 Now, continuing to talk about Immanuel Kant's moral theory, let us go ahead and see, where does he ground his moral theory. Now, he grounds his moral theory on the notion of the good will, this is the starting point of Immanuel Kant's moral theory. Now, I quote from Immanuel Kant himself, there is no possibility of thinking, of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be good without qualification, except a good will, intelligence, wit, judgment, and whatever talents of the mind, one might want to name, are doubtless in many respects, good and desirable, as are such qualities of temperament, as courage, resolution, perseverance, but they can also become extremely bad and harmful if the will, which is to make use of these gifts of nature, and which in its special constitution is called character, is not good. The same holds with gifts of fortune, power, riches, honor, even health, and that complete well-being and contentment with one's condition, which is called happiness, make for pride and often here by even arrogance, unless there is a good will to correct their influence on the mind, and here with also to rectify the whole principle of action, and make it universally conformable to its end. The sight of a being, who is not graced by any touch of a pure and a good will, but who yet enjoys an uninterrupted prosperity, can never delight a rational and impartial spectator, thus a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness, this is from accepted from the groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Now, this as we come across is the foundation of Kant's moral philosophy, now till now we have been talking about consequentialism, about utilitarianism, hedonism, most of the places where we find that well, there are certain non-moral consequences that are brought forward by acts, and that decide on the moral parameter of the act in question. Now, Kant here makes a break in the tradition, and tries to find a moral grounding that is atomic, that is fundamental, that is axiomatic. We talked about, how Kant tried to, what were the objectives of Kant, in retrospect we can see the picture that Kant wanted to paint, was where the entire frame of morality led to rest on rationality, now that was a very difficult position to keep, because this was a time, when Kant was predominant, at the time that was Kant's time was filled with religion, with societal, with traditional values as being the source of values, and tradition be the source of values, the customs and the rules that have been coming out, are they going to be the rules of the current system, or is there going to be something else? As we talked earlier, that Kant wanted to cleanse his system, he wanted to clean the moral system of all external evidences, of all empirical evidences, and wanted to ground it on rationality. Now, he introduces this notion of the good will, now what is the good will? The good will seems to be that, whenever all conditions, all capacities, all potencies in the world are, however desirable or undesirable they be, are by themselves, not good without any qualification, that is we require certain qualifiers to make it good, let us say a strong human being, a well physically, well built strong human being, now is that strength, a good thing or a bad thing, is qualified by how that person uses his strength, does he use the strength to bully others, does he use his strength to assist others in need. Now, this entity called the good will, is what makes a difference to all other properties in the world, that is what Kant is trying to bring to light, that nothing inside or outside the world is good without a qualification, so everything is good or bad depends on certain qualifications, except the good will, the good will is the fundamental atomic goodness, that we see, now Kant gives, looking at the slide, we see that Kant gives certain examples of character, power, riches, honor, even health and complete well being and contentment. So, he even talks about courage, resolution, perseverance, that whatever these qualities are, they are good or bad depending on the good will. So, then he later talks about, that the sight of a being, who is not graced by any touch of a pure and good will, but yet enjoys an uninterrupted prosperity and never delight a rational impartial spectator, thus a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness. Now, what does Kant mean, when he says that a pure and good will, but who yet enjoys an uninterrupted prosperity can never delight a rational and impartial spectator. Let us take the example of a movie, why do we like film star, the hero, the protagonist of the movie, let us take a usual plot, where the protagonist is strong, tough, has overcome challenges to preserve good. Now, when Kant talks about the impartial and rational spectator, he means us as rational beings, who to be attached value to or who is the protagonist. The protagonist is one, who not only is strong and that strength does not make him the protagonist, for very often the antagonist or the villain is much stronger than the hero, but what makes the hero-hero is the good will, is the good will without any qualification, that he has the good will, that he has a good intention, that he is a good person. These are things that make the agent a hero. So, this is what life and uninterrupted prosperity will still not delight the impartial and rational spectator, because it would not make a difference or it would not inspire the spectator, unless the spectator saw the evidence of the goodness or of goodness of qualification. Now, coming to the next slide, now good will for Kant is at the centre of ethics. What does he briefly do? Kant attempts to bring the locus of the moral domain, from theories empirical observations back to the individual. In the individual's exercise of moral choice and freedom, morality cannot be based on