Episode 6 of Michael Sandel’s Harvard course introduces Immanuel Kant, who Sandel calls the hardest philosopher in the course. Part One explains Kant’s idea of freedom as autonomy and why only the motive of duty gives an action moral worth. Part Two organizes the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals around three contrasts and reaches two versions of the categorical imperative. Kant answers the problem left by Episode 4 and Episode 5: a basis for human dignity that rests neither on utility nor on self-ownership. For the full course map, see the course index.

Key takeaways

For Kant, dignity rests on our capacity for reason and autonomy, not on owning ourselves (2:47).
Doing what you want is not freedom; acting on a law you give yourself is (7:37). Following desire is heteronomy.
Moral worth lies in the motive, not the consequences, and only the motive of duty counts (13:46).
There is one moral law, because it comes from the reason all rational beings share (26:15).
Three parallel contrasts lead to the categorical imperative: duty/inclination, autonomy/heteronomy, categorical/hypothetical (30:15).
Two formulas: universalize your maxim, and treat humanity never merely as a means (40:52; 48:04).

Chapter notes

0:33 – 5:02 Why Kant, and what dignity rests on

Kant was an unsalaried lecturer at Königsberg, paid by how many students came (0:58). He published his first major work, the Critique of Pure Reason, at 57. The course reads his Groundwork, which asks two things: what is the supreme principle of morality, and how is freedom possible?

Kant rejects utilitarianism, but not the way the libertarians did. Persons are not sacred because they own themselves. They are sacred because they are rational and autonomous beings. Kant grants that the utilitarians were “half right”: we do seek pleasure and avoid pain. He denies that pain and pleasure are our “sovereign masters”, as Bentham claimed in Episode 2.

Engraved portrait of Immanuel Kant in a powdered wig, signed E. Kant, shown on the gold-and-red title template — 1:06 — Sandel introduces Kant, the philosopher he calls the hardest in the course, who will ground human dignity in reason and autonomy rather than in self-ownership.

5:02 – 12:54 Freedom as autonomy

Usually we think freedom means getting what we want without obstacles. Kant disagrees. When we chase pleasure or satisfy an appetite, we are obeying impulses we did not choose, which he treats as natural necessity. Sandel’s example is the old Sprite slogan “obey your thirst”: choosing Sprite over Pepsi feels free, but you are obeying a thirst, or a desire shaped by advertising.

Title card headed Kant's Conception of Freedom: to act freely equals to act autonomously — 7:36 — The definition the rest of the episode depends on. Autonomy means giving yourself a law. The opposite, heteronomy, means your will is set from outside, by nature, desire or social pressure.

Title card headed Kant's Conception of Freedom. Autonomy: to act freely; to act according to a law I give myself. Heteronomy: to act according to desires I haven't chosen myself — 8:42 — The completed freedom card sets autonomy against heteronomy. Acting on a desire you did not choose, even getting what you want, counts as heteronomy for Kant.

A dropped billiard ball isn’t acting freely; it follows the law of gravity. When we act on inclination, we are instruments of ends given from outside. When we act autonomously, we choose the end itself, which makes us ends in ourselves. That is the source of dignity, and the real reason utilitarianism goes wrong. Even if Mill’s long-run calculation always came out in favor of rights, the utilitarian would respect people for an instrumental, contingent reason, which is still using them (12:03).

12:54 – 20:52 Moral worth and the motive of duty

What gives an action moral worth is the motive, not the result. A good will is good in itself; even if it achieves nothing, Kant says it would “shine like a jewel for its own sake” (14:12). An act must not only conform to the moral law but be done for its sake. The opposite of duty is inclination: every desire, preference or impulse, including sympathy and altruism.

Title card headed Kant's Conception of Morality: moral worth of an action depends on motive (do the right thing for the right reason) — 14:16 — Kant's turn from freedom to morality. Moral worth lies in the motive, not in the consequences: the right thing must be done for the right reason.

Quotation card from Immanuel Kant: A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, it is good in itself. Even if by utmost effort the good will accomplishes nothing it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself — 14:31 — The jewel passage in full. Its point is the one the chapter turns on: success adds nothing to a good will, so moral worth has to be found in the motive.

Title card reading Morality: duty vs. inclination — 15:24 — The first contrast. Only the motive of duty confers moral worth; every desire, preference or impulse falls under inclination.

