Lesson 3: Where They Meet – Points of Convergence Between Kant and Existentialism
Transcript
Hi there, this is RJ again, welcoming you to Lesson 3 of my free course, “Introduction to Kantian Existential Psychology.”
Now that we’ve laid the groundwork for both Kantian moral philosophy and the existential tradition, it’s time to examine how these two distinct schools of thought intersect. At first glance, they may appear to stand in stark contrast—Kant’s structured, rational approach to ethics seems at odds with existentialism’s focus on ambiguity and personal meaning. Yet on closer inspection, they share several profound commitments: to human freedom, to individual moral agency, and to the weighty responsibility that comes with both. For students entering the field of psychology, this philosophical intersection opens new dimensions for understanding how people navigate their lives, especially under emotional strain or ethical tension.
Both Kant and the existentialists place human freedom at the center of what it means to be a person. But their definitions of freedom differ. Kant defines freedom as the capacity to act in accordance with reasoned principles—principles one could, in good faith, will to be universal. This isn’t impulsive license; it’s autonomy as self-governance. In psychology, this maps well onto frameworks like self-determination theory, which highlights the role of aligned, values-based behavior in motivation and psychological health. Autonomy, in this view, isn’t just a philosophical abstraction—it’s a measurable factor in well-being.
Existentialists, on the other hand, describe freedom as a more elemental human reality. Sartre famously wrote that we are “condemned to be free,” suggesting that freedom is not something we earn or construct through rationality—it is our condition. Even when our circumstances are limited, we are still responsible for our choices and their consequences. Existential freedom, then, can feel overwhelming, even disorienting. In psychological research, this connects to theories of agency, meaning-making, and personal responsibility. People who take ownership of their decisions, even when it’s difficult, tend to experience greater clarity and purpose.
Both perspectives insist that freedom is not merely a right, but a responsibility. Kant’s categorical imperative, which insists we act only according to maxims we could wish to be universal, demands that we weigh our decisions with others in mind. This ethical reasoning forces individuals to transcend self-interest and consider the broader implications of their actions. Similarly, existentialists argue that our freedom doesn’t just shape our own lives—it influences the world. Sartre asserted that when we choose, we are also making a kind of statement about what is acceptable or desirable for others. This has clear parallels with psychology’s interest in moral development, social responsibility, and prosocial behavior.
Another powerful point of overlap between Kant and existential thinkers is the importance of the individual as the site of ethical and existential insight. Kant believed that morality begins with each person’s rational deliberation. No external system—religion, law, or cultural convention—can replace the individual’s responsibility to think and act ethically. Existentialism echoes this view, though from a different angle: meaning, values, and purpose are not handed down to us—they must be created, owned, and lived. In clinical settings, this shows up often. Whether in therapy or coaching, the work often involves helping people access their own internal compass—whether by evaluating their principles (Kant) or reconnecting to their sense of personal meaning (existentialism).
This alignment becomes especially clear when considering humanistic psychology, particularly in the work of figures like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Both emphasized the intrinsic worth of each person and the importance of living authentically. For Kant, each individual is an “end in themselves,” never a means to someone else’s goals. This principle demands that we treat others with respect, recognizing their moral and rational dignity. For existentialists, dignity emerges not from universal moral law, but from the sheer fact of subjectivity—the reality that each person must confront their own life, choices, and mortality. This has informed approaches in psychology that emphasize unconditional positive regard, congruence, and self-actualization.
Therapeutically, these traditions offer complementary strategies. Imagine a client struggling with a moral or life-direction dilemma. A Kantian-informed approach might guide them to ask: Are my actions based on principles I’d stand behind if everyone else adopted them? Am I respecting others’ autonomy in my choices? An existential approach would ask different but equally pressing questions: Does this decision reflect my core values? Am I avoiding discomfort, or am I taking responsibility for my life as it really is? By using both lenses, a therapist can support a client in building ethical clarity and emotional authenticity.
Both traditions also recognize that honoring one’s values is rarely easy. Kant understood that acting morally often means going against convenience, desire, or social pressure. It demands courage—the courage to prioritize principle over impulse. Existentialists, too, highlight this courage, but their focus is on the bravery required to face life’s uncertainty. Choosing in the absence of guarantees. Confronting guilt, anxiety, and fear without retreating into denial. This is central to existential therapy, which encourages clients not to eliminate anxiety, but to make meaning through it.
We also find shared concern for the psychological experience of guilt. For Kant, guilt arises when we betray a moral duty—when we act in ways we know to be wrong. This can be understood as a cognitive and ethical failure. Existentialists add emotional and identity-based layers: guilt often signals a disconnect between one’s actions and one’s true self. It may emerge not just from moral violation but from failing to live authentically. In this way, guilt becomes not only an ethical checkpoint but a psychological clue. Shame, too, is seen differently by each—Kant’s view aligns shame more with social judgment, while existentialists see it as a kind of ontological wound: the painful sense of being fundamentally disconnected from who one truly is.
Importantly, both traditions honor the inherent worth of human beings. Kant’s insistence that each person be treated as an end rather than a means is mirrored by existentialism’s defense of authenticity and self-expression. For psychologists and clinicians, this alignment supports ethical practices grounded in empathy, trust, and deep respect for the client’s inner world.
Another subtle point of convergence is the role of moral and existential courage. For Kant, it’s the ability to act rightly even when it’s unpopular or inconvenient. For existentialists, it’s the willingness to choose one’s path even when no map is provided. In psychological terms, this courage translates to resilience, identity integration, and ethical decision-making in complex, high-stakes situations.
When used together, Kantian and existential approaches offer a powerful dual framework in practice. Consider again a client facing a moral dilemma—perhaps choosing between a career that aligns with their financial goals versus one that aligns with their values. A Kantian lens would explore whether each choice honors others' dignity and upholds universalizable principles. An existential lens would probe the deeper emotional and identity questions: What does this decision say about who you are becoming? Which choice reflects your truth, not just your comfort?
Taken together, these perspectives reveal a more complete picture of what it means to be human: to live in freedom, to carry the burden of responsibility, and to craft one’s identity in relation to others and to oneself. While Kant offers a system of moral architecture, existentialism provides a mirror for the inner life. One gives us ethical grounding; the other demands that we wrestle with meaning.
For students of psychology, philosophy, or anyone interested in human growth, this convergence isn’t just theoretical—it’s deeply practical. It helps us understand why people feel stuck, why ethical clarity can be difficult, and how healing often involves both moral insight and existential honesty. As you move through your studies, you’ll find that these frameworks can help you analyze dilemmas with depth, counsel with integrity, and reflect on your own development with greater compassion and clarity.
Kant and the existentialists do not always agree, but where they meet, they offer us something rare: a bridge between structure and subjectivity, principle and personhood. In that bridge is where much of psychology’s richest work takes place.