TRACTATUS LOGICO affairs, and propositions mirror facts.

The totality of true

propositions is the totality of language just as the totality
PHILOSOPHICUS of facts is the world. A proposition is a logical picture of
reality: the elements of a proposition are arranged in such
GENERAL SUMMARY a way that they resemble the reality they represent, just as
the elements of a portrait are arranged in such a way that
The opening pages of the Tractatus (sections 1–2.063) deal they resemble the person they represent.
with ontology—what the world is fundamentally made Signs are given meaning through their use in propositions,
up of. The basic building blocks of reality are simple so it follows that if a sign is used in two different ways we
objects combined to form states of affairs. Any possible are actually dealing with two different signs. For instance,
state of affairs can either be the case or not be the case, the "is" in "John is tall" is different from the "is" in "John is
independent of all other states of affairs. The world is the the captain of the guard."
totality of all states of affairs that are the case. States of While a picture can represent a fact by means of sharing
affairs can be combined together to form complex facts. its logical form, this logical form itself cannot be depicted.
States of affairs are combinations of objects. Objects are We cannot say what the logical form of a proposition or
utterly simple and unanalyzable, and they can exist only fact is, but this form shows itself in the way the
in the context of states of affairs. They have a logical form proposition or fact is held together. Similarly, the logical
that determines the ways in which they can be combined connections between states of affairs and between
into states of affairs, and they fit into these states of affairs elementary propositions show themselves, so that there is
"like links in a chain" (2.03). That is, they fit together by no need for logical objects (like "and" and "not") to hold
virtue of their logical form alone, and do not need them together. Wittgenstein calls the observation that
something extra (like a relational object) to hold them logical objects do not represent anything his "fundamental
together. idea" (4.0312).
From 2.1 to 4.128, the discussion deals with the question Most of the problems of philosophy arise when people try
of how language works so that it can describe the world to talk about things that can only be shown, such as the
accurately. According to Wittgenstein, language consists logical structure of the world or language. Wittgenstein
of propositions that are complexes built from simple, distinguishes between formal concepts (e.g. "x is a
elementary propositions. Elementary propositions are number"), which cannot be spoken about, and concepts
unanalyzable and consist solely of names. Language proper (e.g. "x is a horse"), which are the legitimate
mirrors reality by sharing its logical form. Thus, names constituents of propositions. Philosophy, unlike science, is
mirror objects, elementary propositions mirror as states of not a body of propositions. It should be thought of as the
activity of clarifying the often obscure logical structure of Propositions of the form "A believes that p" do not relate a
language and thought. proposition, p, to a person, A. Rather, they relate p to the
Starting at 4.2, Wittgenstein discusses logic. At 4.31, he verbal expression of p, so that what we are really saying is
introduces truth tables, a notation that makes clear that we "'p' says that p."
can represent propositions and their truth-conditions That both language and the world share the same limits
without making use of logical connectives. There are three leads to the reflection that solipsism is correct in the claim
kinds of propositions: tautologies, which are always true, that "the world is my world" (5.62). However, the thesis of
contradictions, which are always false, and propositions solipsism cannot be put into language, but can only show
with a sense, which can be true or false depending on what itself. With regard to everything that can be said, there is
is or is not the case in the world. One proposition follows no difference between solipsism and pure realism, so
from another if that proposition is true whenever the other Wittgenstein suggests the distinction between the two is
proposition is true. We do not need laws of inference to an artificial development of muddled philosophy.
tell us what follows from what, as this is clear from the
structure of the propositions themselves. Wittgenstein Mathematics is a logical method derived from the
also shows how logical form can explain probability. repeated application of operations. The number 2, for
instance, is the exponent given to an operation that is
We can generate new propositions out of old ones by applied twice. Thus, the propositions of mathematics do
means of operations. The successive application of an not say anything about the world, but only reflect the
operation produces a series of new propositions. Given the method in which propositions are constructed.
elementary propositions, we can generate all other The laws of science are not logical laws, nor are they
propositions by successive application of the operation empirical observations. Rather, they constitute an
that negates all the propositions it is applied to. interpretive method, by means of which we can more
The propositions of logic are all tautologies, and so are all accurately describe reality. Science is ultimately
equivalent. We do not need axioms or laws of inference to descriptive, not explanatory.
tell us how to proceed in logic, since this should make
itself manifest. "Logic must look after itself" (5.473): we There is no perspective external to the world from which
should not need external laws to tell us how proceed with we can talk about the world or its contents generally. Thus,
logic since there is nothing external to logic. Wittgenstein statements of value (as we find in ethics or aesthetics) are
also shows how signs for generality and identity are nonsense, since they evaluate the world as a whole. The
unnecessary to logic. feeling of life as a limited whole is what Wittgenstein calls
"the mystical."
