Kant on Dealing With Evil Christine Korsgaard, Chapter 21 (1986) Introduction to Ethics, PHIL 118 Professor Douglas Olena The Problem with Evil Preview: Discussion of lying Does Kantıs philosophy leave the rational person defenseless? Korsgaardıs treatment of the issue is in three parts In what condition does Kantıs universal law leave us? How does the Formula of Humanity work? Living in the Kingdom of Ends The Problem with Evil Preview continued: Is there a conflict between the universal law and the kingdom of ends? Lying revisited Ideal and non-ideal theory A double-level theory Special principles to use when dealing with evil The Problem with Evil 199 ³One of the great difficulties with Kantıs moral philosophy is that it seems to imply that our moral obligations leave us powerless in the face of evil.² ³Kantıs theory sets a high ideal of conduct and tells us to live up to that ideal regardless of what other persons are doing.² The Problem with Evil 199 ³ Kantıs readers differ about whether Kantıs moral philosophy commits him to the² absolutist claims found in the example of the murder at the door. Unsympathetic readers suggest that Kantıs requirement of truth telling makes a strong case that his theory is incapable of answering questions of real world evil. Sympathetic readers try to show that he misunderstood his own theory and that using his own principles, ³Kantıs conclusions can be blocked by his own procedures.² The Problem with Evil 200 Korsgaardıs treatment of this problem in three parts: ³Kantıs defenders are correct in thinking that, when the case is treated under the formula of Universal Law, this particular lie can be shown to be permissible.² When viewed from ³the Formulas of Humanity and the Kingdom of Ends, it becomes clear why Kant is committed to the view that lying is wrong in every case² and ³that we need special principles for dealing with evil.² What is ³the structure that an ethical system must have in order to accommodate such special principles?² Universal Law 200 ³The Formula of Universal Law tells us never to act on a maxim that we could not at the same time will to be a universal law.² ³Maxims of lying are violations of perfect duty, and soŠ cannot be conceived without contradiction when universalized.² If lying is universalized, then no one will believe them. The point to lying is that one should be deceived, but if they were universally practiced they would not deceive. Universal Law 200, 201 It is the same point for jokes. No one takes it that to lie in order to make a joke constitutes deception. Korsgaardıs point is that the murderer at the door looking for your innocent friend would not appear as a murder and would assume that you did not know he is a murderer. To lie to the murderer in this circumstance is perfectly plausible and can be universalized as a method of protecting the innocent friend. Universal Law 201 ³It is permissible to lie to deceivers in order to counteract the intended results of their deceptions, for the maxim of lying to a deceiver is universalizable.² ³The deceiver has, so to speak, placed himself in a morally unprotected position by his own deception.² Formula of Humanity 201 Under the Formula of Humanity, however, it is clear that every lie is impermissible. ³Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.² ³ŒHumanityı is used by Kant specifically to refer to the capacity to determine ends through rational choice.² ³An action is contrary to perfect duty if it is not possible for the other to assent to it or to hold its end.² Formula of Humanity 202 ³The question whether another can assent to your way of acting can serve as a criterion for judging whether you are treating her as a mere means.² ³The point is that any action which depends for its nature and efficacy on the otherıs ignorance or powerlessness fails this test.² ³Lying clearly falls into this category of action. It only deceives when the other does not know that it is a lie.² Formula of Humanity 203 ³Coercion and deception violate the conditions of possible assent, and all actions which depend for their nature and efficacy on their coercive or deceptive character are ones that others cannot assent to.² The sense that in order for the Principle of Humanity to work that there must be mutual assent, creates the place for a consensus of about laws and action. Taken from this perspective this gives us Kantıs Kingdom of Ends. Kingdom of Ends 203 ³The Kingdom of Ends is represented by the kingdom of nature; we determine moral laws by considering their viability as natural laws.² Kantıs view of the will as a first cause, like that of Augustineıs view, allows that persons are the initiators of real action, an ³initiator of a causal chain.² A thing, in contrast, is only an intermediate cause, or a link in the chain. Kingdom of Ends 203 Coercion and deception both prevent a person from being a first cause and make them merely a link in the causal chain of someone else. ³Physical coercion treats someoneıs person as a tool; lying treats someoneıs reason as a tool. This is why Kant finds it so horrifying; it is a direct violation of autonomy.² Kingdom of Ends 204 The method of convincing someone that their plan is bad is through reason. If the person doesnıt listen to your reason, thatıs fine. They will make their choice freely based on their own best lights, irrespective of the results. ³The kingdom of Ends is a democratic ideal, and poor judgment does not disqualify anyone for citizenship.² Kingdom of Ends 204 ³Each person as a first cause exerts some influence on what happensŠ. If you make a straightforward appeal to the reason of another person, your responsibility ends there and the otherıs responsibility begins.² ³But the liar tries to take the consequences out of the hands of others; he and not they will determine what form their contribution to destiny will take.² The results clearly belong to the liar. ³It does not follow from thisŠ that this is a risk one will never want to take.