Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PTE > 2.3 - Kantian Ethics > Flashcards

2.3 - Kantian Ethics Flashcards

1
Q

deontology

A
  • duty to do the right things, obligation
  • duty is uniquely moral in nature, moral rules you must follow irrespective of who says what about them, or the laws
  • it may be easy to find out what the laws are, can’t just follow them though because they may have no moral basis, you can have immoral laws
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

problems with consequentialism

A
  • difficult to accurately predict the consequences of an action
  • relies on personal opinion and views which can bring chaos to society (everyone functioning on different principles)
  • have to predict the actions of other people eg. in business, rules are important so that you know what other people will do and therefore what you need to do
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

the trolley problem in relation to deontology

A

utilitarianism tell us to switch the tracks and kill the one person but something tells us it is immoral to kill someone - making the decision significantly harder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

the enlightenment

A
  • a period of time impacting all areas of society - where human beings felt we could master the universe through understanding it
    > industrial rev. kicking off
    > great scientific discovery (rules of the universe)
    > scientific approach to our understanding
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Kant in the enlightenment

A

thought morality could be scientifically understood

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what is a moral theory?

A

an attempt to characterise actions into moral categories/deontic statuses:
- permissible (making a cup of tea)
- obligatory (helping a friend in extreme need)
- impermissible (torturing someone)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

utilitarianism as moral theory

A

could be considered a deontic moral theory but NOT a deontological moral theory - it only considers impermissible and obligatory because you are obliged to do the thing that maximises net pleasure and anything else is impermissible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what are deontological moral theories?

A

theories that do not assign moral categories based on consequences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

divine command theory

A

meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

natural law theory

A

all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by “ God, nature, or reason.” - studying natural functions can tell us what the moral right is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Kant’s approach to ethics in terms of different moral theories

A

very starkly non-consequentialist, he believed we can come to moral rules by pure practical reason

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Kant’s approach

A
  • only thing that is good in itself is good will: other things are good conditionally: happiness is good but is not good if a scoundrel becomes happy from cheating others
  • willing vs wants (there are things you want - aware of them but don’t take steps to make it happen - and things you will - commitment to action) ‘if you will the end you necessarily will the means’
  • good will is good even if something goes wrong and brings bad consequences (if you are intending the right thing then you are right)
  • what you do must be done because it is the right thing (acting from duty vs acting in accordance with duty), if you don’t act from duty your actions have no moral worth
  • committing to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

‘if you will the…’

A

‘if you will the end you necessarily will the means’ - Kant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

eudaimonia

A

state or condition of ‘good spirit’, and which is commonly translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘welfare’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

example of a non-deontic moral theory

A

Aristotle’s ethic: Virtue Ethics. This asks what a person is? What makes a good person a good person?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

agent-centered ethics

A

categorise people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

act-centered ethics

A

categorise actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

‘A man can…’

A

‘A man can do what he wills but he not will what he wills’ - Arthur Schopenhauer
- product of our environment, cannot change who you are
- the reason you feel compassion for the elderly is because you were taught to (eg. by example of those around you)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

acting from duty vs morals of love and compassion

A
  • 3 main motivations for peoples actions according to Kant
  • can’t control what you want BUT you can control what you will so morality can’t require us to feel certain things or to desire them, only to act in a certain way
  • act a certain way DESPITE what our feelings are towards that action (positive or negative)
  • it could be a moral duty to develop your empathy towards people, as this can help to discover the morally right thing to do
  • Emotion is considered to be animalistic - animals cannot moralise, they just act. Kant believed that reason is what separates us as humans from animals.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

“ought implies can”

A
  • if it is true that you ought to do something, it is true that you can
  • is not your moral obligation to do something you cannot do, and someone with different capabilities will have different moral obligations
  • eg. if someone in the distance is about to fall out of a crane, it is not your responsibility to help them as you physically cannot. However, for someone who can teleport, it is their responsibility to help as they have the capability to.
21
Q

3 people/motivations Kant analogy

A
  1. driven by self-interest - no moral worth
  2. driven by positive emotions - no moral worth as we don’t control our feelings (acting in a similar way to the previous person)
  3. driven by duty - most moral worth as you are in control of this
  • person 3 is better is because they are driven by duty not emotion. It merely so happens that the emotion that drives 2 coincides with their moral duty - in another situation it may not. Based on this, it is okay to act alongside emotions, as long as duty is driving the action.
22
Q

what do some Kantians argue Kant thought?

A

we should give up all emotions as they are an obstacle to morality

23
Q

what is an issue for Kant in the idea that we cannot control emotions?

A

he is a Christian and is therefore required to ‘love thy neighbour’ - however he says this ‘love’ is not emotional love but practical love.

24
Q

hypothetical imperatives

A
  • if this is what you want, do this
  • the ‘do this’ part gives the means you have to take to achieve the goal.
  • Could respond with: this is no longer my goal or obey the imperatives.
  • The imperative can be followed or it can be undermined by not adopting the goal that is mentioned in the hypothetical part.
25
Q

categorical imperative

A
  • Kant’s view
  • the demands of morality do not go away for any reason, whether a goal is given up or not.
  • ‘Don’t steal from your neighbour’ - even if you don’t want to be close with your neighbour, the laws of morality STILL apply to you.
  • Philippa Foot argues that all categorical imperatives are hypothetical ones (not everyone has to follow them)
26
Q

what did Philippa Foot argue?