The only correct method in philosophy is to remain silent
about philosophical questions, and to point out to anyone
who tries to talk philosophy that he or she is talking
nonsense. The propositions of the Tractatus themselves
make general statements about the nature of the world,
and so they too are nonsense. They should serve only as a
ladder to be climbed and then discarded. "What we cannot
speak about we must pass over in silence" (7).
PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS to explain the functioning of language in a variety of
contexts. It has been pointed out that while many of the
arguments in the Philosophical Investigations can be viewed
Philosophical Investigations is the work of one of the most
as attempts to correct errors in philosophy as a whole, a
creative and controversial philosophers of the twentieth
number of Wittgenstein’s discussions are seemingly
century. In it, Ludwig Wittgenstein presents his ideas
attempts to correct or refute positions that he set out in the
concerning the nature of mind and language, often
earlier
focusing on the relation between language and states of
consciousness. The book is composed of numbered The Investigations open with a quote from St.
sections of various lengths that were compiled from notes Augustine's Confessions, which describes the process of
that the author kept but never published. Unlike learning language in terms of learning the names of
Wittgenstein’s earlier work the Tractatus Logico-
objects. It appears that there is nothing wrong with saying
Philosophicus (1921; English-German bilingual edition,
that words name things and that we teach people the
1922), composed of meticulously numbered aphorisms in
meanings of words by pointing to the objects that they
the form of a mathematical proof, the Philosophical
name. The trouble arises when we take this connection
Investigations gives the impression of an informal
between word and thing as the fundamental relationship
discussion covering a wide range of the author’s concerns.
that fixes language to the world. This relationship can only
be seen to exist once a great deal of the machinery of
Born in Vienna in 1899 to a wealthy Austrian family, language, context, and usage are already in place. We
Wittgenstein studied engineering but soon shifted his
would not say the words in a four-word language between
interest to the more theoretical areas of mathematics and
builders, consisting of "block!" "pillar!" "slab!" and "beam!"
philosophy. Wittgenstein studied at Cambridge with
are names of objects, because they can only be understood
philosophers Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore. It was at
as such in contrast to names of colors, prepositions,
Cambridge where Wittgenstein’s unusual capacity for
adjectives, and the like. Meaning is not fixed by the
philosophical inquiry first came to the attention of the relationship between words and things, but by how words
academic world. It was also there that Wittgenstein began are used.
to develop the philosophy that was to make him famous
in the following years.
Talking about "the meaning of a word" misleads us into
Continuing Wittgenstein’s lifelong interest in language
thinking that there are fixed boundaries and strict
and mind, Philosophical Investigations introduces the
definitions that determine our use of a word. If we
concept of the “language-game,” which Wittgenstein uses
examine how words are used, we will see this is not the
case. No definition of the word "game" can include Wittgenstein gives an example. He asks, what justifies my
everything that is a game and exclude everything that is assumption that in the series, "Add two," "1002" should
not a game. The relationship between various uses of the follow "1000"? If someone wrote "1004" after "1000" and
word "game" is like the relationship between various claimed he thought that was what I meant by "Add two,"
members of a family: a resemblance exists, but we cannot how could I show him he was wrong? Any rule or
give this resemblance any rigid definition. The boundaries justification I provide is just as liable to be misunderstood
that determine the meanings of words are not sharp. as the initial order, "Add 2." There is nothing grounding
our rule following behavior any more than there is
Wittgenstein says that the purpose of these investigations anything that fixes absolutely how we should follow a
is not to bring to light any complex or hidden theories that signpost or an arrow. This is not to say that we choose
underlie and explain the surface features of language. randomly or that rules fall apart. For the most part, we do
Instead, Wittgenstein wants us to recognize that there is not think of "interpreting" rules; we simply follow them.
nothing beneath this surface. The correct method in Our understanding of one another is not fixed by any
philosophy is to assemble reminders of how language is ultimate ground of justification, but by our shared
actually used so that people who are tempted to develop participation in certain forms of life.
