Im m anuel K ant’s Grounding for
the Metaphysics of Morals
(Com plete Notes)
Pr eface
Sum m ar y
Ancient Greek philosophy was divided into three fields: logic, physics (natural
philosophy), and ethics (moral philosophy). This division makes sense: Logic is the
study of pure thought, independent of any objects. Physics is the study of how things
happen in the world of material objects. Ethics is the study of how things ought to
happen in the world of human beings.
Philosophy may also be divided on the basis of whether it is "pure" or "empirical." Pure
philosophy deals only with a priori concepts; concepts that occur to us independent of
any experience or perception. By contrast, empirical philosophy deals with the objects
we experience in the world around us. Logic is pure philosophy as it relates to the formal
procedures of thinking. "Metaphysics" is pure philosophy as it applies to our efforts to
understand the world. Physics and ethics have both empirical and metaphysical
branches.
Our task in this book is to develop a "pure" moral philosophy, a "metaphysics of morals"
that relies on the a priori concepts of reason, not on empirical observations. That such a
philosophy should be possible is apparent from the fact that we presume that moral
obligations are binding not just for particular people in particular circumstances, but
rather for all rational beings in all places at all times.
In their daily lives, people must apply moral laws to many different situations and
circumstances. Developing a clear understanding of moral principles can help people to
keep track of their moral obligations. A clear understanding of morals can also help
people to ensure that their motivations are pure. Actions are not truly moral if they only
appear to conform to moral law but lack a moral motivation.
The goal of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is to establish the "supreme
principle of morality." Kant intends to follow this work with a more thorough treatment
of moral philosophy. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is meant to be more
accessible than this later work.
,An alysis
The distinction that Kant draws in the Preface between "pure" and "empirical" concepts
is of critical importance to his philosophy. "Pure" or "a priori" concepts are ideas that
occur to us when we think about things in our minds, "prior" to and independent of any
experience of how things happen in the world. "Empirical" or "a posteriori" concepts are
ideas that we derive from our experience of the world.
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argued that many of our basic ideas about the
world—our notions of time, space, and causation, for instance—are a priori concepts;
they are "hardwired" into our brains, rather than extrapolated from our experiences.
This argument led him to a number of interesting conclusions about the limits of human
understanding and the errors of traditional philosophy (see Historical Context: Kant
and Enlightenment Era Thought for more information on Critique of Pure Reason). In
this book, Kant makes a similar argument about moral philosophy. He identifies the
basic principles of moral thinking that occur to us independent of any particular
situation or experience, and he offers some criticism of philosophers who have advanced
different bases for morality.
Kant argues that his project makes sense in terms of our intuitions about morality.
About halfway through the Preface, he claims that when we think about morality, we
naturally presume that moral laws must apply to all people at all times. He bases this
claim on the notion that moral actions are supposed to be undertaken for the sake of
morality alone; we are supposed to have pure (as opposed to self-interested) motivation
for moral actions. Yet as soon as particular circumstances enter the picture, it becomes
impossible to think of motivations being entirely pure; in any particular situation,
human beings will have interests and concerns that form a component of their
motivation.
This train of thought leads Kant to the conclusion that a secure understanding of
morality must be based on the "pure," a priori concepts of reason. "Pure," a
priori concepts are concepts that occur to us before we have any experience of the
world. If moral ideas were drawn from experience, then they could not be assured
universal validity, for they would be based only on the limited set of events that we have
experienced. Moral ideas may be universally valid, Kant argues, only if they are based on
the intrinsic validity of a priori concepts.
Kant's distinction between "rational beings" and "men" may make this point more clear.
Being a human being entails possessing a certain "human nature." We get hungry, we
fall in love, we have emotional and physical needs. In Kant's view, this human nature
should not be a consideration in moral thinking. Human nature is a particular
circumstance that affects human beings. We could imagine some other form of rational
being—an extraterrestrial life form, for instance—possessing a different nature. But we
, would not excuse the cruel behavior of some monstrous creature; rather, we would
judge the monster's actions according to the same moral standard that we apply to
ourselves. According to Kant, this fact demonstrates that our moral thinking is not
based on an understanding of "nature" or disposition, but rather on universally
applicable concepts--and the only concepts that we can know apply in all circumstances
are the concepts that occur to us a priori, independent of any particular experience or
circumstance.
