Who was Immanuel Kant?
Immanuel Kant lived in Germany in the 18th century, during the Enlightenment, a period marked by a strong belief in reason, science, and the human ability to think independently. Kant was concerned with whether there are universal principles of morality – rules that apply to all people, regardless of the situation.
He believed that moral choices must be based on reason, not on emotions or on what leads to the best consequences. For Kant, ethics was about doing what is right because it is right – not because it benefits us or feels good.
You may recognize the tension in this. We often know what we ought to do, but in practice it can be tempting to choose what is easiest or what gives us something in return.
What about you – what mainly guides your choices: reason, emotions, or consequences?
Would you like to learn more about the Enlightenment?
Watch this video from (History made simple)
Enkel historie:
1 / 3
Statue av Immanuel Kant
What did Kant believe?
Kant argued that moral actions must be based on principles that can apply to all people. This ethical theory is called duty ethics. The core of his thinking is expressed in what he called the categorical imperative:
You should only act according to rules that you would want everyone else to follow.
This means that we must ask ourselves whether our actions could become a universal rule. If the answer is no, then the action is morally wrong.
You might think this sounds very strict – and it is. Kant believed that what matters is not the consequences, but whether we follow principles that can apply to everyone.
Example: Lying
Imagine that you are considering lying to get out of a difficult situation. Kant would say that you should ask:
What would happen if everyone lied in situations like this?
If lying were acceptable, it would be difficult to trust other people. We would never know whether they were telling the truth. That is why Kant believed that lying is always wrong.
But this raises difficult questions.
What if a lie could protect someone?
What if telling the truth could cause harm?
Here we see that duty ethics does not always provide easy answers, but it challenges us to think carefully about which rules we believe should apply to everyone.
Should we always follow rules?
You might start to wonder: Should we really always follow rules, no matter what happens?
Kant’s ideas can resemble systems where rules and duty are central, such as in the military, where people are expected to follow orders. In dangerous and stressful situations, there is often no time to question decisions, so clear rules and responsibility are important.
At the same time, experiences from events such as World War II show that it is not always enough to simply follow orders. Soldiers also have a responsibility to consider whether what they are doing is right.
This shows that duty ethics can be both clear and demanding. It provides firm rules, but it also requires us to take responsibility for how we apply them.
1 / 3
Illustrasjon av en person ved en vekt på en murkant, med fjell i bakgrunnen og myke grønntoner
Using other people
An important part of Immanuel Kant’s ethics is that we should never use other people merely as a means to achieve something for ourselves. He believed that every person has value in themselves and must always be treated as such – not just as a tool for someone else’s goals.
This may sound obvious, but in practice it is not always so simple.
Imagine this situation:
You are working in a group, but you let the others do most of the work because you know you will receive the same grade anyway.
Are you using the others as a means to achieve something for yourself?
Kant would say yes. When we benefit from others’ efforts without contributing ourselves, we fail to treat them as equal individuals.
Let’s take another example:
You pretend to be friends with someone because they are popular, or because you want to be invited to a party. Maybe you just want help with your homework.
Are you interested in the person – or in what you can gain from them?
Kant would argue that this is also a way of using another person merely as a means.
Perhaps you recognize situations like these? We do not always act this way on purpose, but it shows how demanding Kant’s ethics can be in practice.
So what do you think:
Is it possible to never use other people as a means?
Or is this an ideal we try to follow, even if it is difficult to fully achieve?
1 / 3
Studenter som sitter sammen ved et bord med bøker og bærbare datamaskiner, gruppearbeid for å diskutere et prosjekt i klasserommet
What is good about Kant’s way of thinking?
Kant’s ethics appears clear and principled. When the same rules apply to everyone, it becomes difficult to make exceptions based on personal interests or specific situations. This can create a sense of fairness, because no one can give themselves advantages that others do not have.
At the same time, duty ethics provides a stable foundation for judging what is right. Instead of evaluating consequences in every situation, we can ask whether an action is based on a principle that could apply to everyone.
