Kant in the Time of Coronavirus: What can Immanuel Kant’s moral law tell us about the Covid-19 epidemic?
By: Reha Kuldaşlı
Tags: Philosophy, Ethics, Morality, Immanuel Kant, Coronavirus

Kant in the Time of Coronavirus: What can Immanuel Kant’s moral law tell us about the Covid-19 epidemic? Reha Kuldaşlı Mar 18, 2020·4 min read

(Click here for the original article that I published in Turkish.)

It is now an undeniable fact that the new coronavirus (Covid-19) epidemic is an unprecedented public health problem (unprecedented at least for our generation). However, as with all large-scale problems, this threat poses many dilemmas, and also poses a moral problem: When our interests, desires, even so simple wishes such as socializing and going out pose a fatal threat to others, how we should act? And according to which principle? Only by measuring the soundness of our principles of behavior can we understand whether we are acting right when fighting an invisible threat. In such days, Immanuel Kant can help us with his understanding of moral law and duty ethics.

Before discussing by what principles we can act in the context of the coronavirus epidemic, let’s take a look at Immanuel Kant’s understanding of morality and duty, without drowning in technical details.

Actions have ends. According to Kant, while all beings in nature act subject to the laws of nature, rational (intelligent) beings govern their behaviors by their conceptionof the law. The principles we apply while organizing our behaviors are the imperatives that express an “ought”. Conditional imperatives, which have a different end than itself, cannot be a law, but can only offer us counsel.

In this sense, Kant’s moral law is formal, that is, without content: It takes its power from its universality. According to Kant, moral law should be universal as it is law; in other words, it should be a valid and solid principle for all rational beings. This is the basis of the “categorical imperative” approach, it is categorical in that it is not subject to any condition other than itself. Therefore, to say “I want to be protected from corona disease”, just like saying “I want to be happy” in the subjective level, cannot be a universal principle, since we cannot establish universality from here, as the law, by definition, is not tailored to the individual needs or subjective ends. Moreover, if we continue our lives as if nothing happened unless we are “coronavirus-positive” or keep saying “nothing will happen to me anyways”, we will undermine our end in the long term because we will cause the disease to spread further. In Kantian terms, there is an “inconsistency” or contradiction here.

The famous “test of universality” offered by Kant in the context of moral law can help us right here. We are looking for a principle more or less like this: I have to act in such a way that the principle (or maxim) of my behavior can be a law that applies universally to all rational beings, and when everyone acts according to this law, the principle does not contradict itself, that is, it does not eliminate its very possibility. To find the criterion we need to ask: Am I acting on a principle that every rational entity can consistently wish to be valid for all rational beings?

An important point here is that humanity itself is not a means that serves another end, but an end-in-itself: a principle that does not respect the “humanity” in myself and others cannot be universal. So, for example, those who seek to escape from quarantine measures, requesting special treatment through bribing etc., and some people keep live as if nothing has happened while everyone is taking strict precautions, is disrespect for human dignity and equality to say the least.

The imperative requires equal treatment of all rational beings. Therefore, if we apply Kant’s test to the context of the Covid-19 epidemic, we should perhaps ask ourselves every day: If my action was a law, if everyone was compelled to act this way (for example, as a government measure) whether or not I still want to do it. For example, if we do not disinfect our hands in public transportation, we need to consider the following: Do I want to ban hand disinfectants? Because when I do not disinfect myself, I would forbid disinfection in my capacity of a universal legislator because of my rationality (laws, by definition, have no exception). If I want to go to the shopping mall, I have to think about this: If going to the shopping mall was made compulsory by a government decree, would I still want to go? If the answer is no, refraining from doing this is not a simple choice, but a duty. Therefore, if I do not want to contract the disease, the only thing I must do is to ensure that the disease is not transmitted to anyone, and to bear in mind that my every single action affects all humanity: This is our duty as rational beings.

Finally, while saying that all rational beings are ends in themselves and not means, it is important to remember and never forget that healthcare workers who fight this epidemic are also ends in themselves, not means. Undoubtedly, each of us wants to be healthy, but treating healthcare workers as “means” to protect our health also means violating the moral law. It is not only a vital necessity but also the moral duty of each of us to support them in this challenging struggle, to facilitate their work and to appreciate their right to health and dignity.