Kant’s examples, plus two of Sandel’s:

The shopkeeper gives a naive customer correct change only to protect his reputation: right act, wrong reason, no moral worth.
Suicide: the clear case of the duty to preserve oneself is someone miserable who stays alive because it is their duty.

Full-page Better Business Bureau newspaper advertisement reading Honesty is the best policy. It's also the most profitable. — 18:50 — The Better Business Bureau's ad, a modern version of Kant's shopkeeper. On Kant's view, honesty adopted because it is profitable lacks moral worth, however good the result.

The honor code: a university offered students local-shop discounts for signing a pledge not to cheat. Signing for the discount is the shopkeeper again.

20:52 – 28:00 Two student challenges

A student asks: what if the shopkeeper’s motive is simply wanting to be a good person? Sandel says Kant allows one non-selfish incentive, reverence for the moral law. A shopkeeper who acts from that reverence is acting from duty, so his act counts.

Ahmady asks a deeper question. If autonomy means following a law I give myself, what stops morality from being subjective, with a different law for each person (24:00)? Kant’s answer: there is one moral law, not a thousand. The reason that gives the law is pure practical reason, the same in everyone and not shaped by anyone’s upbringing or interests. Exercising it, we all reach the same law.

A student in a white shirt and glasses holding a microphone, speaking from the audience — 24:04 — Ahmady asks: if autonomy means following a law I give myself, what stops morality from becoming subjective? Kant's answer is that pure practical reason, shared by all, yields one moral law.

Our note: this is where Kant differs most from the idea of “following your conscience”. Autonomy in Kant’s sense is not self-expression; it is reason acting without dependence on anything particular about you.

28:54 – 36:08 Part Two: the motive contrast and the spelling bee

Sandel promises the class will “get Kant” this week and gives a map: three contrasts that run in parallel.

Title card reading Immanuel Kant: What is the supreme principle of morality? — 30:26 — The question Part Two sets out to answer, one of the two big questions of the Groundwork.

Title card headed Kant's Three Contrasts with rows for motives, determination of will and imperatives; only the first row is filled in: duty vs. inclination — 31:39 — The map starts with the motive contrast, duty versus inclination, which the rest of this chapter tests with student objections and the spelling bee.

A student objects that people almost always have some selfish motive, so is any action ever moral? Sandel answers that Kant doesn’t deny mixed motives. Moral worth comes from our ability to rise above self-interest and act from duty.

He tests this with a spelling bee. A 13-year-old named Andrew won on the word “echolalia” but told the judges he had misspelled it; the New York Times called him a hero. But he also said he “didn’t want to feel like a slime” (34:20). Vasco says it depends on which motive predominated. Judith gives the answer Sandel endorses: feelings can support doing right without spoiling moral worth, provided they are not the reason for acting.

Newspaper clipping headlined Misspeller Is a Spelling Bee Hero, with a photograph of a boy and a smiling woman — 34:10 — The New York Times story Sandel reads, with Andrew pictured with his mother. His remark that he didn't want to feel like a slime raises the question of mixed motives.

36:08 – 40:25 Autonomy, and two kinds of imperative

The second contrast links morality to freedom: my will is free only when determined autonomously, by reason rather than by nature. The third contrast is how reason commands. An imperative is an “ought”. A hypothetical imperative is instrumental: if you want a good business reputation, don’t shortchange customers. A categorical imperative commands without reference to any further purpose.

Quotation card from Immanuel Kant: if the action would be good solely as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical — 39:28 — Kant's own statement of the third contrast: a hypothetical imperative commands an act as a means to something else, a categorical one commands it as good in itself.

Title card headed Kant's Three Contrasts with three rows completed: motives, duty; determination of will, autonomous; imperatives, categorical — 39:58 — The completed map. The right-hand column lines up: acting from duty = willing autonomously = obeying a categorical imperative. Keep this card in mind for the rest of the Kant lectures.

40:25 – 45:49 Formula of universal law

The first version: act only on a maxim you could will to become a universal law. A maxim is the rule or reason behind your act. Sandel’s example: borrowing $100 with a promise to repay that you know you can’t keep. Universalize it and no one believes promises any more; the maxim defeats itself (42:17).

Title card headed The Categorical Imperative, The Formula of Universal Law: Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law — 41:07 — The first formula. Sandel tests it on a false promise to repay a $100 loan.