the evidence of the senses and that persons have an inherent sense of morality. The objective, the objective of an act is to be called moral is not benefit, pleasure or satisfaction. An act is moral only if it is done from a sense of duty and nothing else. The objective of an act, so as to be called moral is not benefit, pleasure or satisfaction, but an act is moral only if it is done from a sense of duty and nothing else. Certainly, comes from the mind and not empirical evidences in actively ordering the evidence of the senses. Now, what is Kant trying to say here? First, that Kant attempts to bring the locus of the moral domain, from theories empirical observations back to the individual, in the individuals exercise of moral choice and freedom. So, again this is a part of Kant's agenda to clear morality from the, from empirical sources or from evidence of the senses and he is making a crucial claim here, that persons have an inherent sense of morality. So, the objective of an act, so as to be called moral is not benefit, pleasure or satisfaction. An act is moral if it is only done from a sense of duty and nothing else. Now, this is very crucial in understanding what Kant is trying to put forward. This is a crucial claim of Kant, that well the moral act is a conformity to the sense of duty and is not done for pleasure or benefit or even satisfaction. Now, if I Kant were to ask mother Teresa, that why do you serve the needy and if mother Teresa would reply, that well I serve the needy, because my heart goes out for the needy. I am touched, I am moved, I am emotionally charged when I see the needy and therefore, I serve the needy. To this hypothetical dialogue Kant would reply, that well mother Teresa, you are not moral in that sense, because you are not functioning out of a sense of duty, you are your moral, your supposed moral acts are from your empathy, from the pleasure or from the satisfaction that you derive from serving the needy. It is not from a sense of duty, it is not a cold calculated dispassionate sense of duty, rather it is a warm feeling of affection, oneness and mercy that is prompting you to the two actions. So, that makes your action less, that strips your action of its morality. So, the sense of duty is non-negotiable, the sense of duty is the only source of action. Now, so therefore, the certainty that comes for moral actions and moral claims come from the mind and not from empirical evidences. So, empirical evidences just provide you to that data, the mind orders the data. Now, let us go to the next slide, what the Kant talks about this thing called the categorical imperative, very often abbreviated as the CI. What is the categorical imperative? The test to determine the right from the wrong, that is this in a single claim is what Kant means by the categorical imperative. The principle to determine the right, it can be known a priory, that is by reflection alone as it is a part of our mental structure. Categorical as opposed to hypothetical or goal based imperative, because it is a must or is a binding. First, let us talk about these two claims. Now, what does categorical imperative mean? Now, the categorical imperative would perhaps mean, not perhaps, but would definitely mean something of a rule of a moral command. Now, let us look at the board to see what, how best can we understand categorical imperative. This is quite a profound concept that Kant has come up with and we are just skimming at the introductory level to present a brief overview of what Kant's philosophy is. Now, there are judgments we do, if I want x, I would or ought to do y. Now, look at these two, if I want x, I would do y, a fairly simple conditional statement. Now, this is something which is called a hypothetical imperative. This part of it is hypothetical, this part of it is an imperative or a command. This is basically the structure of most moral judgments or most policies, maxims that we have in our lives. That well, we want something and to achieve that, we do certain things. So, I want x and I ought to do y to get x. This is an example of a hypothetical imperative. Now, let us look at an example of a categorical imperative. Well, it is something like an absolute moral command, which just says do z. If you want, you can fill this up with no matter what. Now, the categorical imperative is saying that well, no matter what do z. So, there is something absolute about the categorical imperative. Now, let us not get confused with the words and the phrases that cannot use. What categorical imperative essentially means is that well, there are some things which are categorical. Categorical meaning they have to be done. They are an imperative because they are a command, a command which is categorical or which is to be followed for its own sake. It is not hypothetical. It is not a command or an imperative to be followed for some goal, but it is imperative or a command to be followed for its own sake. Now, here is where Kant is unfolding his moral theory that it comes about that well, there are things that ought to be done for its own sake. Now, let us take a look at the slide. When we talk about hypothetical, it is goal based because it is a master of binding, but the categorical imperative is done for its own sake. Now, let us look at in Kant presented three formulations of the categorical imperative. The first formulation reads at only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law. This is a small sentence, but which puts forth the first formulation of the categorical imperative. It says that act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law. Now, what does it say? Well, what does a maxim mean? A maxim is a subjective principle of judgment. Let me write that on the slide for your clarity. It means a subjective principle of action. Act on that maxim or that subjective principle of action which you can at the same