this or that metaphysical theory will recognize that they
are misusing language. Because the functioning of language relies on shared
practices and forms of life, the concept of a private
For instance, we are tempted to think of understanding, language is nonsensical. There would be no use in forming
thinking, meaning, intending, and so on, as distinctly a private language that described inner sensations in a
mental processes. According to this idea, if I can speak way that only one person could understand them, because
with or without thinking, the thinking must be an there would be no criteria fixing the proper use of the
intangible mental act that underlies the speech. words. Talk about inner sensations is not parallel to talk
Wittgenstein sets about demolishing this notion, first with about outer things, except that with inner sensations, the
a grammatical investigation of the words "understanding" objects referred to are not open to public view. The notions
and "reading." Our criteria for determining whether of knowledge, doubt, and justification function in an
someone has understood something or is reading entirely different way. Other people can know I am in pain
something are not based on inner states or processes. We by observing my behavior: the fact that they cannot feel
judge that people have understood or are reading based the pain themselves is no block to their knowledge. On the
on their outward behavior. other hand, I do not "know" I am in pain, because my pain
is something I feel, not an object of knowledge.
The final three hundred sections of Part I deal with a
number of issues related to inner sensations and mental
states. The approach is manifold, but there are two general
thrusts. First, beliefs, expectations, and intentions are
defined by the outward circumstances surrounding them
and not by the mental state of the subject. Second, inner
sensations are not objects that are known only to the
subject and surmised by others.

Part II treats a number of related themes. It plays heavily

on the grammar of the word "to see," attacking the view
that what we see are only sense data, which we then
interpret as objects in the world around us. When we see
something as something we may be interpreting what we
see, but when I say, "I see a fork," I am not interpreting
what I see as a fork: I could not see it as anything but a
fork.
COMMAND THEORY OF LAW developed greater sympathy for democratic reform and
an extension of the franchise. He believed that with the
Austin’s particular theory of law is often called the gradual improvement in the level of education in society,
“command theory of law” because the concept of people would be more likely to decide and vote on the
command lies at its core. Positive law has a criterion of its basis of rational calculation of what would be for their
own, namely, the philosophy of legal positivism, which own long-term benefit, and individual rational decision-
rests on the triune concepts of sovereign, command, and making would therefore, in aggregate, increasingly tend
sanction. This simply means that any violation of the to promote the greater general happiness.
command issued by the supreme political superior or the
sovereign is an infraction thereof and subject to sanction. Bentham had first-hand knowledge of the legal profession
Utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and criticised it vehemently. He also wrote a highly
In Bentham's theory, an action conforming to the principle entertaining Handbook of Political Fallacies 1824, which
of utility is right or at least not wrong; it ought to be done, deals with the logic and rhetoric of political debate.
or at least it is not the case that it ought not be done. But
Bentham does not use the word 'duty' here. For Bentham, Bentham figured prominently among the small number of
rights and duties are legal notions, linked with the notions men who became known as phlosophical radicals, but his
of command and sanction. What we call moral duties and utilitarianism was not much discussed until the latter half
rights would require a moral legislator (a divine being of the nineteenth century. His prolific writings were
presumably) but theological notions are outside the scope published in part by devoted disciples, but some were
of his theory. To talk of natural rights and duties suggests, published for the first time in the 1940s and after, and the
as it were, a law without a legislator, and is nonsensical in publication of his complete works is still in progress.
the same way as talk of a son without a parent. Apart from Among these writings is an analysis of the logic of deontic
theoretical considerations, Bentham also condemned the concepts, and On Laws in General contains a carefully
belief in natural rights on the grounds that it inspired elaborated theory of jurisprudence."
violence and bloodshed, as seen in the excesses of the
French Revolution.

Bentham at first believed that enlightened and public-

spirited statesmen would overcome conservative
stupidity and institute progressive reforms to promote
public happiness. When disillusionment set in, he
LEGAL POSITIVISM
B. History of Legal Positivism and its Proponents
A. Definition
Legal positivism has ancient roots. Christians believe that
Positivism is from the Latin root positus, which means to the Ten Commandments have sacred and pre-eminent
posit, postulate, or firmly affix the existence of something. value in part because they were inscribed in stone by God,
Legal positivism is a school of jurisprudence whose and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai. When the ancient
advocates believe that the only legitimate sources of law Greeks intended for a new law to have permanent
are those written rules, regulations, and principles that validity, they inscribed it on stone or wood and displayed
have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a it in a public place for all to see. In classical Rome, Emperor
governmental entity or political institution, including Justinian (483-565 A.D.) developed an elaborate system of
administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies. law that was contained in a detailed and voluminous
The basic question to be asked when talking about this written code.
