Tolle Lege

In philosophy courses at a secular college like Dartmouth, it is hard to find discussion of a moral system that is satisfying to a Christian worldview. Utilitarianism leaves no room for compassion or hope of a better world. Deontology seems too severe. Intuitionism and, really, all of secular morality seems implausible without some sort of divine purpose and assistance. But, at least in my limited academic experience in the area, Kant stands out as one secular philosopher who seems to approximate Christian ethical beliefs.

What makes Kant’s philosophy so appealing is his belief in treating people as ends instead of means. In the centuries prior to Kant, contemporary philosophy had been moving away from the virtue ethics of Plato and Aristotle toward a more consequentialist system. Thinkers from Machiavelli to Bentham advocated viewing people as tools to achieve an end that, though it may be noble, was nonetheless arbitrary. Kant’s philosophy was unique because it realized the limitations of these consequentialist systems. Instead of orienting his ethics towards a goal that would be necessarily limited by our human weaknesses and failures, Kant sought to base his entire moral system off of rigorous logic. In short, the test Kant came up with was this: When deciding whether an action is moral or not, one should determine whether it would be desirable for everyone in the world to live by that same maxim. To put it in Kant’s words, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim become a universal law.” This often led him to extreme conclusions, including the famous example of needing to tell the truth to a murderer who was looking for someone hiding in your house. In order to do live according to this formula, Kant said, we must have what he believed was the greatest good that there is—a good will. As he wrote, “It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will.”

When presented in the midst of writings from utilitarians and other consequentialists, Kant’s thinking holds a strong appeal to a Christian. Kant’s rejection of consequentialism is certainly one reason why his philosophy is so attractive. In many ways Jesus was the ultimate non-consequentialist; after all, he told his disciples and others not to tell people about certain miracles he performed (Mt 16:20, Mt 8:4) and willingly gave himself up to the provincial authorities. Furthermore, Kant’s philosophy comes close to the ideas of many Christians in several areas. For example, his idea of a good will approximates the virtue ethics held by many Christians, and his belief that moral truths can be determined by man echoes Aquinas’s commitment to using reason to arrive at the natural law.

However, there are certainly objections that Christians have to Kant’s philosophy. For one thing, Kant saw happiness as incompatible with a moral lifestyle. This could not be farther from Christian doctrine. While the faithful life may certainly cause difficulties, we are promised that virtue will ultimately bring happiness. For philosophers, this is the Aristotelian, virtue ethics approach—there is a motivation towards doing what is right that is inherent in our nature, and it is in keeping with this aspect of our nature that we receive full fulfillment and become happy. As Elihu tells Job, “If they obey and serve him, they spend their days in prosperity, their years in happiness” (Job 36, 11); as the master told the servant who had traded the five talents for another five, doing right will yield joy and prosperity for us: “Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.” (Mt 25, 21)

Kant also contrasts in many interesting ways with Aquinas. Kant and Aquinas were, in my opinion, men of similar thought. Both were convinced that there existed a set of universal laws that could be determined by men and women, and both prized logical reasoning as the key to determining this law. Some have even interpreted Aquinas as saying that God is bound by the rules of logic (although, of course, those may be rules he himself set down). Kant’s philosophy also overlapped with Aquinas’s in its focus on a good will. While Aquinas has been called a consequentialist for his view that the right is to be subordinate to the good, he believed that what was most important was that one was pursuing the good. However, for Aquinas doing what is good never must, and I would venture never will, conflict with the good.

This last point is where Christian thought most diverges from Kant. Christians see an integration of morality and happiness, of joy in Heaven and the possibility of joy on Earth. The dilemmas that faced Kant—the necessity of giving up happiness to live morally, and the conflict between doing what is right and doing what benefits the greater good—do not exist in Christian conceptions of morality. While Kant shared many of Jesus’ values, such as those of a good will and the universality of the moral law, he did differ in this one important way. Though there may be times when the moral life brings unhappiness or when doing what is good does not seem to be what is right, Christ, Scripture, and Christian tradition assure us that it all will find union.