time will to be a universal law. Now, let us say what these are words that we are using categorical imperative maxim. We are using these words, these phrases which are directly from Kant and thereby let it not confuse you or make it sound superfluous. These are words used by or translations from Kant's works, but what we mean in essence is crucial for you to understand that well, Kant is saying that well, what the first axiom or the first formulation, it is not an axiom. It is a first formulation of the categorical imperative and as you can see it is empty. It is bereft of any content. It does not claim that there are any description of what one must do. He just puts a formula and what is that formula? The formula reads that act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law. Now, what is Kant saying? Kant is saying that well, anything today what is this filter of rightness checker which he calls the categorical imperative. Any act is right if the principle with which you act can be universalized that is if you are okay being the recipient of the act rather than the doer of the act then or you the act is right. If you are okay if the maxim or the subjective principle of action is generalized is universalized. Everybody starts following that if that is okay with you. He gives a rather interesting example. He takes this example of asking for a loan when one knows that one does not have the capacity to repay the loan. Now Kant postulates a situation that well a person who is in need of money and has to ask for a loan knowing fully well that he cannot repay the loan is in a quandary because if he asks for a loan saying that well he cannot repay it he would not get a loan and if he asks for a loan promising that he would repay it he is clearly saying something which he cannot do or clearly committing to something which he cannot do. Now it is the latter that Kant thinks is a challenge to the rationality of the agent. Now if the agent assumes that he is able to fool the one who is extending the loan and commit a repayment whereas even while the time of accepting the loan he knows that he is not in a position to repay then that person is guilty of not just breaking a promise but of being irrational of not being a rational human being of belittling his rational human agency. Now how does he do so let us look at the slide to understand how he does so well. Now an ununiversalizable maxim is involved in the contradiction of will now this is a term that we need to pay in at pay attention to well what Kant means by contradiction of will is the difficulty or error arising breaking one's commitment or breaking or more accurately violating the categorical imperative. Now let us look at this case that is put on the slide x makes a promise and x violates the promise when suitable for by the very act of making a promise x let us look at this example x let us say x makes a promise and x violates the promise when suitable for by the very act of making a promise x does something say p and then by violating it he does when suitable does something called does something which can be termed as negating p. Now x asserts p very well knowing that she or he would negate p later this is the contradiction of will that Kant points out. So let us look at this what is what is wrong with the contradiction of will or what does Kant mean by the contradiction of will now the categorical imperative is a binding is a binding or is a sense of duty that comes to us from our own rationality it is not something which is enforced by anybody else let me make it simpler well when you feel that there is something that you must do no matter what that it is your duty to do that particular act then you are functioning from a sense of duty which in certain interpretations could be the categorical imperative. Let us take the example of a doctor to whom an an injured terrorist or an extremist or a criminal an injured criminal has come for treatment. Now the oath of the doctor is to provide treatment to any patient or any victim or any injured who comes to him but knowing this that well if he does extend treatment to this particular patient of his there might be more harm than benefit to people at large for the patient is none other than a criminal who is most likely to do something wicked or evil if he is rendered back to his health. Now what does the categorical imperative here say the categorical imperative is your sense of duty it is well what you would like to be done to you if you it is like the religious adage that do on to others what you would like others to do to you now the categorical imperative here would be to do what you what is your call of duty now look at it in on the slide now when X is asserting something that well you should do this or he makes a false in this particular case of loaning he makes a false promise that he can repay the loan he is actually contradicting his will contradicting himself because he is asserting something which he knows that he would negate later asserting be fully knowing that it would be negated later. So considering the doctor example to when the doctor provides treatment to the patient who happens to be a criminal well if doctor just does his duty then he is not contradicting his will but well if he has this sense of duty that he should help all then he brings by not helping or not treating the criminal he does something which is contradicting his will. Now there have been other formulations of the categorical imperative there are three formulations that Kant has come himself with now notice that all these formulations or of the categorical imperative are bereft of any content they are just forms right now the second formulation says that act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of another never as a means only but always at the same time as an end. So this brings into focus that well we must use or