Kant: Duty, Universal Rules, Categorical Imperative
Kants powerful moral theory, which is known as deontology, argues that morality is grounded on duty and good will. For Kant, the only thing that is good without qualification is the intention to do right. Consequences do not actually determine morality – only the intention behind the action. An interesting mention of this in the appendix is where the love of money being evil is mentioned followed by, “he is not saying that good will must always have good consequences” (Reynolds, 2018).
Immanuel Kant’s central principle is the categorical imperative, which is also seen as central to deontology. Categorical Imperative requires that we act only on maxims that can be applied universally without contradiction, with maxim being a moral rule (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019). Before acting, we must ask:
“Could everyone, everywhere, follow the rule?”
If universalizing the rule causes a contradiction to surface, the action is immoral. Examples in the appendix show this. A maxim like to “lie when it benefits me” falls apart, because universal lying will irradicate the possibility of truth, or “borrow money without intention of paying it back” would become impossible, because lending would end (Reynolds, 2018).
Thomas Hobbes: Self-Interest, Survival, and the Social Contract
Hobbes starts at a very different point: human beings are fundamentally selfish. I truly understand this view as well. According to Hobbes, in the state of nature, a world without rules, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Munro, 2024). This is because everyone pursues their own interests and with resources being as limited as they are, conflict is inevitable.
Ethical behavior, for Hobbes, does not stem from universal moral rules. This ethical behavior comes from mutual agreements, also known as the social contact. People will make these agreements to protect themselves, sometimes giving up freedoms in exchange for security.
Which Approach Resonates With Me
I sincerely appreciate Kant’s clarity, but at the same time Hobbes’ framework resonates further with me with the ethical decisions I encounter in the IR and cybersecurity fields. In my current landscape, ethical choices often revolve around:
- protecting users
- maintaining trust
- preventing harm
- balancing individual freedom with collective security
The way that I see this, these concerns align closely with Hobbes’ idea that ethical behavior emerges from mutual obligations and the need for stability. At the same time, on a moral level I agree highly with Kant’s rigid rules when applying this approach outside of technology.
Conclusion
Kant and Hobbes both offer powerful but very different ethical systems. Kant focuses on universal moral duties grounded in rational consistency. Hobbes emphasizes mutual agreements grounded in human self-interest and the need for social stability. Both of these perspectives are very valuable, but Hobbes’ social-contract approach clearly aligns more with the many ethical decisions I face in information technology and cybersecurity. This is a scenario where protecting others and maintaining trust are essential.
References:
Reynolds, G. (2018). Ethics in Information Technology, 6th Edition. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]]. Retrieved from vbk://9781337681742
Munro, A. (2024). State of Nature. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-of-nature-political-theory
Wikipedia Contributors. (2019, March 2). Categorical imperative. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
Leave a Reply