifies the importance of the obligation of truth; a person who knowingly violates it commits a crime. The law makes no exception for extenuating circumstances; the only issues for the jury are whether the statement was made and whether the person who made it knew it was false at the time he made it. There is also no requirement that harm be shown; as with Kant, the consequences are irrelevant to the existence of a legal violation.

Second, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Supreme Court has held that this privilege “reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations: our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; . . . our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; . . . our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual to a private enclave where he may lead a private life.^[14] This statement reflects the Kantian values of autonomy and human dignity in recognizing that in certain situations it would be wrong to force a person to choose between lying to keep their freedom and telling the truth but going to jail.

Third, American courts recognize another privilege that similarly protects people from forcing them to lie in a situation where telling the truth would be likely to threaten their marriage. This is the spousal testimony privilege, which allows a defendant to bar a spouse from testifying against the defendant in court. The Supreme Court explained the reason for this privilege: “The basic reason the law has refused to pit wife against husband or husband against wife in a trial where life or liberty is at stake was a belief that such a policy was necessary to foster family peace, not only for the benefit of husband, wife and children, but for the benefit of the public as well.”^[15] This privilege is not absolute: a spouse that wishes to testify must be permitted to do so. But it does relieve a spouse from having to choose between lying under oath (and possibly being sanctioned for perjury) and making statements that could harm (or even end) the marriage.

The Political Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant didn’t believe that governments were created by contracts between citizens. History showed that almost all governments were established through force; the ratification of the US Constitution in 1788 was a rare example of a government created by consensus. However, Kant didn’t base his duty to obey the law upon how a government came into existence; all that mattered to him was that it maintained order:  “Whether a state began with an actual contract of submission as a fact, or whether power came first and law arrived only afterwards, or even whether they should have followed in this order: for a people already subject to civil law these reasonings are altogether pointless and, moreover, threaten a state with danger.^[16]

Kant believed that the categorical imperative required that people form a government in order to create the possibility of law and justice. This was “a practical principle of reason: the principle that the presently existing legislative authority ought to be obeyed, whatever its origin.”^[17] The duty of citizens was absolute obedience to the ruler: “The reason a people has a duty to put up with even what is held to be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority is that its resistance to the highest legislation can never be regarded as other than contrary to law, and indeed as abolishing the entire constitution.”^[18] Any attempt to overthrow any government–even an oppressive one–was “treason [that] must be punished by nothing less than death.”^[19]

Like Hobbes, Kant feared for anyone living in state of anarchy. He agreed with Hobbes that without coercive authority, people could never be certain that their life would continue from one day to the next. He also agreed with Hobbes that law is only be created by a state, which means that in the absence of a state there can be neither law nor justice. Once a government was established, it could promulgate law and thereby create the possibility of freedom. By agreeing to obey that government, Kant believed that man “relinquished entirely his wild, lawless freedom in order to find his freedom as such undiminished, in a dependence upon laws. . . . [E]veryone within a people gives up his external freedom in order to take it up again immediately as a member of a commonwealth, that is, of a people considered as a state.”^[20]

Kant’s outline of government functions is quite familiar: There are three authorities in the state: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His explanation of their role is also familiar, although he framed them as “a practical syllogism: the major premise, which contains the law of the will [of the people]; the minor premise, which contains the command to behave in accordance with that law; and the conclusion, which contains the verdict (sentence), what is laid down as right in the case at hand.”^[21] Kant believed these authorities should work together to establish a republic capable of preserving citizens’ freedom and promoting their well-being. This was not the same as their happiness, which he rejected as a goal of the state. He regarded any government that attempted to make people happy “the greatest possible Despotism.”^[22]