we must see each individual each person as a end in himself right now this also interestingly has many ramifications especially in political philosophy that we are all equal on the moral plane this is the claim that is coming out from this formulation the third formulation or autonomy formula would say that the idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law right so that we are all autonomous. Now we need to need not go in further detail about these formulations unless until we would like to make a specialized study of Kant. Now coming to the next slide now it is rumored or it is said that well Kant being a bachelor himself had a man servant of sorts with him to look after his daily needs and the both loved each other and the man servant was of course a simpleton and when Kant narrates his philosophy after a long decade of or decades of writing the man servant is amazed that well you have taken and he almost accuses Kant that you have taken morality away from religion and God and perhaps you have nothing to cater for in morality in religion and that it is rumored struck Kant so much that he invented these or he brought injector these postulates of morality that in a conceited way or in a hidden way bring back the notion of God that his man servant was very much looking forward to well we will just briefly go over these postulates of morality first it says that the freedom of the will to experience moral choice and therefore thereof to arrive at the sense of duty one has to have the freedom of the will existence of God acting out of the sense of duty must eventually lead to happiness in the long run if not in the short run and this can be possible if the world is designed so so there must be a designer God fairly self-explanatory the conjecturing the existence of God to present that do acting once by one sense of duty must eventually lead to happiness or is that consequentialism creeping into Kant system now and the third one is the immortality of the soul acting out of duty may cause harm and pain in the short run so there has to be an immortal soul as the agent to achieve sought in this lifetime so it is very often seen that living by one's duty might actually cause more pain and harm in the short run so Kant conjectures that there has to be an immortal soul that benefits from the good that could be accumulated over time so ultimately these postulates are trying to hint especially the second two postulates are could be accused of letting in consequentialism from the window now these postulates are according to Kant are implied in our sense of moral obligation now let us sum up so briefly what is Kant's position Kant wanted to establish a moral system on the unshakable foundations of reason or rationality in different to the less sturdy foundation of empirical evidence moral choice is the basis of asserting free will moral acts only emerge from a sense of duty drawing satisfaction out of the performance of a moral act strips the act of its morality morality is always a matter of conscious choice duty is to be performed only for its own sake that is duty for duty sakes sake this is also known as rigorism as attributed to Kant so let us now sum up that well Kant in his in the deontological tradition which we have taken the first example of a deontological rule deontological tradition as Emmanuel Kant the second example we will be taking next is W. D. Ross now Emmanuel Kant as an example of the rule deontological tradition tries to ground morality on rationality and makes morality an atomic affair it does not make morality depend on any non moral consequences and what is it that enforces morality it is nothing but one's own rationality that enforces morality for when one violates the categorical imperative one brings in the contradiction in will and this contradiction in will is violating one's morality so this contradiction in will sorry is a symptom of irrationality or the denial of rationality so intrinsic and valuable to human beings so what is the categorical imperative it is very briefly the principle of universalizability it has three formulations it talks about well that an act is right only if it can be universalized so what in principle or in essence is the universalizability claim that well I as an individual have no special rights or special position on the moral plane so if I assume that anybody in my situation would act like this suppose I choose an act X now if anybody in my situation could or should you act X then this is a right thing to do so the categorical imperative is the filter for determining right from wrong it is a rule but nevertheless it is a rule without any content it is a rule of a form it is giving one a form a form that well we if this is the situation we place it in the form and then if it is universalizable then it is right if it is not universalizable it is wrong let us take an example if we think that well anybody who is poor should steal I am poor today and I would steal from the rich and if I am this is right only if I would consider that anybody who is poor perhaps poorer to me or that one day I become rich and she or he steals it from me then it becomes universalizable but then there are again various issues with universalizability say something of course Kant talks about this too that if some we could universalize something as trivial as tying once left shoe string first every time so yes Kant does refine his theories to incorporate it is a detailed exhaustive theory to which has its essential grounding as we have discovered and as we have talked about that is essential grounding is always on the categorical imperative or on the content that universalizability as the criteria of determining right of there being a rule not being of a contentless rule in discerning the right from the wrong with this we come to an close of our discussion on Emmanuel Kant's moral philosophy.