theory is “What is law?” Is it written? Where does it come
from? Legal positivism is a theory which answers these Prior to the American Revolution, English political
questions. thinkers John Austin and Thomas Hobbes articulated the
command theory of law, which stood for the proposition
Legal positivism is the legal philosophy which argues that that the only legal authorities that courts should recognize
any and all laws are nothing more and nothing less than are the commands of the sovereign, because only the
simply the expression of the will of whatever authority sovereign is entrusted with the power to enforce its
created them. Thus, no laws can be regarded as commands with military and police force.
expressions of higher morality or higher principles to
which people can appeal when they disagree with the Thomas Hobbes argued that “it is improbable for any
laws. It is a view that law is a social construction. The statute to be unjust”. According to him, “before the names
creation of laws is simply an exercise in brute force and an of just and unjust can take place, there must be some
expression of power, not an attempt to realize any loftier coercive power to compel men equally to the performance
moral or social goals. Therefore, from a positivist of their covenants … and such power there is none before
perspective, it can be said that “legal rules or laws are the creation of the commonwealth”. In this, he meant that
valid not because they are rooted in moral or natural law, “laws are the rules of just and unjust, nothing being
but because they are enacted by legitimate authority and reputed unjust that is not contrary to some law. For
are accepted by the society as such”. Hobbes, the sovereign is not subject to laws for having the
power to make and repeal laws for having the power to Rules are general commands (applying generally to a
make and repeal laws; he may, when he pleases, free class), as contrasted with specific or individual commands
himself from their subjection.” What he stressed is that “to (“drink wine today” or “John Major must drink wine”).
the care of the sovereign belongs the making of good Positive law consists of those commands laid down by a
laws.” Furthermore, he concludes that “all that is done by sovereign (or its agents), to be contrasted to other law-
such power is warranted and owned by every one of the givers, like God’s general commands, and the general
people, and that which every man will have so, no man commands of an employer to an employee.
can say is unjust.”
The “sovereign” is defined as a person (or determinate
John Austin on the other hand, adopted some ideas of body of persons) who receives habitual obedience from
Thomas Hobbes in his legal philosophy about the nature the bulk of the population, but who does not habitually
of law. Additionally, he was known individually for his obey any other (earthly) person or institution. Austin
“dogma” of legal positivism which states that: thought that all independent political societies, by their
nature, have a sovereign.
The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is
another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it Positive law should also be contrasted with “laws by a
be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a close analogy” (which includes positive morality, laws of
different enquiry. A law, which actually exists, is a law, honor, international law, customary law, and
though we happen to dislike it, or though it vary from the constitutional law) and “laws by remote analogy” (e.g.,
text, by which we regulate our approbation and the laws of physics).
disapprobation.
Another famous advocate of legal positivism in America’s
Austin defined law by saying that it is the “command of history is probably Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He
the sovereign”. He expounds on this further by identifying wrote that the “prophecies of what the courts will do in
the elements of the definition and distinguishing law from fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the
other concepts that are similar: law”. Holmes made a description of what positive law is
“Commands” involve an expressed wish that something in the realm of the courts. In making this statement,
be done, and “an evil” to be imposed if that wish is not Holmes was suggesting that the meaning of any written
complied with. law is determined by the individual judges interpreting
them, and until a judge has weighed in on a legal issue, the
law is ultimately little more than an exercise in trying to According to Hart, a contemporary legal positivist,
guess the way a judge will rule in a case. separation thesis is the essence of legal positivism. The
II. Approaches to Legal Positivism main point or essence of this thesis is that, the law and
morality are conceptually distinct.
According to John Austin, “the existence of the law is one
thing its merit or demerit is another. Whether it be or be In order to know what your legal rights are, you need to
not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to look at what laws your society has. In order to know what
an assumed standard, is another enquiry.” your moral rights are, you need to figure out what is the
true morality. It is possible for a person to have legal rights
The positivists do not say that the law’s merits are that the true morality says he should not have, and the
unintelligible, unimportant, or peripheral to the society might also deny a person’s legal rights that the true
philosophy of law. However, the merits of law do not morality dictates one must have.
determine whether a law or a legal system indeed exists.
