CH. 10 Deontology: Kant

Question 1

Criticism of the Utilitarian

Answer 1

CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN – Maximizing total happiness could mean inflicting great unhappiness, or worse, on a small minority.

• Although it causes undeserved suffering to one person, the suffering could, according to utilitarianism, be outweighed by its total beneficial effects.

Question 2

Immanuel Kant

Answer 2

• IMMANUEL KANT(10ths 724-1804)– Philosopher – We need to look at actions not in isolation but as following from rules of conduct. In this approach morality is rule governed, or better yet, law governed.
• He would have regarded all forms of utilitarian thinking, as deeply mistaken and probably immoral.

Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason – “Morals is not really the doctrine of how to make ourselves happy but of how we are to be worthy of happiness”

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. – A philosophically rigorous work. In this book, Kant raises some fundamental metaphysical questions that relate to his entire philosophical system: questions about what exists in the universe and about the limits of human knowledge.

​

Question 3

Summary of Kant’s Ethics

Answer 3

SUMMARY of KANT’S ETHICS:

• Kant centers his analysis on the concept of the “GOOD WILL,” which he relates immediately to ideas of duty and the moral law.
• Kant insists on the idea of human beings as rational, self-governing, free agents.
• SUPREME MORAL PRINCIPLE** – Also known as the **CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
• Kant summarizes his moral theory in a single phrase – “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature”
• Basic idea is “What if everyone did that?”
• Kant is asking you to suppose that, as a result of your action, you made it true that everyone, from now on, would do just what you did in exactly the same circumstances.
  
  • Examples:
    
    • Imagine you are in “hard-pressed” circumstances, and try to extricate yourself by making a promise you know you cannot keep. If we apply Kant’s principle, you now have to suppose that simply by telling your false promise you have generated a universal law that anyone in hard-pressed circumstances is perfectly permitted to make a false promise.
    • But, Kant argues, such a world could not even exist.
    • Promise-keeping depends on general conventions of reliability. To work at all, a false promise has to be exceptional. If false promises become common, no promise will ever be accepted. So, Kant says, you could not will that giving a false promise in hard-pressed circumstances should become a universal law.
    • Therefore, according to Kant, making a false promise is morally wrong not because of the bad consequences, but because of the literal impossibility of universalizing it.
    • Kant will argue that when your action cannot be universalized, as in the case of a false promise, you are showing another person a lack of respect through your action.
• In common morality we normally ask, “How would you like it if everyone did that?” But Kant claims to be concerned with a different question: “Is it even possible for you to will that everyone do that?”
• The most important difference between these questions is that whether you like something is a matter of subjective preference. Perhaps I can convince myself that I would like it if everyone told lies all the time: It would spice things up and reduce the predictable tedium of life. Kant is much more concerned with what, objectively, it is possible to will.
• His more rigorous view connects universality with what he calls REASON: what it is possible, or impossible to will, rather than what you like or dislike, or even what the consequences would be if everyone acted the same way.
• If you could not even will that the world follows the universal law that you (hypothetically) bring into being through your proposed action, then to act that way is immoral.
• Thinking of what you are doing as a universal law is, in a way, close to asking how you could justify your action to other people.
• We have also seen how Kant seeks an objective grounding for morality in ideas of reason, rather than in subjective notions of “liking and disliking.”
• How, though, do these ideas connect with the idea of the good will.

Question 4

The Good Will

Answer 4

THE GOOD WILL – Kant begins his approach to ethics by trying to identify something that is unconditionally good. Only a good will is good without limitation.

• Everything else— such as understanding, courage, wealth, health, and even happiness—“can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will which is to use these gifts of nature . . . is not good”
• In stark contrast to utilitarianism, Kant argues that a good will is not good because of what it accomplishes, but purely in itself.
• It Has:
  
  • INTRINSIC VALUE – Meaning that it has value in itself.
• Rather than having:
  
  • INSTRUMENTAL VALUE – As a device for achieving or accomplishing other things of value.
  • Good will would be valuable even if it actually accomplished nothing.
• Kant – There is no concept of a morally good outcome beyond that of acting with a good will.
• A good will, Kant tells us, is a will that is motivated by the idea of DUTY.
• Cheating your customers is a dangerous game because it could put you out of business. Alternatively, you might not cheat your customers because you regard doing so as a breach of your moral duty and therefore something you simply must not do.
• Kant suggests that your honesty in dealing with your customers shows a good will and has moral worth only if it is done for this second reason, for the sake of duty.
• Of course it is better to act “in accordance with duty” than to cheat; but moral worth attaches only to the person who acts for the sake of duty.

