Hegel’s Critique of Kantian Morality
How do we make an informed moral decision? Kant offers a solution in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. The Categorical Imperative (CI) is a universal command that we must follow, regardless of our desires, because it is our moral obligation (4:417). It compares our actions to a moral duty, done without end goals or consideration for the result, so the good is contained only in the person’s intention. But how do we know what our moral duties are? Hegel raises this concern in his Outlines of the Philosophy of Right (134). He believes that fixed principles, and not duty itself, must guide our decision-making. While treating actions as universal maxims may work for any situation, the lack of substance within Kant’s theory also makes Hegel concerned that it will not lead to the development of ethics. Ultimately, Hegel’s criticisms against Kant do not stand because principles are limited by nature and are not universally applicable. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (CI), while general, is truly universal to any moral situation and does lead to the development of moral determinations such as treating others as ends in themselves.
While Hegel praises Kant for his significant contributions to moral knowledge, he argues that his progress is reduced to an “empty formalism” if it cannot transition to the development of ethical concepts. At the beginning of Section 135, Hegel acknowledges the significance of Kant’s philosophy in highlighting the importance of the unconditioned self-determination of the will as the foundation of duty. He also recognizes that Kant’s emphasis on the autonomy of the will has provided a solid basis for understanding moral knowledge (135). However, due to the highly systematic and logical nature of the CI, Hegel contends that it has its limitations. His criticisms are twofold. The first is that the CI is solely based on conceptual duty and not anything substantive about what that duty is. When we apply the CI, we may ask ourselves, “What is my duty?” Is it to do right and promote welfare for myself, others, and universally (134)? How can we create a “doctrine of duties” or know what the “criterion [is]…for deciding whether [something] is or is not a duty” if “duty is taken to be [simply] the absence of contradiction” (135)? In other words, Hegel thinks that carrying out actions based solely on the concept of duty is vague and unfeasible in practice. The lack of substantive and contextual elements in his philosophy gives us little guidance when we make a moral decision. For instance, if I am deciding to steal something, how do I know that it is my duty to not steal other’s property? How do I know that not stealing is a universal rule agreed upon by everyone else? If there was a principle, Hegel says, to respect property and human life, then it is clear that one should not steal. However, the lack of fixed principles in Kant’s moral philosophy means there is technically nothing to contradict within the CI, and is therefore flawed and opens up the possibility of immoral actions.
Hegel is concerned with the development of ethics in the second part of his criticism against Kant. Since the CI is centered around actions out of duty, for duty’s sake, and not for some moral content, it is “only a formal identity whose nature it is to exclude all content and determination”(135). Put differently, Hegel thinks the single formulation surrounding the universal maxim is so theoretical and bare of ethical content that it cannot produce any ethical concepts. Thus, Hegel thinks that Kant’s philosophy will encompass nothing more than just moral duty, never able to give a comprehensive understanding of the ethical life and the interplay between individual will and social norms. Effectively, he thinks Kant has divorced the science of morals from the complexities of real-life ethical situations, and therefore an “empty formalism”.
In response to Hegel’s critique that Kant’s CI is limited because it does not point to the types of duties we must perform, Kant would say that he intentionally focuses on the formal aspect to ensure that the formula is universal and consistent, applicable to any situation without subjective bias. While it may seem like the Law of Universality (and the non-contradiction clause) is an empty theory, in practice it is highly intuitive without the need for fixed principles per Hegel’s critique. We see this in Kant’s examples of suicide and false promises. In the case of suicide, if someone loathes the feeling of pain and wants to take his life because the future promises more pain than pleasure, he would realize using the CI that a world where this logic is universal cannot exist, so his actions are wrong. It cannot be that every time someone feels extreme pain from hardship that they should take their life. In another case concerning false promises, if every time someone promises to do something in return for another thing but does not keep his promise, then applying this action as a universal law would mean that the concept of promise and trust would cease to exist in the world. This does not match with how the world is and is therefore false. It is important to note that not a single specific ethical principle was used except for the general natural law formula (to act in accordance with how the world is) to arrive at the correct course of action. If we must look to a principle every time we are faced with a moral decision, there might not be enough principles in the world to fit each scenario. Principles are limited in their nature and run the risk of subjective bias that lead to immoral conduct. Therefore, Kant’s CI remains the most impartial view of judging moral actions.