However, there some conflicting views on whether there
The existence of a legal system in a society can be inferred are possible legal systems with such constraints. In
from the different structures of governance present, and inclusive positivism or also known as incorporationism or
not on the extent to which it satisfies ideals of justice, soft positivism, it is possible for a society’s rule of
democracy, or rule of law. The laws which are in force in recognition to incorporate moral constraints on the
a certain system depends on what kind of social standards content of law. Contrary to this is the exclusive positivism
its officials recognize as authoritative. They may be or also called as the hard positivism, in which it denies that
legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or social a legal system can incorporate moral constraints on legal
customs. The fact that a policy is just, wise, efficient, or validity. Some exclusive positivists subscribe to the Source
prudent is never a sufficient reason for thinking that it is Thesis. According to this, the existence and content of law
actually the law; and the fact that it is unjust, unwise, can always be determined by reference to its sources
inefficient or imprudent is never a sufficient reason for without recourse to moral arguments.
doubting it. According to positivism, law is a matter of
what has been posited. Going back to Austin’s legal positivism as explained by
the separation thesis, according to some people who have
There are many versions or interpretations of legal given interpretation to this, based on the essence of the
positivism. But perhaps, the most popular version or thesis, the law must be entirely free of moral notions.
interpretation would be that of the Separation Thesis. However, the very fact that Austin thinks that the specific
content of the law considers not only an inquiry into its political superior is the state, as a collective legal
existence, but also a separate inquiry into its merit or association under the rule of the majority.
demerit, implies that the laws can, and do at least
sometimes, reproduce or satisfy certain demands of The legal doctrine of non-suability was derived from this
morality. concept.

Herbert Hart, a legal philosopher agrees with Austin. He But it must be remembered that the exercise of the will of
explained that Austin did not actually say that the norms the supreme political superior by the government is not
of moral law and the precepts of the natural law did not absolute. When there is a deliberate and unrelenting
have any influence in the promulgation of rules and disregard of the will of the supreme political superior in
regulations. In addition to this, he also said that Austin did the exercise of governmental powers, the majority
not imply that positive law is non-moral. A person may members of the society may blunt, curb, or even deny by
argue that positive law must conform to moral and natural response the adverse governmental challenges.
law but to say that positive law is null and void simply
because it is conflicting with the moral and natural law is There are two ways of manifesting the popular response
foolish and absurd. of the people. One is by an electoral response, which is a
peaceable type. Electoral response is set not too far apart
III. THE LAW AND THE STATE/THE SUPREME nor too close to each other. The second type is the
POLITICAL SUPERIOR revolutionary response, which is an uprooting type. The
second type is not easily provoked. It happens or arises
In Thomas Hobbes’ and John Austin’s legal positivism, the only in situations or circumstances in which the people are
state is perceived as the creator and enforcer of the law having special difficulty and arouses them to engage in
who is therefore, vested with the power to “inflict an evil this kind of response in order to check and contain the
or pain in case its desire is disregarded”. Therefore, the excesses in the exercise by the government of the powers
law is the expression of the will of the state laying down delegated to it. Depending on the intensity or graveness of
the rules of action upheld by force. But this does not mean the governmental challenge, the people may decide to
that the state can do no wrong in the expression and resort to this response or not.
enforcement of its will, however, even if a wrong is done
by the state, no right can be claimed against it.
When the challenge is only minimal, most probably it will
From the concept of law of the positivists, the supreme just be ignored by the people since it is not enough to make
an impression or not enough to excite or arouse their
collective sense of antipathy. But when the challenge
reaches its maximum intensity or the challenge of the
government has assumed such tremendous proportions,
the capacity of the people to respond has been stifled. In
this kind of situation, only with outside assistance or
intervention may the will and power to resist be
bargained. But if the governmental challenge is at its
optimum intensity, the people may already act effectively,
so as not to allow the governmental challenge to succeed
and reach its maximum intensity.

There is no hard and fast rule that can be laid down with
which to measure the intensity of the challenge of the
government. However, there are some factors that can
serve as a guide. The governmental challenge’s evaluation
is a matter that addresses itself to the conscience of the
people. Therefore, the revolutionary response depends on
the combination of the conditions that produce or promise
the best average result for the people.