Question 5

Sympathy

Answer 5

SYMPATHY – Kant contrasts acting for the sake of duty not only with doing the right thing out of self-interest—but also with acting correctly out of “inclination,”

There are many souls [i.e., people] so sympathetically attuned that, without any further motive of vanity or self-interest they find an inner satisfaction in spreading joy around them and can take delight in the satisfaction of others so far as it is their own work. But I assert that in such a case an action of this kind, however it may conform with duty and however amiable it may be, has nevertheless no true moral worth but is on the same footing as other inclinations. (1785/1997, 4:398, p. 11)

• Kant argues that if someone enjoys spreading happiness and doing good for others, then their actions have no genuine moral worth.
• Only if they act for the sake of duty do their actions have moral virtue.
• His point if pleasure or immediate sympathy is your primary reason for helping someone, then your action lacks moral worth.
• Kant thinks the motive of duty must be the determining factor in our actions, even if other motives are present too.
• Kant believes that a philosophically profound and rigorous approach to morality is necessary.
• Kant wants to impose rigor and method on morality, and he refuses to tolerate the disorder of ordinary moral thought.

Question 6

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Answer 6

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:

SUPREME MORAL PRINCIPLE – “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”

• Kant emphasizes that morality cannot be based on desire, sympathy, or inclination because they are not unconditionally good.
• He makes the point morality cannot be based on anything empirical, by which he means that morality, cannot be based on ordinary facts about human beings.

EMPIRICAL – Generally is used to refer to what we can observe in experience.

A PRIOI KNOWLEDGE – Is knowledge that is acquired not through a process of experience or observation.

• It implies that we can know things without having to experience them.
• But a priori knowledge does seem to exist. Logic and mathematics are examples.
• Although it may be hard to theorize how we know that 102 + 102 = 204, we can be pretty sure we did not come to that knowledge by combining two piles of 102 objects and counting the resulting pile.
• We manage to get there by a process of calculation rather than through experiment or observation.
• Mathematics and logic are generally regarded as a priori bodies of knowledge,

Question 7

Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

Answer 7

• Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives – For Kant morality is not an empirical body of knowledge.
• Morality has to be valid for all rational creatures, whether human or not.

ULTIMATE PRINIPLES OF MORALITY ARE:

• More like principles of logic than like scientific theories.
• What is left if we exclude facts about humans?
  
  • A: Kant concludes that morality must be based on the form, or the idea, of the moral law.

The Key Formal Elements of the Moral Law – (a) Because it is moral, it is normative, in the sense of setting standards of behavior; (b) because it is a law, it is universal.

• Therefore the good will is demonstrated through action in accordance with the pure idea of the normative, universal, moral law, unmixed with anything empirical.

IMPERATIVE – An instruction to behave in a particular way.

HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE – Something you should do only to achieve something else.

• Hypothetical imperatives, in Kant’s system, have no moral content.
• Kant says that the imperatives of morality are categorical, by which he means that they are not hypothetical.

CATEGORICAL – Means “absolute” or “unconditional.”

• “Don’t tell lies” is a categorical imperative of morality, whereas “If you don’t want to get into trouble, don’t tell lies” is a hypothetical imperative.
• anyone who tells the truth primarily to keep out of trouble is not demonstrating a good will by acting for the sake of duty.
• Kant would say that their action has no moral worth, even though it is in accordance with the moral law.
• The idea of a categorical imperative it gives instructions that are somehow justified in themselves rather than in pursuit of an external goal.
• But any particular categorical imperative, such as “Don’t tell lies,” will be justified insofar as it is in accordance with the supreme moral principle.
• Kant calls this the categorical imperative (expressed in the singular):
• “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”

Question 8

The Maxim of an Action

Answer 8

THE MAXIM OF AN ACTION:

• Kant’s theory, for he claims that an action has moral worth not in its purpose but in the maxim used in deciding on the action.

MAXIM – “The principle of the will,” and he distinguishes the “will” from preferences or emotions.

• But another butcher might act from the maxim, “Always treat your customers honestly.” And only this butcher, Kant argues, acts with true moral worth. For only this butcher, Kant seems to suggest, would be able to will that the maxim of his action should become a universal law.
• The essence of Kant’s view is that an act is wrong if it would be impossible to will its universalization.
• Kant – mean “strictly, logically impossible” rather than “very difficult, undesirable, or troublesome.”
• Can we explain all immorality as action based on a maxim that is impossible to universalize? And is everything based on a maxim that is impossible to universalize immoral?
• To get a sense of the challenges, Suppose I want to become a carpenter. Is that morally acceptable? In normal circumstances it is hard to see anything wrong with it. But then suppose everyone wanted to be a carpenter. How could we live? There would be no farmers or tailors, and thus no food or clothes. Eventually we might all die. So it is impossible to universalize being a carpenter.
• Now, a Kantian will not be impressed with this objection. First, it makes the confusion we have already identified between the impossible consequences of adopting a universal law with the (logical) impossibility of willing its adoption. There is nothing logically impossible about willing the adoption of the law, even though if we obey it strictly, human life would become very difficult.
• Second, even putting the first objection aside, there is a question of how to identify the maxim of my action. Is it “be a carpenter”? Or is it “follow a valuable profession you will enjoy”? Even if universalizing the first maxim creates difficulties, the second one seems unproblematic, assuming natural human variation in ambition.
• However, this reply brings out a question that has been raised many times for Kant. How do we know what the “true” maxim of any action is? Any particular action could fall under a number of different maxims: “be a carpenter”; “follow a valuable profession you will enjoy”’ “find a way of making money”; “exercise your talents”; and so on. With sufficient ingenuity we could multiply these maxims without limit. Is it even clear that there is always a single underlying maxim? Much of the time we don’t have a single clear reason for doing something.
• Sometimes it is suggested that the maxim of your action is the aspect that “makes the difference.”