You may be thinking at this point that Kant seems to want people to behave like robots.
By his account, morality requires us to separate our rationality from our nature and act
solely on the basis of logical principles. This idea is strongly rooted in the basic ideas of
the Enlightenment. Like many of his contemporaries, Kant understands reason to be the
source of fundamental truths that transcend culture and history. Rational ideas are
ideas that makes sense to all people; they are universal. Kant believes the task of
philosophy is to develop a stronger understanding of these ideas. He also believes that
rational ideas have a strong claim to authority. A morality based on reason would make
sense to all people; Kant thinks it would therefore be superior to a moral system
accepted by only one particular group of people.
Critics of Kant have challenged his effort to develop a moral system based exclusively on
reason. Some have argued that it is unnatural to reason about morals; in practice, we
rely on intuition, rather than analysis, to determine what we feel is the moral course of
action. Some have argued that it is impossible to separate rationality from nature and
culture; what makes sense to us has a lot to do with ideas and prejudices that we learn
from our parents and our communities. Some argue that Kant's idea that we should
reason about morals is itself a cultural prejudice that doesn't make sense to people living
at other times in other cultures.
On the other hand, we do tend to believe that certain basic moral ideas are based on
something more than local cultural prejudice. To pick just one example, many people in
the West think that basic human rights should be respected in all societies; according to
this view, human rights transcend particular communities and apply in all places at all
times. This way of thinking is strongly indebted to Kant and his colleagues in the
Enlightenment.
Keep these issues in mind as you advance through Grounding for the Metaphysics of
Morals and evaluate Kant's argument. In the Preface, the only example Kant gives of a
specific moral principle with universal validity is his comment that people should not
lie. More examples and definitions about moral principles will follow in later chapters.
Note: Before continuing, a brief comment on Kant's gendered language is in order. In
German there are two words corresponding to the English for "man": one for man in the
the Metaphysics of Morals
(Com plete Notes)
Pr eface
Sum m ar y
Ancient Greek philosophy was divided into three fields: logic, physics (natural
philosophy), and ethics (moral philosophy). This division makes sense: Logic is the
study of pure thought, independent of any objects. Physics is the study of how things
happen in the world of material objects. Ethics is the study of how things ought to
happen in the world of human beings.
Philosophy may also be divided on the basis of whether it is "pure" or "empirical." Pure
philosophy deals only with a priori concepts; concepts that occur to us independent of
any experience or perception. By contrast, empirical philosophy deals with the objects
we experience in the world around us. Logic is pure philosophy as it relates to the formal
procedures of thinking. "Metaphysics" is pure philosophy as it applies to our efforts to
understand the world. Physics and ethics have both empirical and metaphysical
branches.
Our task in this book is to develop a "pure" moral philosophy, a "metaphysics of morals"
that relies on the a priori concepts of reason, not on empirical observations. That such a
philosophy should be possible is apparent from the fact that we presume that moral
obligations are binding not just for particular people in particular circumstances, but
rather for all rational beings in all places at all times.
In their daily lives, people must apply moral laws to many different situations and
circumstances. Developing a clear understanding of moral principles can help people to
keep track of their moral obligations. A clear understanding of morals can also help
people to ensure that their motivations are pure. Actions are not truly moral if they only
appear to conform to moral law but lack a moral motivation.
The goal of Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is to establish the "supreme
principle of morality." Kant intends to follow this work with a more thorough treatment
of moral philosophy. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is meant to be more
accessible than this later work.
,An alysis
The distinction that Kant draws in the Preface between "pure" and "empirical" concepts
is of critical importance to his philosophy. "Pure" or "a priori" concepts are ideas that
occur to us when we think about things in our minds, "prior" to and independent of any
experience of how things happen in the world. "Empirical" or "a posteriori" concepts are
ideas that we derive from our experience of the world.
