A certain moral dilemma is presented as such: Should a person, John, take a job as the overseer of a concentration camp intended for people of the ancestry his country is at war with in order to minimize the harm done there, or pass the job on which then may be taken by his cruel second-in-command whom John knows holds a hatred for the people to be imprisoned in the camp. I intend to analyze this dilemma using Kant’s moral philosophy, which is based on maxims (principles that one follows in coming to a decision) reasoned through his idea of the ‘Categorical Imperative,’ and specifically his formulations of it in reference to universal law and humanity. By following Kant’s moral philosophy in this manner, I believe that John should choose to not take such a job. Firstly, as a fellow citizen of his state, John is disrespecting the second-in-command’s dignity by forcing him to be complicit in his immoral actions done in the name of the state and the people thereof. Secondly, the strongest maxim for both men to follow in this situation is that one should always not take the job so as to prevent the camp from being able to function entirely. For both of these reasons, in taking the job John violates the second-in-command’s agency by misappropriating his ability to act morally in choosing not to have the job done at all.
Kant began his work in moral philosophy with Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In it he posits that there is only one single moral obligation to be followed, what he called the ‘Categorical Imperative’. An imperative is a proposition that declares an action to be necessary. As opposed to a Hypothetical Imperative in which one is compelled to action only under given circumstances and to rely too heavily on subjective considerations, a Categorical Imperative implies an obligation that must be followed in all circumstances and no matter any considerations other than for moral good itself. This idea is founded in the concept of duty; one has a commitment to certain causes at the expense of self-interest. Not only must the cause conform to a moral law, but it must be done only because it conforms to that moral law. It must be done for the sole purpose of performing something good, rather than any further derived benefits.
There are a lot of human traits that seem remarkably admirable, such as honesty, courage, and open-mindedness. However, even these in rare instances can be used with the intention of doing wrong and therefore each are not good in themselves. For example, people will often use the truth as a distraction to hide more important information from others. Courage can often be exploited in much the same way as overconfidence. Open-mindedness may sometimes imply a certain lack of decisiveness. On the other hand, a Categorical Imperative both is and must always done for its own sake. This makes sense because a moral law must very weakly imply non-compulsion if not necessity. Why would anybody follow a maxim, such as, “Do not lie,” if it were entirely optional when anybody should choose to follow it? Lastly, and to really drive home just how universal these moral laws should be, not only must they apply to all human beings, but they must apply to all moral agents – every conscious entity in the universe capable of following such a law.
Clearly it is often difficult to formulate such an impenetrable law, but Kant described his theory as a sort of guiding principle. Though it is steadfast in its idea that one may only act morally by acting for the sake of good in itself, it may be and often is impossible for a person to separate themselves from their own self-interest entirely. Furthermore, it also seems impossible to completely remove experience from our will, for though we can’t draw from it in shaping our morality, it certainly helps develop our sense of reason. It is the process by which we come to learn the language and nuances of reason that we use to determine morality. Nevertheless, the Categorical Imperative is concerned not with the actions that are ultimately taken by oft-irrational people, but rather with what should rightfully be done in the end. Next, I will explain two of the formulations Kant described for the Categorical Imperative, the first being by universal law.
Kant’s first formulation for the Categorical Imperative is that one should, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The maxim must have universality; it must apply no matter what situation it is being applied in, and by any rational being that is applying it. The maxim must not be tied at all to the situation or any rational being it is being applied by, but rather only to moral good for its own sake. This duty is divided into two distinct subsets, both ‘perfect duty’ and ‘imperfect duty’. Firstly, we have a perfect or morally binding duty, to not act by any maxim which implies a contradiction in logic. Kant uses the example of a person who decides to borrow money with the intention of not paying the money back. Such a maxim might be that it is acceptable to steal money from somebody if you need it more than they do. However, if one attempts to turn this into a universal law, as per the Categorical Imperative, the entire practice of lending money would collapse under it.
On the other hand, consider a person who decides it is acceptable not to help those whole are less well off than themselves. It doesn’t seem initially clear that universally abiding by such a maxim would cause a contradiction in logic. Certainly there is a universe wherein people can exist without helping one another. Kant decides that one could not will this to be a universal law however, as in our society often even the most fortunate people must prepare for the case in which they find themselves in need of help from others. Such an instance in which one should receive praise for doing something, but not be blamed for doing otherwise, is called an imperfect duty. Imperfect duties should be something that are sought after, but never completed. By this logic, one should be commended for helping those in need, but should not be held responsible for failing to spend every moment helping those in need.
Kant also created a formulation for the Categorical Imperative based on respect for humanity. In this he states that we should never perform an action in which we treat humanity, either ourselves or others, as a means rather than an end. It seems intuitive to treat other people with a certain level of respect rather than as mere instruments with no value other than to further our own goals. In order to treat another person otherwise, one must violate the Categorical Imperative by using their will as a means to fulfilling some self-interest rather than as an end in being the guiding force of moral action. Though this is meant to parallel the Universal Law formula, it offers a more personal view of morality. However, application of both formulas should yield the same results. Open negligence to repay a loan both causes a contradiction when applied as a universal law and wrongfully treats another person’s will as a means towards stealing money. Likewise, not acting benevolent towards someone in need thereby entails failing to treat them as an end in themselves. Therefore, I will now explain how John taking the job violates both formulations of the Categorical Imperative.
Firstly, in choosing to take the job, one must apply a maxim akin to, “I will take the job as the overseer of the concentration camp in order to minimize the harm done there in comparison to what my second-in-command might do.” Despite John’s good intentions, inevitably he will find himself directly responsible for immoral action being done. It certainly seems wrong to imprison people simply for being a part of a specific ancestry, regardless of one’s state of war with an ancestral nation. I highly doubt anybody would want to find themselves on the opposing end of such an arrangement, and therefore imprisoning people for their ancestry alone can’t be found to abide by the Universal Law. It’s important to note that it’s not John’s will that is at fault because ultimately in taking the job he intended to do good, but rather John’s forcing of his will on to the people of his state that he would be representing as an overseer of the concentration camp. By choosing to perform the job and keeping the concentration camp functioning, John is disrespecting both his successor and everyone who follows him in the chain of command in choosing to ultimately act morally and not allow the concentration camp to run at all. Though the second-in-command may appear to hold a certain hatred for the ancestry in question, it is not even his own moral decision that might eventually bring him around to not accepting the job. More significantly, John is allowing for his second-in-command’s will and those of his successors to choose to act morally rather than using them as a means to his own end by pressing his will on theirs.
I think the utilitarian maxim that one should take the job in order to minimize harm done to the inmates seems to make a lot of sense at first glance. No doubt, if John’s second-in-command were to take the job he would treat the inmates far more cruelly. This is only a possibility however, and it seems wrong to discount both the second-in-command’s ability to pass on the job and the possibility that he might otherwise be forced to. Though John’s first instinct might be to follow this maxim, it seems like the maxim, “I should not take the job in order to prevent the concentration camp from functioning at all,” is stronger and overriding as universal law. By asserting this maxim, one is saying no matter whom is offered the job of overseer of the concentration camp, that nobody should choose to take it. Abiding by the original maxim, an enormous amount of people should take the job as the overseer before the concentration camp is closed, as on average half of the population would find themselves to be less cruel than the other.
One area that the Categorical Imperative definitely seems to have trouble with is in solving moral dilemmas such as this one, where one feels a sense of duty in performing two seemingly contradictory actions. Often, as in this instance, it might happen that the duty to abide by one maxim will trump the duty to another. Consider the case wherein one seemingly must tell a murderer the location of his prey in order to abide by the maxim, “Do not lie.” Kant agrees that though it is true one must not lie to the murderer, it is more importantly the case that one is not obligated to say anything at all. Therefore it is possible to protect the agency of the murderer’s prey whilst abiding by the categorical imperative in not lying to the murderer. Likewise, though John may believe the second-in-command might take the job and act cruelly, but by taking the job he fails to both prevent immoral action done to the inmates entirely and to respect his second-in-command’s moral agency. Furthermore, I believe Kant’s moral philosophy partially fails in its complete rejection of the consequences of an action. That the second-in-command will act cruelly in my opinion should be considered lightly as a fact in determining a maxim in response. Though it would be nice if we were capable of abiding by the Categorical Imperative perfectly, the human condition is plagued by experience and I believe it must be considered if only to figure out the magnitude of its own effect.
That one should not treat others as a means rather than an ends is probably the strongest driving point behind Kant’s moral philosophy. Tangentially, it is also important to treat other’s moral agency with dignity and respect. Following this line of thought, by taking the job as the overseer of the camp, John is discounting the second-in-command’s agency to act morally and is thereby using him as a means towards his own goal of reducing harm in the camp. By following the Universal Law, one should act according to the most absolute and universal maxim available. The strongest maxim available would appear to be for anybody in John’s situation to not accept the job with the intention of ensuring the concentration camp fails completely. In the alternative, a frightening number of people would feel an obligation to perform the duty of the job, depending on the general disposition of society the cruel second-in-command might even find himself called to ineptly perform such a duty in the stead of some sort of Hitlerish character.