Kant believed that government was necessary to create the conditions for a just existence, which were: “freedom, the attribute of obeying no other law than that to which he has given his consent; civil equality, that of not recognizing among the people any superior with the mental capacity to bind him in a matter of right in a way that he could not in turn bind the other; and . . .  the attribute of civil independence, of owing his existence and preservation to his own right and powers as a member of the commonwealth.”^[23] In Kant’s ideal state, each person would have as much freedom as was consistent with all other persons having a similar amount of freedom. He demonstrated his support for liberty in this statement: “No one has a right to compel me to be happy in the peculiar way in which he may think of the well-being of other men; but everyone is entitled to seek his own happiness in the way that seems to him best, if it does not infringe the liberty of others in striving after a similar end for themselves.”^[24] However, the government could assume that it was authorized to provide for the basic needs of the poor since it had a duty to protect people’s lives. Kant had no trouble with the state taxing the wealthy to maintain their fellow citizens: “they owe their existence to an act of submitting to its protection and care, which they need in order to live.”^[25] This deviation from the principle of equal treatment was justifiable even though some received more benefits from the state than others.

While Kant’s theory of the state was designed to promote individual freedom and autonomy, there was no guarantee that it would do so–and in practice, the benefits he claimed from the state’s existence were often minimal. It was entirely up to the legislature to decide what the laws would be, and entirely up to the executive to decide how they would be enforced. The people were obliged to obey the laws the government established, even if they believed those laws were unjust, because disobedience reflected the irrational premise that individuals are superior to the state. The duty to obey the law is a universal maxim since without law and order there is no possibility of justice. If there are no elections, the only way the citizens can voice their dissatisfaction is by complaining, which means a free press was important–but if the government censored the press they still could not disobey. The need to maintain order in the state meant that citizens had no right to use force and initiate revolution, contrary to what John Locke had argued.

Using Kant’s Philosophy in LD Debate

Kant’s justification for absolute submission to the government is similar to the position taken by Hobbes and Rousseau. Like Hobbes, Kant believed that it reflected an attempt by the people to make themselves superior to government leaders, which would inevitably threaten public order and undermine the legitimacy of the rulers. Unless you are attempting to defend the proposition that the president must have absolute power, Kant’s political philosophy will not provide a helpful value in LD debate.

However, Kant’s moral values are likely to be helpful on a variety of resolutions. Since the categorical imperative requires adherence to universal laws, Kantian justice provides a strong value for topics that reflect universal norms such as human rights. Topics that call for banning torture, cruel treatment, or unjustified discrimination can be successfully argued using Kantian values. Kantian justice is also helpful in arguing for aid to the poor and disadvantaged if the aid program can be framed as a universal principle. Ensuring that people have sufficient food, clothing and shelter is a duty of both individuals and states, and if private charity is not sufficient to ameliorate these problems Kant’s principles provide good support for government aid. Kant did not address medical care, but preventing people from dying can also be seen as a universal law. Consider using Kant in debates about whether there should be a right to universal health care.

One might think that Kantian justice would also be helpful in arguing against the death penalty. However, Kant supported the death penalty as the only appropriate punishment for a person who willfully took the life of another. Kantian justice is useful if you want to argue that the death penalty is needed for retribution and security. However, arguing that the death penalty deters murder would violate Kant’s maxim against treating individuals as means, since deterrence relies upon using harsh punishments against some to deter crimes against others.

Bibliography

Immanuel Kant. 1785 [1959]. Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals.  Lewis White Beck, trans. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.

Immanuel Kant. 1797 [1949]. “On the Supposed Right to Lie from Benevolent Motives,” in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics. trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics | Online Library of Liberty.

Immanuel Kant. 1797 [2017]. Metaphysics of Morals. trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Immanuel Kant. 1784 [1891]. Kant’s Principles of Politics. trans. W. Hastie. Edinburgh: Clark. Online Library of Liberty: Kant’s Principles of Politics – Portable Library of Liberty.

Manfred Kuehn. 2001. Kant: A Biography. Cambridge: University Press.

Michael Sandel. 2009. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux. 103-139.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022. “Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy.” Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).