Tim objects that this is consequentialist: you avoid lying because you don’t want to destroy promising. Sandel notes that Mill made the same criticism, and says Mill was wrong. Universalizing is a test, not the reason. It checks whether you are treating your own needs and circumstances as more important than everyone else’s.

A student in a green shirt and glasses holding a microphone, gesturing as he speaks — 43:20 — Tim objects that the universalization test sounds like consequentialist reasoning. Sandel replies that Mill made the same criticism and was wrong: the test checks whether you privilege your own interests, it is not the reason.

45:49 – 53:24 Formula of humanity as an end

The second version is more intuitive. A categorical imperative needs something of absolute worth, an end in itself, and Kant says rational beings are such ends. Persons have dignity; things have only relative value.

Title card headed The Categorical Imperative listing The Formula of Universal Law and, highlighted, The Formula of Humanity as End — 46:25 — Sandel turns to the second version of the categorical imperative, which he presents as more intuitive than the first.

Quotation card from Immanuel Kant: But suppose, however, there were something whose existence has in itself an absolute value, an end in itself; then in it, and in it alone, would there be the ground of a possible categorical imperative — 46:58 — Kant states the condition first: a categorical imperative needs something of absolute worth to rest on. The next card names what that something is.

Quotation card from Immanuel Kant: I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use by this or that will — 47:31 — The step that grounds the second formula: rational beings exist as ends in themselves, so they have absolute worth rather than a relative value for us.

Quotation card from Immanuel Kant: act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end — 48:04 — The formula of humanity. Two phrases matter: "in your own person" (duties to yourself count too) and "never simply as a means" (using people is allowed; using them merely as means is not).

The false promise fails this test as well: it manipulates you as a means to my $100. The formula also explains why Kant treats suicide like murder (49:23). Both use a rational being as a means to some particular purpose, and the humanity in me deserves the same respect as the humanity in you. Kantian respect differs from love or sympathy: it is owed to the universal capacity for reason, not to anyone’s particular qualities.

Patrick objects that we use ourselves and others as means every day, such as writing a paper or buying food from a clerk. Sandel agrees that this is fine, as long as we treat people consistently with respect for their dignity.

A student in a red T-shirt and glasses holding a microphone, standing beside a gold pillar — 52:06 — Patrick objects that we use ourselves and others as means every day. Sandel agrees: what Kant forbids is using people merely as means, without respect for their dignity.

Skip list

0:00 – 0:33 Funding credits.
0:58 – 1:55 Kant’s career details; nice color, not needed for the argument.
28:00 – 28:54 A preview clip on suicide and murder, which plays in full at 49:23.
32:58 – 33:28 Guessing what “echolalia” means.
53:50 – end Website promo and credits.

Glossary

Autonomy — acting according to a law you give yourself through reason; Kant’s definition of freedom.
Heteronomy — having your will determined from outside, by desire, nature or circumstance.
Motive of duty — doing the right thing because it is right; for Kant, the only motive that confers moral worth.
Inclination — any desire, interest or feeling that moves you to act, including sympathy.
Maxim — the rule or principle that states the reason for an action.
Hypothetical imperative — a conditional command: if you want X, do Y.
Categorical imperative — an unconditional command of reason; the supreme principle of morality.
Dignity — the absolute, non-tradeable worth of rational beings, in contrast to the price of things.

FAQ

What does Kant mean by freedom?

For Kant, acting freely means acting autonomously: according to a law you give yourself through reason. Following a desire or appetite you did not choose, even getting what you want, is heteronomy, which Kant treats as obeying nature rather than acting freely.

Why does Kant's shopkeeper lack moral worth?

The shopkeeper gives correct change only because cheating might hurt his reputation and business. He does the right thing for the wrong reason, self-interest, and for Kant only actions done from the motive of duty have moral worth.

What is the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative?

A hypothetical imperative says: if you want X, do Y; it is means-end reasoning. A categorical imperative commands without depending on any further purpose. Kant argues that only a categorical imperative can be the supreme principle of morality.

Does Kant's formula of humanity forbid using other people at all?

No. Sandel answers a student that we use people as means all the time, such as a store clerk. What Kant forbids is treating someone merely as a means, in a way that fails to respect them as a rational being, as a false promise does.

Studying another course? Paste its YouTube or Bilibili link on the home page to request a handout — or make your own with the desktop app (coming soon).