Kantian Ethics — An Introduction

Imagine a serial killer, say, Ted Bundy, he is charming, fit, good looking, some say attractive. People trusted him, so much so that he was able to convince many victims to go along with him wherever he wanted to take them. Many of Ted Bundy’s traits could be reasonably called virtues — at least in the Aristotelian sense. Aristotle said that virtues were character traits that were in the middle between two extremes. Some of the virtues he identified were things like courage and ambition. A guy like Ted Bundy could reasonably be said to have all these, but yet no one would say he was a good person.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that when it comes to morality, simple virtues will not do. Courage, intelligence, wealth, etc. can be used for good or for evil. For this reason, the virtues praised by the Greeks were not a satisfactory way to distinguish good and bad. They are nice traits to have, but they are not enough. For Kant, what makes an action moral is purely in the intention with which the action is made. This intention has to come from an understanding of what we are required to do morally. If I give a homeless person a dollar because I want to help them, and if I understand that charity is a moral good that I am trying to achieve, then my action is good. If I give them a dollar because they are making a weird noise and I want them to shut up, the action is not good. A good…