To what extent is Kantian ethics too reliant on reason in moral decision-making? (30 marks)
Kantian ethics is a duty-based, deontological moral theory, which was devised by 18th century philosopher,
Immanuel Kant. The central focus of Kant’s ethics entails rationality, duty, as well as following the categorical
imperatives. Whilst there are certainly strengths to Kant’s ethics, this deontological, reason-based theory
ultimately has fundamental flaws in the sense it restricts all emotion from helping our moral decision making,
thus making Kantian ethics entirely too reliant on reason. Moreover, this line of argument will include the
scholars Kant, Bernard Williams, W.D Ross, Alisdar MacIntrye, Peter Singer and Warbuton.
The first way in which Kantian ethics relies on reason is due to the fact it is a deontological theory and therefore
is duty bound and objective. This type of approach gives structure to society as well as bringing a level of
certainty when it comes to moral decision making. Whilst devising his theory, Kant started with the concept of
rationality and argued that we use our rationality and reason to follow the moral law (as moral statements are a
priori synthetic). Kant furthered this line of argument by stating that the ‘moral law within’ was knowable only
through reason and thus concluded that moral decision making must be reason based. However, the fact that
Kant highlights moral decisions has to be reason based, faces some clear opposition. The fact that Kantian ethics
is a deontological theory in itself shows clear inflexibility. Although Kant believed that morality was absolute
and objective, there has to be a level of subjectivity needed to make it a more compassionate and flexible theory,
otherwise it cannot be applicable in every moral situation, deeming the theory as flawed. Another key weakness
is the fact that Kant uses an action-based approach, which focuses solely on the action not the consequences.
This notion comes with difficulty, because it absolves the person of all responsibility if consequences are bad.
Therefore, this reliance on reason is what stops people considering the results of their actions, showing that
Kantian ethics is indeed too reliant on reason when it comes to moral decision making.
Another circumstance where Kantian ethics is too reliant on reason is through the fact Kant fails to take into
account the role of emotions. The scholar Bernard Williams claims it is inhuman to desire moral judgement to
be free from emotion and thus argues Kant’s theory fails because it ignores the circumstances of a moral action.
However, Kant would support his theory by arguing that the goodness of one's act does not depend on their
feelings, and acting out of feelings is therefore failing to act morally. In addition, Warburton was the scholar
who claimed that Kant’s ethics was christian ethics devoid of emotion. He argued that compassion and emotion
is valued by humans and so must be included within Kant’s ethical theory. One fundamental flaw to Kantian
ethics is the fact that Kant does not address what to do when there are conflicting duties. It is the scholar W.D.
Ross argued that we should use our intuition to decide which duty takes priority. However, how do we know
what prima facie duty is? How do we know which one is right when there is a conflict between them? Ross
would argue however that we simply know which acts are right by consulting our deepest moral convictions, but
is this an adequate response and can it be certified that Ross’ list of duties are correct? Therefore, Kant's lack of
guidance shows that reason is to some extent restricted in its reliability as he leaves no area for using emotion to
decide on the best moral outcome, thus demonstrating he is too reliant on reason in moral decision making.
Kant devised the three categorical imperatives to help guide one’s decisions when facing moral dilemmas. A
categorical imperative is effectively a rule that is true in all circumstances. This can be corroborated when Kant
described the imperatives as ‘if the action is represented as good in itself… then the imperative is categorical’.
The first categorical imperative is the Formula of the Law of Nature, which states that you should not act in a
way that cannot be universalised. This leans into the absolutist nature of Kantian ethics, which is inflexible and
refuses to consider the entirety of the situation and is difficult to follow all of the time. Peter Singer, a utilitarian
philosopher, claimed Kantian ethics is too restrictive, and that some duties outweigh others and the moral law is
not always able to be upheld. The second categorical imperative is the Formula of End in Itself, effectively
stating that you should treat humans as ends in themselves. This places intrinsic value on human life and is
clearly in line with the Human Rights Act of 1948. However, in some circumstances people must be used as a
means to an end, for example during a war. This categorical imperative works on an individual level but not as a
widespread political agenda. The third categorical imperative is the Formula of a Kingdom of Ends. This means
that we should all act as if everyone treats everyone as an end and not as a means. Although, this is an optimistic