UTILITARIANISM In the notion of consequences the utilitarian includes all of
the good and bad produced by the act, whether arising
In normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late after the act has been performed or during its
18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and performance. If the difference in the consequences
economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart of alternative acts is not great, some utilitarians do not
Mill according to which an action is right if it tends to regard the choice between them as a moral issue.
promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the According to Mill, acts should be classified as morally
reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the right or wrong only if the consequences are of such
performer of the action but also that of everyone affected significance that a person would wish to see the agent
by it. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the view compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in
that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the preferred manner.
the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that
regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong In assessing the consequences of actions, utilitarianism
independently of their consequences (see deontological relies upon some theory of intrinsic value: something is
ethics). Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences,
that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent and all other values are believed to derive their worth
upon the motive of the agent, for, according to the from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an
utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e, they analyzed
a bad motive. Utilitarians may, however, distinguish the happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed
aptness of praising or blaming an agent from whether the that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and
act was right. disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to
compare the intrinsic values produced by two alternative
The Nature Of Utilitarianism actions and to estimate which would have better
consequences. Bentham believed that a hedonic calculus is
Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the theoretically possible. A moralist, he maintained, could
practical question “What ought a person to do?” The sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for
answer is that a person ought to act so as to produce the everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the
best consequences possible. future, and could take the balance as a measure of the
Basic concepts overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise
measurement as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not
essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the utilitarian
to make some interpersonal comparisons of the values of and perplexities that arise from the vagueness and
the effects of alternative courses of action. inconsistencies of commonsense doctrines.

Methodologies Most opponents of utilitarianism have held that it

has implications contrary to their moral intuitions—that
As a normative system providing a standard by which an considerations of utility, for example, might sometimes
individual ought to act and by which the existing practices sanction the breaking of a promise. Much of the defense of
of society, including its moral code, ought to be evaluated utilitarian ethics has consisted in answering these
and improved, utilitarianism cannot be verified or objections, either by showing that utilitarianism does not
confirmed in the way in which a descriptive theory can, have the implications that its opponents claim it has or by
but it is not regarded by its exponents as simply arbitrary. arguing against the opponents’ moral intuitions. Some
Bentham believed that only in terms of a utilitarian utilitarians, however, have sought to modify the
interpretation do words such as “ought,” “right,” and utilitarian theory to account for the objections.
“wrong” have meaning and that, whenever anyone
attempts to combat the principle of utility, he does so with Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century
reasons drawn from the principle itself. Bentham and Mill German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical
both believed that human actions are motivated entirely philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute
by pleasure and pain, and Mill saw that motivation as a for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not
basis for the argument that, since happiness is the sole end depend on any ulterior motive or end. “Thou shalt not
of human action, the promotion of happiness is the test by steal,” for example, is categorical as distinct from
which to judge all human conduct. the hypothetical imperatives associated with desire, such
as “Do not steal if you want to be popular.” For Kant there
One of the leading utilitarians of the late 19th century, was only one such categorical imperative, which he
the Cambridge philosopher Henry Sidgwick, rejected formulated in various ways. “Act only according to that
such theories of motivation as well as Bentham’s theory of maxim by which you can at the same time will that it
the meaning of moral terms and sought to support should become a universal law” is a purely formal or
utilitarianism by showing that it follows from systematic logical statement and expresses the condition of the
reflection on the morality of “common sense.” Most of the rationality of conduct rather than that of its morality,
requirements of commonsense morality, he argued, could which is expressed in another Kantian formula: “So act as
be based upon utilitarian considerations. In addition, he to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
reasoned that utilitarianism could solve the difficulties another, always as an end, and never as only a means.”
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and
principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he deserving of equal respect.
dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Kant
characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary Kant’s most influential positions in moral philosophy are
and unconditional principle that we must always follow found in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of
despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to Morals (hereafter, “Groundwork”) but he developed,
the contrary. All specific moral requirements, according to enriched, and in some cases modified those views in later
Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all works such as The Critique of Practical Reason, The
immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI. Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point
Other philosophers, such as Hobbes, Locke and Aquinas, of View, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as well
had also argued that moral requirements are based on as his essays on history and related topics. Kant’s Lectures
standards of rationality. However, these standards were on Ethics, which were lecture notes taken by three of his
either instrumental principles of rationality for satisfying students on the courses he gave in moral philosophy, also
one’s desires, as in Hobbes, or external rational principles include relevant material for understanding his views. We
that are discoverable by reason, as in Locke and Aquinas. will mainly focus on the foundational doctrines of
Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an the Groundwork, even though in recent years some
analysis of practical reason reveals the requirement that scholars have become dissatisfied with this standard
rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. approach to Kant’s views and have turned their attention
Yet he also argued that conformity to the CI (a non- to the later works. We find the standard approach most
instrumental principle), and hence to moral requirements illuminating, though we will highlight important
themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to positions from the later works where needed.
rational agency. This argument was based on his striking
doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as
autonomous, or free, in the sense of being the author of the
law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality —
the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will.
Thus, at the heart of Kant’s moral philosophy is a
conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes
well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions.
Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason
in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds