A Defense Of Kant’s Deontological Position

In recent years,Hare,Cummiskey and others have made a consequentialist interpretation of Kant’s ethics.This paper disagrees with this interpretation and attempts to defend Kant’s deontological position.On the one hand,it makes indirect defense by refuting Kantian consequentialism,and on the other hand,it directly shows Kant’s deontological position by analyzing his texts.This paper is divided into three chapters.The first chapter is the reconstruction of three representative consequentialist interpretation or transformation.The first kind of representative is Hare.Hare thinks Kant could have been a utilitarian,that deontology could be compatible with utilitarianism.The second representative is Cummiskey.He argues that Kant is a consequentialist at the normative level,although he is a deontist at the fundamental level.The third representative is Parfitt.Parfitt did not directly interpret Kant’s ideas,but believed that the formulas of universal laws faced many refutations and needed to be reformed.Through transformation,he developed a kind of "Kantian Consequentialism of Contract Theory".The second chapter is criticism of the above consequentialist interpretation or transformation.First of all,Hare’s interpretation has the following defects: 1.On the whole,Hare ignores that Kant’s purpose of others is for the rational nature of others rather than for their happiness,so the purpose of others does not lead to utilitarianism.2.As far as details are concerned,Hare only focuses on a single formula of universal law and ignores its connection with other formulas,and unilaterally draws the conclusion that the formula of universal law conforms to utilitarianism;And because the perfection of virtue essentially depends on the simplicity of the motive of duty,it is not utilitarian.3.In Hare’s opinion,Kant’s moral system(form plus matter)is utilitarian,because it fails to capture the core essence that the prescribed basis of Kant’s action is the law of virtue rather than all material things.Secondly,the defects of Cummiskey lie in that,firstly,the Kantian rule consequentialism of maximizing double values constructed by him deviates from Kant’s position.Second,Kant’s obligations to others cannot lead to Cartesian consequentialist conclusions about maximizing good.Thirdly,Parfitt’s defect mainly lies in the fact that the premise of reasoning has counter examples,and it faces four kinds of doubts.In a word,the Kantian utilitarianism or consequentialism advocated by Hare,Cummiskey and Parfit all misunderstand Kant from different perspectives,and Kant’s ethics is deontological.The third chapter of this paper examines and analyzes the Groundwork of Metaphysics for Moral and Critique of Practical Reason,aiming to present Kant’s strict deontological standpoint.It mainly includes the following three aspects.In the first place,the three principles of duty exclude all the factors of sensibility(preference,pleasure)that are subordinate to happiness in terms of motivation,while the consequentialist approach of taking emotional desire as the basis of morality is opposed by Kant.Secondly,the distinction between categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative,the formula of universal law and the formula of purpose reflect Kant’s rejection of consequentialism.Kant’s submission to the categorical imperative is to regard the imprative directly as an end rather than as a means to some other end.Even though there is room for utilitarian interpretation of the universal law formula,the objective formula can eliminate this possibility.The reason why we should obey the formulas of universal law is not for self-interest,nor for the benefit of others,but for the human nature of the personality,or for the rational nature of all men.Finally,Kant refuses to use any empirical elements to define the will,but only takes the universal form of legislation as the basis for the determination of the will,thus establishing the principle of autonomy.However,the heteronomy of material principle advocated by consequentialism contradicts this principle,which is excluded by Kant as the "error" of moral theory.In essence,through the analysis of Kant’s text,it is found that the principle of virtue is the self-discipline of the innate will on the basis of pure practical reason,which is the essence of Kant’s moral philosophy,and the whole moral system with this as the core is strict deontology.In conclusion,by pointing out the shortcomings of scholars such as Hare,Cummiskey and Parfit,and directly analyzing Kant’s texts,we argue that Kantian ethics is strictly deontological.Deontology and consequentialism are two fundamentally different moral theories,and thus cannot be substituted for or interpreted by one or the other.These approaches have often attracted more blame than approval.