These seemingly simple questions take us to a deeper ethical dilemma raised by Immanuel Kant: Does an action become moral because it produces the right outcome, or because it is performed for the right reason?
Is an action moral if the intention is not?
In a well-known passage from Kant on Education, the philosopher warned that a child taught through punishment and rewards might learn to behave well only “to get the reward.” This concept is easily understood in a classroom, at a family dinner table, or in an organisational setting. A child might follow a rule without understanding why that rule is necessary.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant states:
If you punish a child for bad behaviour and reward them for good behaviour, they will do the right thing solely to obtain the reward…
Kant did not mean that parents should ignore a child’s bad behaviour or never praise them. His perspective went much deeper. If doing the right thing depends merely on fear or reward, the lesson may not hold up in real life, where honesty is not always praised and selfishness is not always punished. So, should parents not reward their children for good deeds or acts of honesty? Perhaps not, because Kant believed there was a risk that a person might adopt a moral facade solely to obtain a reward. In that case, it would become difficult to distinguish between right and wrong, or good and bad.
This distinction matters. Outwardly, obedience may resemble morality, but internally, it might simply be a calculation: What do I get for behaving well? And what do I stand to lose if I do not?
If we consider this statement more closely, Kant suggests that when a person is rewarded for doing the right thing, the focus may shift from the moral value of the action to the reward itself.
From reward to moral responsibility
However, if parents and teachers explain that the act itself carries its own value, and that by acting with honesty and integrity, a person encourages others to treat them with the same goodness and honesty, their perspective can change. We can relate this further to Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
The first principle of Kant’s Categorical Imperative is as follows: “I should never act in such a way that I cannot accept the principle (maxim) behind my action as a ‘universal law’.” According to Kant, a “maxim” is the reason or principle behind a person’s action. A maxim becomes universal when we can reasonably will that everyone act on the same principle in a similar situation. In other words, Kant means that we should act only on the basis of reasons that we would want everyone else to act upon in a similar situation.
This requires universalisability, or the capacity to apply a principle to everyone, and reversibility, or the capacity to view a situation from another person’s perspective. It is akin to asking: “What would happen if everyone did this?” and “How would you feel if someone did this to you?”
Why the reason behind an action matters
Through this statement, Kant highlights the importance of a duty-based mindset rather than merely focusing on whether an action produces the “right” outcome.
The more the focus is placed on the reward, the more attention shifts away from the moral intent inherent in the action. This can be a significant loss, both for morality itself and for the moral agency of the human being, because it opens the door to treating a person as a means rather than as an end.
Society may then fail to develop a consciousness of self-compliance and strong internal ethical judgement. Everything becomes increasingly output- and reward-oriented rather than being guided by moral sensitivity and moral judgement.
Can rewards still have a place?
However, in a society that is more dependent on rules and compliance, where morality and goodness are often taken for granted, and where results are used to measure a person’s deeds and character, it may still be wise to notice, recognise and reward the courage of a child or an adult who holds on to their moral compass.
But there is an important distinction: a person should do what is right because it is right, not merely because it will be rewarded. Recognition and appreciation may follow, but they should not be the reason for choosing the moral path.
Post Read Questions:
1. A government official refuses to accept a bribe because they know that CCTV cameras and vigilance teams are monitoring the office. However, when the monitoring is removed, the official is willing to accept illegal payments. Can fear of punishment or the possibility of being caught make a person genuinely ethical? Discuss.
2. An employee discovers financial irregularities in their organisation. Reporting the matter could affect their career and relationship with senior colleagues, but remaining silent would allow the wrongdoing to continue. What ethical values should guide the employee’s decision? Discuss.
3. A government department uses an AI-based system to decide which applicants should receive welfare benefits. The system follows the department’s rules but repeatedly produces outcomes that disadvantage a particular group of citizens. Is following rules enough to ensure ethical outcomes? What should the officials do in such a situation?
(The writer is the author of ‘Being Good’, ‘Aaiye, Insaan Banaen’, ‘Kyon’ and ‘Ethikos: Stories Searching Happiness’. He teaches courses on and offers training in ethics, values and behaviour. He has been the expert/consultant to UPSC, SAARC countries, Civil services Academy, National Centre for Good Governance, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Competition Commission of India (CCI), National Judicial Academy, etc. He has PhD in two disciplines and has been a Doctoral Fellow in Gandhian Studies from ICSSR. His second PhD is from IIT Delhi on Ethical Decision Making among Indian Bureaucrats. He writes for the UPSC Ethics Simplified (concepts and caselets) fortnightly.)
Edited by Manas Srivastava
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on UPSC section of The Indian Express on Instagram and X.
For your queries and suggestions write at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com
PREVIOUS ARTICLES ON UPSC ETHICS SIMPLIFIED:
CJP protest: Why responses to protests are an ethics case study
Railway linen theft : A Case Study in everyday ethics
Can ethics stop the next fire tragedy?
How can India’s civil services and governance rebuild Gen Z’s trust?
CBSE row as a case study on accountability when technology fails
NEET Paper Leak: What is ethical governance in public examinations?
Dear UPSC aspirants, how do you know what’s ethical in everyday life
Are humans failing ethically in the AI age?
How fake success claims by aspirants reveal a deeper moral crisis
Is an action ethical if you do it only for a reward? (AI Generated image) 
Share
