Kant and Contradiction

           Within chapter eleven of, The Fundamentals of Ethics, author Russ Shafer-Landau discusses the “Kantian Perspective.” Immanuel Kant argued against utilitarianism, wherein the ends justify the means and we should do what brings the greatest amount of benefit, by saying that the morality of actions are based on fairness. It is clear throughout this chapter that Shafer-Landau refutes the “Kantian Perspective.” One such account involves a strong argument for Kantian contradiction involving the principle of universalizability as well as Kant’s stance on the presence of some absolute moral duties.

To explain his theory based on the justness of our actions, Kant developed the principle of universalizability: “An act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 157) A maxim is an action that you intend on committing along with your own reasoning behind doing so. The universalizable aspect separates the good and bad maxims by asking, “Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world [where everyone supports and acts upon your maxim]?” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 159) The action is universalizable and moral if the answer to this question is yes.

However, Shafer-Landau brings to light a very important Kantian stance later in the chapter: “Kant thought that certain sorts of actions are never permitted. Lying is one of them.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 165) I believe that contradiction occurs because, how can some actions be forever deemed immoral (absolute moral duties) if there is a maxim rule that can prove any action to be universalizable and therefore moral? This contradiction usually occurs when moral duties deemed absolute conflict, such as lying or killing. To prove this contradiction, Shafer-Landau cites the example of the “inquiring murderer.” Within this example, a man comes to your door and asks the whereabouts of someone he wants to kill. You know the location of this person. If you were required to respond to the inquiring murderer, Kant’s stance on some actions being absolute would require you to respond truthfully with the location of the victim because Kant believed that it was always morally incorrect to lie.

Kantian clearly contradicts himself when discussing absolute moral duties after advocating maxims, which include subjective reasoning but can be proven to be universalizable and therefore moral. For example, Shafer-Landau states, “When confronted with a potential killer, I might adopt this maxim: say whatever I need to say in order to prevent the murder of an innocent person. That maxim is universalizable. The goal I am aiming for-to save an innocent person’s life-could be achieved if everyone acted this way.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 167) Clearly contradiction occurs because Kant advocates that it is morally wrong to lie, however this universalizable/moral maxim states that lying could sometimes be morally acceptable. This specific case of contradiction was one of many arguments by Shafer-Landau against the “Kantian Perspective” of fairness governing morality.

Works Cited

1.     Landau, Russ. "Chapter 11-The Kantian Perspective-Fairness and Justice." In The Fundamentals of Ethics. Second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 154-167.