Reinhard has chosen to hide a Jewish family from the Nazi’s. He is forced into a moral dilemma when he receives a door call at his door by four SS soldiers asking him whether he is hiding any Jews. The soldiers warn that if Reinhard is going to do “his duty as a German citizen” and uphold the laws and moral rules of the community, he must give up any Jews he may be hiding. They also threaten that if he is found to be lying, he and his family will be punished. As a follower of Kant, Reinhard has come to the conclusion that lying under all circumstances is immoral. He therefore tells the truth, and the soldiers take the Jewish family away. As time passes, Reinhard begins to wonder whether his decision to hand over the family was reasonable.

To come to the correct conclusionBefore we may judge his actions, it is necessary to start with an understanding of Kantian moral philosophy. From there, this essay will show that Reinhard acted as a true Kantian. Finally, this essay will suggest a possible modification to the theory that would have allowed Reinhard to save the Jewish family.

An Understanding of Kantian Moral Philosophy

In his philosophical writings, Kant asserts that humans, unlike other animals, are autonomous and therefore, moral beings.1 Humans are autonomous because they are rational beings. I can act on the desire to eat ten ice cream cones a day, but I can also think and reflect on whether that is a desire I should have in the first placeI should act on that desire. Although not necessarily a moral claimvirtue, the human ability to not eat ten ice cream cones a day even though they may taste delicious is important to Kant’s moral theory, as it shows that humans can examine and change the principles that guide their actions.2 Kant believes this ability to adapt our principles is what allows humans the capacity to be moral beings.3 Just as I can eating eat ice cream at every meal, I also have the ability to eat small, helpless children at every meal. They would have some nutrition and taste like any other meat. However, I choose not to eat children because it seems intuitive that it is morally wrong. Thus, because humans can use their autonomous will to think of something like eating children and decide that it is wrong, humans are moral beings.

Kant’s theory also rules out the idea that the source of our moral character comes from passions such as pleasure.4 He notes that when we act on our desires, we act in a heteronymous way.5 If these desires were the source of our morality, then animals too would be moral beings. A kangaroo certainly experiences pleasure when it copulates and a lion when it eats a kill. For this reason, Kant dismisses all human characteristics except the rational will as the reason we have the ability to be moral.6

Kant acknowledges that with the capacity to act morally comes complete moral responsibility.7 Thus, he believes it is each rational human being’s duty to act in a morally good way in every possible situation, in spite of the toll that duty might take on each individual’s happiness.8 For instance, perhaps small, helpless children are the only food available to a human. Without consuming the children, the human will perish from starvation. But, by reason aloneindependent of this fact, eating small children remains universally wrong. Therefore, despite the fact that the human will live a very unhappy, uncomfortable couple of weeks short time and eventually die, the children cannot be eaten. It is this duty to act morally, regardless of the personal outcome, which Kant stresses in his moral theory.9 For by his deontological theory, it is the action itself, not the end that comes about as a result of the action, which is morally important.10

Accordingly, Kant’s moral theory is designed to help humans evaluate and direct their actions as autonomous, rational persons.11 To assist in the guiding of human actions, Kant introduces the notion of living life by following a the categorical imperative. A The categorical imperative directs one’s actions for the sake of rationality (rather than to help one reach a certain end).12 That is, to live a moral life one must decide on and live by clear, unconditional imperatives. The moral laws arisen from the imperative are essential and binding, and must be followed unerringly13 for one to act as a moral being.14

TheFormula of Universal Law is often cited as Kant’s most famous categorical imperative. The Universal Law states that one must “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”.15 For this formulation of the categorical imperative to work, the maxim must be logical, and one must be able to will the maxim to occur in every possible case.16 For instance, I could use the Universal Law to decide whether eating children is actually morally wrong. First, the maxim must be tested to see if it is rational when generalized. However strange, it might come to be that there is no logical contradiction in eating children. However, the maxim “I may eat small, helpless children when I am starving” will not pass Kant’s second test. Kant believes that for a principle to become a universal law, one must will it to be that way in every case.17 I cannot conceive of a world where I would wish all children to be eaten. Therefore, no matter how starved I may be, the categorical imperative stands, and it would be morally wrong to eat children.18 Thus, Kant maintains that the rules that govern our actions must be universalized into unconditional moral laws.

Reinhard’s Decision

Reinhard, living in Nazi Germany, is in a country where the laws are faced with a clearly immoral legal system.19 However, Kant’s moral philosophy is not concerned with the country’sies laws.20 Kant would say hold that Reinhard should ignore the country’sies laws if they conflict with his moral laws.21 It is only the categorical imperative guiding rational human’s that cannot be ignoredthat humans cannot ignore. To do so, Kant believes, would be giving to give up autonomy for the animal’s life of heteronomy.22 Therefore, even if eating children were legal permissible under Germany’s law legal system, Reinhard would still, as a rational being with free will, choose not to eat children. Hence, Reinhard would have been wrong to have given up the Jewish family simply because the “moral rules of the [Nazi] community” demanded that he do so.23

However, the SS soldiers did not stop at telling Reinhard to obey the law. They also threatened to punish him and his family if he did not tell the truth. If Reinhard were to have given up the Jewish family out of fear of punishment, he still would not have been following Kant’s moral theory. To Kant, it is the intention, rather than the outcome, of an act that has moral worth.24 Accordingly, if Reinhard had given up the family out of fear, his motive for telling the truth would have had nothing to do with his moral duty to tell the truth. Thus, Reinhard would have been wrong to tell the truth and give up the Jewish family out of fear of punishment.