A
  • that sometimes the rules of morality do not apply to everyone
  • completely contrary to Kant’s argument.
  • Eg. a psychopath - doesn’t want anything, don’t have a reason, so rules don’t apply. Can’t want or will anything to do with morality. ‘Ought implies can’ - psychopaths cannot do these things so don’t have the ‘ought’ side.
27
Q

THE categorical imperative

A

Kant thinks that the heart of morality can be summed up in one single, foundational, supreme, principle - THE Categorical Imperative.
- there are 3 formations of this
- it encompasses all moral rules

28
Q

the first formulation of the categorical imperative

A

‘Act only on that maxim which you could at the same time will to be a universal law.’
- Can I imagine a world where this takes place and can it be brought about?
- if it passes this formulation, it is a maxim that is permissible to hold - not something you HAVE to hold but something you CAN hold

29
Q

what is a maxim?

A

a subjective principle of action - the subject’s reason for acting (internal process that leads to acting)

30
Q

Person A action and maxim

A

the action is to offer the seat - the maxim is to do seemingly-impressive things when on a date

31
Q

actions vs bodily happenings

A

(the action of contracting a muscle vs muscle twitch) - actions are things done for reasons (maxims)

32
Q

the two types of contradiction according to Kant

A
  • contradiction of conception
  • contradiction of will
33
Q

contradiction of conception

A
  • it doesn’t logically make sense that this be a maxim that everyone adopts - contradicts itself
  • ‘you should break a promise if it serves your interest’ - if this maxim was universally held, promise making would be meaningless - there would be no such thing as a promise and therefore you would not be able to break one
34
Q

contradiction of will

A
  • where you will one thing, it contradicts something else that you will - contradicts you and your will
  • ‘you should steal from others if it benefits your own family’ - if you will this for everyone, then you contradict the will that your family is looked after as everyone can steal from everyone
35
Q

how you can end up with an obligation from the first formation of the categorical imperative?

A

If a negative thing is impermissible you end up with an obligation (eg. it is impermissible to not cultivate your talents = you must cultivate your talents)

36
Q

the second formulation of the categorical imperative

A

Always treat humanity whether in your own person, or in the person of any other, never SIMPLY as a means but always at the same time as an end in itself.

37
Q

what does the second formulation MEAN

A

never treat people (you or others) SIMPLY as a means - avoid using people as if they are nothing but a means - and treating people as ends means they are the reason for which we act (we need to remember that they have ends, and that them and their ends are no less important than our ends)

38
Q

what would using someone simply as a means mean?

A

using them without any compensation or acknowledgement of you being a person and mattering, eg. slavery and consent

39
Q

how does Kant view the two formulations?

A

he sees the two formulations as different expressions of the same thought

40
Q

what does the ‘ends’ part of the second formulation mean?

A

we have a duty to others to help them to achieve their goals (as long as their goals are permissible)

41
Q

objections to Kant

A
  • Kantian ethics is empty, it tells us nothing (you can get what you want out of it depending on how you describe the action)
  • seems to ask us to do things that can lead to utterly terrible consequences and doesn’t consider them at all
  • False positives and negatives
  • it ignores motives of love and compassion (If you always have to think of duty and obligation and cannot just help someone, there appears to be something deficient in character)
  • clashes of duties
  • is his theory reliant on belief in God?
42
Q

nuance of the objection that Kantian ethics is empty

A
  • you can get what you want out of it depending on how you describe the action
    = eg. someone is being electrocuted and there is a switch to connect/disconnect the circuit. This could be described as: flicking a switch, electrocuting a person, moving a finger, connecting a circuit. Based on this it tells us nothing.
  • BUT this neglects maxims, the first formulation asks you to find the maxim (reason for acting) and decide whether it can be willed to be universal. Eg. one reason for acting is permissible and another is impermissible
43
Q

nuance of the objection that Kantian ethics neglect consequences (and that this is bad)

A
  • it seems to ask us to do things that can lead to utterly terrible consequences and doesn’t consider them at all eg. the axe murderer
  • BUT This is defended by the conditions you can add to maxims
  • BUT there is no specific advice on what a maxim should look like, reasons for acting are complex and multi-faceted so for each action there are many maxims
44
Q

false positives (an objection to Kantian Ethics)

A

False positive: When a maxim is impermissible according to the formulations of the categorical imperative but there doesn’t seem to be anything immoral with the maxim in itself.
- For example, you can come up with maxims that its not possible for everyone to follow (you must get to the swimming pool at 6am) meaning it is impermissible but there is no reason that it is a bad thing to do (its not immoral to go the swimming pool at 6am). This seems to be a practical conception issue not a problem with everyone in the world following it.

45
Q

false negatives (an objection to Kantian Ethics)

A

False negative: When a maxim is permissible according to the formulations but appear immoral.
- eg. if you harm every ginger you meet (and you are not ginger) there is no problem with it being conceivable and no contradiction with what you will for yourself. However, it is still not moral.

46
Q

nuance of the objection that Kantian Ethics ignores motives of love and compassion

A
  • If you always have to think of duty and obligation and cannot just help someone, there appears to be something deficient in character.
  • Kant thinks if you try to indirectly cultivate motives of sympathy, you are likely to get them. Based on this, there is something wrong with someone who doesn’t have these, because you can assume they haven’t tried hard enough.
    = However, for people who have tried as hard as they can but still cannot get these feelings - you are not morally wrong here. So these feelings are not moral requirements, the actions are more moral.
47
Q

nuance of the objection that Kantian Ethics has clashes of duties

A
  • shouldn’t be a problem for Kant because every duty should be derived from the same thing. Eg. a nazi comes knocking looking for jews and asks if there are any in the house. You have a duty not to lie, and a duty to help the people. Kant would say you can refuse to answer but must not lie.
  • important to note that Kant believes in an afterlife, so the worst thing that can happen to you is you do something bad. If you’re doing the right thing, you will be rewarded with heaven.
48
Q

two features of the ‘good will’

A

you want something good and because it is good

49
Q

what is the basis for understanding what is good in Kant’s theory?

A

reason

PTE (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions