I complain a lot about Utilitarianism. But what about alternatives, like Kant’s deontological moral system?

Emmanuel Kant says We Must Act Only In Accordance With That Maxim Which We May Will To Be A Universal Law. This formulation shows that “I will cheat on my tests to pass my classes” is immoral because, if everyone cheated, then tests couldn’t be used to determine who passed, and then cheating on tests isn’t a viable strategy for passing a class.

Unfortunately this ethical system also shows that “I will be a toymaker to earn money and support myself” is also immoral because, if everyone makes toys for a living, the market is saturated with toys, no one wants to buy toys, no one makes any food, and everybody starves. Replace “toymaker” with “car salesman,” “plumber,” or “secretary” and it works out the same way. No societal division of labor is moral under Kant; we can’t pursue any profession that offers specialized goods or services for exchange within even the simplest economy.

“Ah!” you might say. “Your maxim is too specific! You should instead say something like, ‘I will do what I need to in order to earn money and support myself,’ and then people can pursue diverse employment and support an advanced industrial economy!” But if we’re allowed to be general about maxims, then “OK, I will do what I need to in order to pass my courses at school” allows me to study, or pester the teacher for a good grade, or just cheat. Either Kant wants us to cheat, or he doesn’t want us to survive except by growing our own food, weaving our own clothes, and building our own houses. Good luck if you are too young to do this; how universalizable is the maxim “I will produce nothing and be taken care of by my parents in order to survive?”

The next time someone says “I subscribe to Kantian ethics” say “Oh! Do you think being a computer programmer, a doctor, or a baby is immoral?” After that, the jokes pretty much write themselves.