But Reinhard did not give up the Jewish family because “it was his duty as a German citizen to obey the law” or because he feared punishment. Instead, he gave up the family because he believed lying is immoral under all circumstances. In Reinhard’s particular case, despite his hatred of the Nazi regime, he chose to apply his universalized Kantian belief that lying under all circumstances is immoral and therefore told the SS soldiers he is was hiding Jews.25 Reinhard told the truth because he saw it as his moral duty to do so.

To Kant, the fact the SS troopers soldiers may treat the family immorally is of no consequence. For it is the SS soldiers, not Reinhard himself, who would place the Jewish family in a concentration camp. All that matters is that Reinhard himself acts morally, by telling the troopers soldiers the truth. If not, Kant would say that Reinhard could be morally blamed for any outcome.26

Objections to Reinhard’s Decision

Clearly Reinhard has thought long and hard about the moral law he will follow. He has chosen to hide Jews, which is a deception, and quite close to lying. Considering how vehemently against lying he is, this choice must have taken a lot of thought. Therefore, it is likely that he has thought about many maxims which he believes should be universalized.

But suppose among these many possible maxims, Reinhard has universalized the following: “I will not give up innocent people to those persons intent on their extermination.” I can easily come up with a justification for why it is also never morally right to kill innocent people. I can quite easily see that this is a rationally acceptable statement and I do not will that any person who has done nothing wrong be murdered. I assume that Reinhard would agree.

Yet in Reinhard’s case, acting on both of these Universal Laws – first, that one can never lie, and second, that one can never allow innocent people to be exterminated – would result in a contradiction. This is not something Kant’s moral theory is prepared to deal with. The duties prescribed by the categorical imperative act as law, governing the way one acts. Under Kant’s theory, Reinhard would be unable to not act on either of these binding, unconditional maxims. So, how could Reinhard follow Kant’s moral theory in this case? How could he pick between telling a lie and giving up innocent people to be killed?

Reinhard might evade this contradiction by simply making an exception to one of his maxims. However, since the categorical imperative is binding, Reinhard could not make this exception once he had willed a maxim to be Universal Law. I could not choose to eat a child just this once, and Reinhard could not choose to lie just this once. Kant maintains that lying is self-defeating since once every person feels it is permissible to lie, no one will believe a lie anymore.27 Accordingly, Reinhard could not make an exception if he wished to follow Kant’s theory.

I believe that Kant and Reinhard are wrong to think that humans should not lie in all cases. I think there are more essential principles which should be taken as axiomatic and universal. It seems intuitive that saving an innocent life is more important than not telling a lie. Accordingly, I suggest that instead of universalizing the principle that one should not lie, Reinhard should have universalized a maxim which would never allow the extermination of innocent people.28

Kant’s argument for why humans should not lie in some circumstances is that it is possible humans might lie all the time. 29 A world where I am not sure who is telling the truth might not be perfect. However, I would much prefer to live in a world with liars than one where innocent people are exterminated even though the right action by a moral person could have prevented it. In Nazi Germany, Reinhard could have avoided the murder of a family by telling a lie.30 Do we really want to live in a world where the extermination of an entire people is not the moral business of the people?

Bibliography

Kant, Immanuel. “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” In First Philosophy,

Fundamental Problems and Readings in Philosophy, edited by Andrew Bailey,
54-89. (Canada: Broadview Press 2002).

Timmons, Mark. “A Moral Theory Primer” In Phil 157 Lectures on Moral Issues,

instructor John-Stewart Gordon (P&CC 2009).

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” 2008. Retrieved

February 20, 2009. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/)

1 Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Third Section

2 Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 644

3 Ibid, 643

4 Ibid, 644

5 Ibid

6 Ibid: “We have, then, to develop a concept of a will which is to be esteemed as good in itself without regard to anything else.”

7 Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 644

8 Ibid

9 Ibid: “the concept of duty”

10 Ibid

11 A deontological moral theory

12 Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 655: “There is one imperative which directly commands certain conduct without making its condition some purpose to be reached by it. This imperative is categorical.”

13 By this I mean categorically

14 Timmons, A Moral Theory Primer, 16

15 A maxim is a subjective rule regarding ones action in a particular case

Kant, cited in class

16 Timmons, A Moral Theory Primer, 17

17 Ibid

18 I could not will that eating children become a Universal Law

19 For the purposes of this essay, I take it as axiomatic that many of the laws of Nazi Germany are clearly immoral.

20 Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Kant’s Moral Philosophy: “Motivation by duty is motivation by our respect for whatever law it is that makes our action a duty. But we can rationally “opt out” of our membership in the city, state, club or any other social arrangement and its laws – for instance, by quitting the club or expatriating.”

21 Ibid

22 Ibid: For instance, Kant states that “if the will seeks the law that is to determine it anywhere else than in the fitness of its maxims for its own giving of universal law…heteronomy always results”

23 Gordon, Truth Telling Essay Question

24 Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 645

25 Kant defines a lie as any “intentional untruthful declaration to another person”.

26 This idea can also be seen in another famous Kantian thought experiment: A train is heading down a track that is about to split in two. You have the power to switch the track the train takes. If the train continues on its original path, it will hit five bodies tied to the tracks. However, if you switch the tracks, the train will only hit one body. Kant would say you should not switch the track the train is on, as you are only responsible for your own actions. Therefore, you would be held accountable for killing the one person, but not for the death of the five persons if you did nothing. (In Philosophy Class).

27 In Philosophy Class

28 The exact maxim is out of the scope of this essay, but it could be something as simple as “do not kill innocent people.”

29 Certainly, Kant is correct in believing this would cause problems. For instance, it would become difficult to discern when someone is telling the truth. However, these issues are not within the scope of my argument.

30 I am assuming that if he were to be caught in the lie, the punishment from the SS soldiers would not be death. Therefore, lying would be worth Reinhard possibly preventing the death of the Jewish family without putting any other innocent persons at risk of death.