Perhaps you have experienced that rules feel unfair when they are not applied equally? Kant tried to create a system where such differences would not occur.
Another strength is his view of human dignity. By claiming that every person has value in themselves, Kant provides a strong basis for respect and equality. This means that we should not only think about what we can gain from others, but also take them into account as individuals in their own right.
What do you think? Is it most important that rules always apply equally to everyone, or should we sometimes make exceptions?
1 / 2
Statuen av rettferdighetens gudinne
What can be difficult?
Although Immanuel Kant’s duty ethics provides clear rules, it can be challenging to apply in practice. Life often presents situations where different considerations come into conflict.
Imagine that you know where a friend is hiding, and that someone is looking for them with the intention of causing harm.
What should you do?
If you follow Kant’s ethics, you must act according to the categorical imperative: you should only follow rules that could apply to everyone. If lying cannot be a universal rule, then you must tell the truth – even in a situation like this.
However, many people would argue that it can be right to tell a white lie in order to protect someone. This highlights an important challenge in duty ethics: it does not primarily focus on consequences, but on whether an action follows a rule.
We find similar dilemmas in more serious situations as well. In the military, people are expected to follow orders. At the same time, experiences from events such as World War II show that it is not always right to simply follow rules. Soldiers also have a responsibility to consider whether what they are doing is morally right, and those giving orders are not always fully informed.
This shows that duty ethics offers clear principles, but it can also come into conflict with other important concerns, such as protecting life or preventing harm.
What do you think?
Is it most important to follow rules that apply to everyone, or should we sometimes break rules to achieve good consequences?
1 / 3
Trefigur av Pinocchio med lang nese som vokser
Kant and consequences
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill represent two different ways of thinking about ethics: duty ethics and consequentialism.
In duty ethics, what matters is whether an action follows a moral rule or a principle that can apply to everyone. Kant expressed this through the categorical imperative: we should act according to maxims that can be made into universal laws.
In consequentialism, the outcome of an action is what matters most. Mill argued that an action is right if it leads to the greatest possible happiness or benefit for the greatest number of people.
This gives us two different questions to ask when we evaluate whether an action is ethical:
Is this right in itself? (duty ethics)
What consequences will this action have? (consequentialism)
You may notice that you switch between these ways of thinking. In some situations, it seems right to follow rules, while in others, the consequences matter more.
What do you think? Is there one correct way to think, or do we need both?
1 / 2
Veiskilt med to piler merket “riktig” og “feil” som peker i motsatte retninger
Why is Kant relevant today?
Even though Immanuel Kant lived in the 18th century, the questions he raised are still highly relevant. Many of the difficult choices and dilemmas we face today involve the same fundamental issue: should we follow rules, or should we focus on what leads to the best consequences? We may also need to ask critical questions such as: who decided these rules, and why?
In everyday life, we encounter this in situations involving honesty, responsibility, and how we treat other people, both face to face and online. Kant’s philosophy challenges us to take a step back and ask whether our actions are based on principles that we believe should apply to everyone.
You may recognize the tension in this. It is not always easy to do what is right, especially when what we want to do conflicts with what we believe is right.
Think for yourself
Are there situations where it can be right to break a rule? What matters most to you – principles or consequences? Perhaps you have experienced a situation where it was difficult to do the right thing. Which way of thinking do you find most convincing, and why?
1 / 3
Nærbilde av gammel bokside med gotisk skrift og teksten “Immanuel Kant”.
Sources
- Store norske leksikon (SNL): Immanuel Kant https://snl.no/Immanuel_Kant
- Eriksen, 2002. Vestens store tenkere. De norske bokklubbene
- Filosofi.no Lastet ned 24.03.2025 fra: https://filosofi.no/immanuel-kant/
Image and Video Rights
- Adobe Stock
- Adobe Stock
- Adobe Stock
- Getty Images
- Getty Images
- Getty Images
- Adobe Stock