In response to Hegel’s comment that Kant’s CI is unable to shift discussions of morality to ethics, Kant would offer formulations of his CI to demonstrate that deep, ethical ideas can in fact be derived from his philosophy. First, the Formula of Humanity states that individuals should always treat humanity, both in themselves and others, as an end and never merely as a means to an end. People possess intrinsic moral worth and should not be treated as mere objects or instruments to an end. This formulation emphasizes respect for the inherent dignity of individuals and requires us to consider the impact of our actions on others (4:429). The next formula he presents is the Formula of Autonomy. If every moral obligation we give is to ourselves (from duty) and not some other factor (God, etc.), then it can be said that we are “wills universally legislating through its maxims” (4:432). What this translates to is that we are our own rulers; none of us are subjugated to the will of another. A further derivation is that each of us is priceless and irreplaceable. This truth leads Kant to his final formulation of the Kingdom of Ends. This ideal world demands individuals act as if they are members of a hypothetical “kingdom of ends” where rational beings mutually respect one another’s dignity and adhere to the same moral principles. By acting in accordance with this principle, individuals contribute to a moral community. Through his various formulations, Kant demonstrates that the CI is not just a bare formulation but is capable of describing the relationship between human beings, the individual as a ruler, and the ideal relationship between human beings in communities. Therefore, Hegel is wrong to assume that the CI is incapable of producing substantive ethical concepts.
Contenders of Kant might question how much more his formulations really contribute to ethics since they are “one and the same” (according to Kant) as the “empty formalism” that Hegel discusses, and just how inclusive exactly the term “rational beings” is in his formulations. While his nuanced formulations do demonstrate different concepts, his racism and sexism are unavoidable topics that indeed undermine his moral project. What Kant means by his formulations being identical is in large part that they are applicable to all rational beings without contradiction. We see that this is true when we examine each of the formulations. The Formula Humanity describes that we must not contradict others’ humanity, so we must respect their dignity and autonomy. The Formula of Autonomy describes that we must not contradict our own humanity as free wills legislating ourselves, so we must not perform actions that would subordinate us to a factor other than ourselves (i.e. for another end or person). Lastly, the Formula of The Kingdom of Ends describes that we must not contradict a community that allows us to be autonomous and respectful, so we must adhere to universal principles. So, while these formulations lead to the same non-contradiction clause, they offer different ethical perspectives concerning individual rights, freedom and autonomy, and societal norms. However, these ethical developments are overshadowed by his racism exhibited in his lectures on Physical Geography in which he presented what he claimed to be a scientific race theory, as well as sexism in his Metaphysics of Morals, where he excludes women from the right to vote since they are “passive” citizens (Physical Geography 9:316; Metaphysics of Morals 6:314). This inconsistency in his work makes us question his own ethical beliefs and ultimately undermines the ethical ideals presented by his philosophy.
Besides an incomplete view of Kant’s larger project, Hegel’s criticisms are unconvincing for another reason that it neglects the importance of universal moral principles, which might lead to relativism or subjectivism, where ethical judgments are solely determined by social norms and historical context without a firm basis in objective moral principles. We can imagine the example where a group of people with more political clout dominate the society they live in and indoctrinate its people. Two examples come to mind: slavery and genocide. In 1800s America, Southerners held much economic power and political clout with their production of key resources. With this power, they changed the way Whites in the South thought of Africans — that they are inferior, sub-human, and to be enslaved. Let us compare how Hegel’s and Kant’s moral systems would respond to this scenario. The Southern slaveowners could very easily establish a principle that reinforces the “inferiority” of Africans, such as “Property is not deserving of respect or rights.” Under this fixed principle, Kant’s CI would seemingly allow for all sorts of immoral acts like murder to occur to African slaves because it does not contradict the clause that the slaveowners set up. In another scenario where genocide against groups of people is allowed to occur, as it did in Nazi Germany, a political group would indoctrinate its people and military to work towards their goals. A similar fixed principle could be established and legitimized by that government: “Inferior people should be killed to allow our people to flourish.” Once again, a dangerous clause such as this can be established and carried out without contradiction and concern for the very basic, universal principle of humanity and right.
The broad universalizability of Kant’s CI would ensure that immoral principles sometimes established in historical and cultural contexts are not carried out because it takes consideration beyond those circumstances. In the slavery example, the Formula of Humanity, requiring us to treat each other as ends and not merely as means, would morally require individuals to respect laborers. In the genocide example, the Natural Law Formula would question the principle and stop to ask, “Do we simply kill others because they take our resources? If a dominant group exists, then why are there other groups of people existing? Why do animals exist?”. Ultimately, the world as we know it would be left with no ecosystem or life if we accept this principle as universal, and thus this clause is rejected by the CI.
In summary, I disagree with Hegel’s criticisms of Kant. Hegel fails to consider the holistic view of Kant’s moral project and argues for fixed principles instead of a universal principle. His claims of “empty formalism” and limited ethical concepts overlook the three formulations derived from the Categorical Imperative. These formulations establish ethical ideas such as individuality, autonomy, respect, and society, while leading to the same non-contradiction conclusion. However, Kant’s sexism and racism reflected in his other works indeed undermine his moral and ethical developments. Hegel’s belief in fixed moral principles for historical and cultural contexts is flawed, as such principles can violate human rights and hinder moral actions. In contrast, Kant’s universal principle is impartial and consistently guides moral actions. This is why Kant’s Categorical Imperative remains a timeless and significant formula.
