Kant is normally considered a deontologist because it’s said that he’s about duty towards reason and doing what is good simply because it is good, which he is, and it is often claimed that his viewpoint is polar to consequentialism, which is what I am about to question.
Kant says always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law - this is commonly known as the categorical imperative. But what is it about the maxim that makes you want to will it to be a universal law? Well, if you murdered someone, then that maxim would become a universal law and the consequence of this would be very bad indeed, for you and for others, and you wouldn‘t want that to be a universal law so to murder would be to contradict yourself. So you will the opposite, which is considered good and a non-contradiction. But what is it about the maxim that makes it good? Kant would argue that it’s good because it’s good in itself and is a non-contradiction, but I would disagree. I would say it’s good because of the consequences of the maxim - i.e. the outcome.
Now that we’ve covered why I consider Kant’s categorical imperative to be of a conseqeuntialist nature, we now need to explain why I consider it altruistic too. The formula of autonomy clearly states the categorical imperative, doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do and not because you expect a reward or fame, hence you’re not doing it for yourself, but you’re doing it for others. Although, I dear say, it could be argued that it’s an egoist form of consequentialism and that you will the categorical imperative and don’t murder others because you yourself don’t want to be murdered - a form of I scratch your back and you scratch mine.
Now, I’ve only be acquainted with Kant’s ethical thought since Christmas day, so I probably don’t have a good enough understanding of his theories or have made some terrible contradiction somewhere in my argument. But this was simply a thought I had while reading and re-reading his “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Moralsâ€. I would like and would be very grateful for other people to comment on this little thought of mine.
Cheers,
Ponty.