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argued that many of our basic ideas about the
world—our notions of time, space, and causation, for instance—are a priori concepts;
they are "hardwired" into our brains, rather than extrapolated from our experiences.
This argument led him to a number of interesting conclusions about the limits of human
understanding and the errors of traditional philosophy (see Historical Context: Kant
and Enlightenment Era Thought for more information on Critique of Pure Reason). In
this book, Kant makes a similar argument about moral philosophy. He identifies the
basic principles of moral thinking that occur to us independent of any particular
situation or experience, and he offers some criticism of philosophers who have advanced
different bases for morality.
Kant argues that his project makes sense in terms of our intuitions about morality.
About halfway through the Preface, he claims that when we think about morality, we
naturally presume that moral laws must apply to all people at all times. He bases this
claim on the notion that moral actions are supposed to be undertaken for the sake of
morality alone; we are supposed to have pure (as opposed to self-interested) motivation
for moral actions. Yet as soon as particular circumstances enter the picture, it becomes
impossible to think of motivations being entirely pure; in any particular situation,
human beings will have interests and concerns that form a component of their
motivation.
This train of thought leads Kant to the conclusion that a secure understanding of
morality must be based on the "pure," a priori concepts of reason. "Pure," a
priori concepts are concepts that occur to us before we have any experience of the
world. If moral ideas were drawn from experience, then they could not be assured
universal validity, for they would be based only on the limited set of events that we have
experienced. Moral ideas may be universally valid, Kant argues, only if they are based on
the intrinsic validity of a priori concepts.
Kant's distinction between "rational beings" and "men" may make this point more clear.
Being a human being entails possessing a certain "human nature." We get hungry, we
fall in love, we have emotional and physical needs. In Kant's view, this human nature
should not be a consideration in moral thinking. Human nature is a particular
circumstance that affects human beings. We could imagine some other form of rational
being—an extraterrestrial life form, for instance—possessing a different nature. But we
, would not excuse the cruel behavior of some monstrous creature; rather, we would
judge the monster's actions according to the same moral standard that we apply to
ourselves. According to Kant, this fact demonstrates that our moral thinking is not
based on an understanding of "nature" or disposition, but rather on universally
applicable concepts--and the only concepts that we can know apply in all circumstances
are the concepts that occur to us a priori, independent of any particular experience or
circumstance.
You may be thinking at this point that Kant seems to want people to behave like robots.
By his account, morality requires us to separate our rationality from our nature and act
solely on the basis of logical principles. This idea is strongly rooted in the basic ideas of
the Enlightenment. Like many of his contemporaries, Kant understands reason to be the
source of fundamental truths that transcend culture and history. Rational ideas are
ideas that makes sense to all people; they are universal. Kant believes the task of
philosophy is to develop a stronger understanding of these ideas. He also believes that
rational ideas have a strong claim to authority. A morality based on reason would make
sense to all people; Kant thinks it would therefore be superior to a moral system
accepted by only one particular group of people.
Critics of Kant have challenged his effort to develop a moral system based exclusively on
reason. Some have argued that it is unnatural to reason about morals; in practice, we
rely on intuition, rather than analysis, to determine what we feel is the moral course of
action. Some have argued that it is impossible to separate rationality from nature and
culture; what makes sense to us has a lot to do with ideas and prejudices that we learn
from our parents and our communities. Some argue that Kant's idea that we should
reason about morals is itself a cultural prejudice that doesn't make sense to people living
at other times in other cultures.
On the other hand, we do tend to believe that certain basic moral ideas are based on
something more than local cultural prejudice. To pick just one example, many people in
the West think that basic human rights should be respected in all societies; according to
this view, human rights transcend particular communities and apply in all places at all
times. This way of thinking is strongly indebted to Kant and his colleagues in the
Enlightenment.
Keep these issues in mind as you advance through Grounding for the Metaphysics of
Morals and evaluate Kant's argument. In the Preface, the only example Kant gives of a
specific moral principle with universal validity is his comment that people should not
lie. More examples and definitions about moral principles will follow in later chapters.
Note: Before continuing, a brief comment on Kant's gendered language is in order. In
German there are two words corresponding to the English for "man": one for man in the