² Humanity and the Universal Law 204 If Korsgaardıs analysis is ³correct then applying the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity lead to different answers in the case of lying to the murderer at the door.² 205 ³The Formula of Humanity is stricter than the Formula of Universal Law ­ but both are expressions of the same basic theory of value:² ³That your rational nature is the source of justifying power of your reasons, and so of the goodness of your ends.² Humanity and the Universal Law 205 Kant says in his Lectures on Ethics that ³ŠIf I cannot save myself by maintaining silence, then my lie is a weapon of defense.² ³The common thought that lying to a liar is a form of self-defense, that you can resist lies with lies as you can resist force with force, is according to this analysis correct.² We should not think that the Formula of Humanity and the Formula of Universal law give us two different moral outlooks. Two Casuistical Problems \Cas"u*ist*ry\, a. 1. The science or doctrine of dealing with cases of conscience, of resolving questions of right or wrong in conduct, or determining the lawfulness or unlawfulness of what a man may do by rules and principles drawn from the Scriptures, from the laws of society or the church, or from equity and natural reason; the application of general moral rules to particular cases. The consideration of these nice and puzzling question in the science of ethics has given rise, in modern times, to a particular department of it, distinguished by the title of casuistry. --Stewart. Casuistry in the science of cases (i.e., oblique deflections from the general rule). --De Quincey. 2. Sophistical, equivocal, or false reasoning or teaching in regard to duties, obligations, and morals.Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, İ 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. Two Casuistical Problems 206 Korsgaard thinks that the permission she gives to lie to the murderer, also gives her permission to lie to a benefactor who is surreptitiously surveying individuals to look for likely beneficiaries of his charity. By his lie the benefactor has put ³himself into a morally unprotected position by his own deception.² It is possible to universalize the lie to the benefactor as it is to the murderer. Two Casuistical Problems 206 She thinks ³there are two reasons to lie to the murder.² ³We have a duty of mutual aid. This is an imperfect duty of virtue.² ³The second reason is one of self respect. The murderer wants to make you a tool of evil.² She quotes Kant, ³Do not suffer your rights to be trampled underfoot by others with impunity.² She counts this a perfect duty of virtue. Two Casuistical Problems 206 The reasons for telling the lie to the murderer do not exist for telling a lie to the benefactor. There is no duty to promote your own happiness, nor would anyone perform this action out of self respect. She suggests that it would be better to confront the benefactor with his deception and let him know that you think it is sneaky and underhanded. Ideal and Non-ideal Theory 207 ³In a Theory of Justice, John Rawls proposes a division of moral philosophy into ideal and non-ideal theory.² ³The task of Ideal theory is to determine Œwhat a perfectly just society would be like.ı² ³Šwhile a non-ideal theory deals with punishment, war, opposition to unjust regimes, and compensatory justice.² Ideal and Non-ideal Theory 207 In constructing an ideal theory people are rational and there is no historic injustice to be equalized. Where there are not ideal circumstances we must treat the ideal solutions as a goal, and ³work toward the conditions in which it is feasible.² In non-ideal conditions, a certain imbalance can be instituted to rebalance the inequity, like affirmative action did in the last part of the twentieth century. Ideal and Non-ideal Theory 208 This double-level theory that holds ideal theory and non-ideal theory as a way of keeping ideals and working toward them, is Rawlıs way of escaping the failure of utilitarianism to have ideals and the failure of Kantian morality to live in the non-ideal world. Kantıs way of dealing with the non-ideal world is that the non-ideal world is ³grounds for a morally motivated religious faith in God.² Ideal and Non-ideal Theory 208 For utilitarianism, there is a failure of conscience and no way to address the question of integrity. ³A Kantian approach, by defining a determinate ideal of conduct to live up to rather than setting a goal of action to strive for, solves the problem about integrity, but with a high price.² Ideal and Non-ideal Theory 208 ³The point of a double-level theory is to give us both a definite and well-defined sphere of responsibility for everyday life and some guidance, at least, about when we may or must take the responsibility of violating ideal standards.² Conclusion 209 ³If the account I have given is correct, the resources of a double level theory may be available to the Kantian.² The Formula of Humanity and the Kingdom of Ends provide the ideal, though it is not always possible to live up to this ideal. ³In evil circumstances, but only then, the Kingdom of Ends can become a goal to seek rather than an ideal to live up to, and this will provide us with some guidance.² Conclusion 209 Though Kant is an idealist he realizes that the value of these ideals ³can only be realized in a condition of peace.² ³But he does not think that this commits a nation to a simple pacifism that would make it the easy victim of its enemies.² In war, peace ³functions as a long-range goal which guides our conduct even when war is necessary.² Conclusion 209 ³If a Kantian can hold such a view for the conduct of nations, why not for that of individuals?² ³If this is right, the task of Kantian moral philosophy is to draw up for individuals something analogous to Kantıs laws of war: special principles to use when dealing with evil.²