Dass 1

Calvin Dass
Professor Nancy Sherman
PHIL 010 07
7th of November 2016
Prompt 1: The Deferential Husband
In this paper, I will discuss the deferential husband from the perspective of Kant. The
case of the deferential husband is where a husband places his wifes preferences before his: he
buys flowers that she prefers instead of the ones he prefers, he cooks meals that she prefers
instead of meals that he personally enjoys, and he defers long term plans so that he and his wife
can move wherever her job requires. He views her preferences as more viable that his own. I will
argue that the deferential husband is not compatible with Kants moral injunction in certain
situations as he does not treat himself as an end-in-himself, however, the deferential husband
can be compatible with Kants moral injunction depending on the motives behind his actions.
To argue this thesis, I will first provide a basic explanation of Kants theory. Then I will
evaluate the situation using the methods provided by Kants theory. In order to consider different
perspectives, I will outline potential situations and objections and provide justification as to why
the deferential husband is or is not compatible with Kants moral injunction for each analysis.
Kants moral theory is based on the fact that our morals are a result of our innate ability
to reason. Moreover, any being that is able to reason is considered a moral agent, and as a result,
we as individuals who can reason are considered moral agents. Furthermore, Kant states that we
have the responsibility to treat all moral agents, beings with the ability to reason, with respect:
we are all a part of a moral commonwealth. Kant also believes that An action done from duty
has its moral worth, not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim in accordance with

Dass 2
which it is decided upon (Kant, 1998, p 400). In essence, we must not assess our actions for the
outcomes they produce, but the intent behind action itself: a maxim. Kant realizes these beliefs
through a tool called the Categorical Imperative which evaluates the maxim of a moral agent to
determine whether or not said action is morally permissible. Within the Categorical Imperative,
there are four formulae which Kant believed to be equivalent to each other. In order to analyze
this situation properly, I will assess the maxim of the deferential husband using a few of these
formulae: The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature, where the moral agent must act as if
their maxim would be possible if it was implemented as a law of nature (Kant, 1998, p 421) and
The Formula of Humanity, where the moral agent must regard all moral agents never as a mere
means to an end, but also, at the same time, as an end in themselves (Kant, 1998, p 428).
Using the moral groundwork that Kant provides us, I will now analyze the actions of the
deferential husband as well as the maxim he holds. The deferential husband adopts an attitude of
servility which is best described by Thomas Hill in the article Servility and Self-Respect. Hill
provides the perspective that by being servile, one [fails] to understand and acknowledge ones
own moral rights (Hill, 1985, p 664). However, Hill also states that if the motive is a morally
commendable one, or a desire to avert dire consequences to oneself, or even an ambition to set
up an oppressor for a later fall, then I would not count the role player as servile (Hill, 1985, p
665). Due to the lack of information in regards to the husband and wifes relationship, it is not
possible for us to determine the maxim of the husband with certainty. However, a potential
maxim of the deferential husband could be that he defers to his wifes preferences because he
loves her. Taking this maxim into consideration, I will analyze it using the different formulae of
the Categorical Imperative.

Dass 3
The Formula of Humanity states that a moral agent must never treat any moral agent as a
mere means but also as an end in themselves. While the deferential husband is not treating
anyone as a mere means to an end, he is not treating himself as an end-in-himself. This is best
illustrated through an example provided by Kant: A third finds himself a talent whose
cultivation would make him a useful man for all sorts of purposes. But he sees himself in
comfortable circumstances, and prefers to give himself up to pleasure rather than to bother about
increasing and improving his fortunate natural aptitudes. Kant then continues to say that even
though it is possible for the maxim of this individual to be a universal law, it is not possible for
this individual to will this maxim to be a universal law due to rationality (Kant, 1998, p 423).
Essentially, what this demonstrates is that one must cultivate their own talents and not defer to
what they feel comfortable with as they have a duty to further their own ends because of their
rationality. By deferring to his wifes preferences, he does not allow himself to cultivate his own
talents and therefore he doesnt treat himself as an end-in-himself.
I will now explore a possible objection of this claim as one could argue that it is possible
for the actions of the deferential husband to be permissible if analyzed using the Formula of the
Universal Law, which states that a moral agent should act as if their maxim was a universal law.
If everyone was to defer to their significant others preferences, it would be possible for the
world to exist as everyone would be furthering each others ends and satisfying the duty people
have to their own ends. This would make the maxim permissible according to the Formula of the
Universal law and the Formula of Humanity. However, through further understanding of the
problem, it is possible to see that the Formula of the Universal Law does not take into
consideration that this maxim would have to be a universal law in order for it to be viable: The
Formula of the Universal Law states that a moral agent must act as if it was a universal law but

Dass 4
does not provide the moral agent guidance if the maxim is not being applied universally. In the
example, it does not state that the husband expresses his own preferences to his wife. By
preventing his wife from deferring to his preferences, he violates the Formula of Humanity by
not allowing others to treat him as an end-in-himself.
I will now introduce the Formula of Autonomy, as this will provide further clarity to the
above situation. The Formula of Autonomy is the Idea of the will of every rational being as a
will which makes universal law (Kant, 1998, p 431). Essentially, this formula states that one
must respect others as rational beings whose morals are based of their ability to reason. By not
sharing his preferences with his wife, the deferential husband does not enable his wife to create
or adopt her own maxims. From the wifes perspective, the ends of the deferential husband are
the same as her own ends. The wife does not have all the information needed to rationally create
her own maxims. Therefore, the act of withholding information from his wife is not morally
permissible as it violates this formula in the Categorical Imperative.
I will now analyze this situation with a different maxim to ensure a complete
understanding of all possible interpretations. If the husband had a desire to avert dire
consequences to oneself (Hill, 1985, p 665), then the maxim that the deferential husband holds
would be considered morally permissible by the Categorical Imperative as he would be
satisfying the Formula of Humanity as he would not be treating himself or his wife as a mere
means as well as furthering his and his wifes ends. Moreover, he would be satisfying the
Formula of Universal Law as it would be possible for the world to exist if the deferential
husbands maxim was a universal law. The Formula of Autonomy does not apply to this situation
as the wife is able to make her own maxims. As a result, the maxim of the deferential husband
would be morally compatible with Kants moral theory. It is important to note that a change of

Dass 5
maxim makes the same action permissible. This demonstrates the importance of the moral
agents maxim behind their action as this can determine whether or not an action is morally
permissible.
By analyzing the situations above, it is possible to determine the situations in which it
would be possible for the deferential husbands maxims to be compatible with Kants moral
junction: if the deferential husband does not treat himself as an end-in-himself, then his actions
are not compatible with Kants moral injunction; if the deferential husband is deferring to his
wifes preferences in order to further his own end, then he is compatible with Kants moral
injunction. It is through these situations that one can understand that even though the husband is
executing the same action, the maxim which the husband holds is what determines whether or
not his actions are morally permissible.

Dass 6
Works Cited
Hill, Thomas E. "Servility and Self Respect." Comp. Sommers. Vice and Virtue in Everyday
Life: Introductory Readings in Ethics. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985.
658-71. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.