Question 9

Kant’s Examples

Answer 9

KANT’S EXAMPLES:

Kant runs t–hrough a series of four examples: suicide, false promises, neglecting your talents, and refusing aid to others. He says that all of these are morally wrong because in each case, the maxim of the action cannot be willed to be a universal law.

• The natural being—the empirical being of experience—who, like other animals, has desires and seeks happiness; the other is the being with inner freedom, who acts in accordance with reason and, indeed, is capable of following the moral law.

DUTIES TO YOURSELF – Then, are duties to overcome inclination, or desire, in order to follow reason and the moral law.

PERFECT DUTY – Applies in all circumstances, universally.

• If broken it undermines the condition of its own possibility.
• EXAMPLE– You could not lie if everyone lied whenever they wanted.
• The breach of an IMPERFECT DUTY, by contrast, logically could become a universal law; but, Kant says, it would be against our nature as rational creatures.
• IMPERFECT DUTIES – Should be acted on from time to time, but not necessarily always.
• Consider your duty to give to charity. In ordinary morality, most people would accept that moderately wealthy people have a duty to give to charity. But this surely cannot mean that we have a duty to give to every charitable cause that requests money.
• We do not have a duty to give to all charities, or to any charity all the time, or to give away all our money.
• This, then, is what is meant by an imperfect duty: something we have to do from time to time.
• Doing it is not optional—it is a duty, after all—but we do have options regarding how and when.

A PERFECT DUTY – A person must never commit suicide.

• There is support for Kant’s case, though. Alongside suicide he also discusses what he calls mutilation, which we might now call self-harming. When we hear that a friend or family member is engaging in self-harming, usually by repeatedly and intentionally cutting the skin, we do not celebrate their freedom of choice. Instead we find ourselves greatly concerned. Even if they seem not to care, we feel that they ought to care. Is it a moral failure to harm yourself, in the sense of failing in your duty to yourself?
• The case is at least arguable, and this opens the door to thinking that Kant may well be on to something: that we do have moral duties to ourselves.
• Kant’s moral criticism of suicide. You may not consent to your own murder, even at your own hands, for the harm is done to society and not just yourself.

Question 10

Neglecting Your Talents, and Failing to Help

Answer 10

Neglecting Your Talents, and Failing to Help:

• In the case of imperfect duties, the problem is not so much that there is a contradiction in universalizing the maxim, but rather that there is a contradiction in willing its universalization. And this, Kant argues, is the problem in the case of the two remaining examples: neglecting your talents and refusing to help people in need.
• Kant accepts that there is no contradiction in a universal law that would allow everyone to neglect their talents, but he says that willing this mode of life to become a universal law is contrary to the nature of a rational being that necessarily wills the development of its powers.
• Kant must be presupposing a “higher” self of reason and a lower self of pleasure to support the argument that in neglecting your talents, you are failing in a duty to yourself and undermining your own self-respect.

Failing to Help Others – Neglecting others. Thus it is a failure of a duty to other people.

• Kant accepts that a maxim of this sort can be universalized—it contains no logical contradiction—but the problem is that its universalization cannot be willed. For I might find myself needing the help of others, and would naturally will my own preservation; but a universal law of non- contribution would allow others to ignore me if they chose to. Therefore, Kant argues, my will would be in conflict with itself.
• The maxim is one that gives permission to ignore the plight of others, rather than forbids us to help. If others have the permission to pass me by if they see me in trouble, it doesn’t follow that they will. Perhaps out of sympathy, rather than duty, they might help. If so, the conflict is not as clear as Kant supposes.
• Thus, in this example Kant has not shown any real difficulty in our ability to will a universal law of mutual indifference.
• Mill uses this point to suggest that Kant is a tacit utilitarian after all— a suggestion Kant would have thought a monstrous distortion. Schopenhauer makes the related criticism that in many cases, and contrary to his own claims, Kant bases his arguments on what people would and would not desire—they would not desire to be ignored—rather than on what is and is not possible to will. If Mill or Schopenhauer is right, Kant has not eliminated the “merely empirical” from morality after all.

Question 11

Summary

Answer 11

SUMMARY:

• Kant’s ethical position: Its grounding in the idea of
  
  • GOOD WILL,** the distinction between acting in **accordance with duty** and **for the sake of duty,
• Distinction between Categorical** and **Hypothetical Imperatives,
• Idea of a MAXIM of an action.
• Examined Kant’s examples to illustrate his theory. These examples— of suicide, false promises, neglecting your talents, and ignoring the plight of others – illustrate two distinctions.
• Distinction Between Duties to Yourself, Duties to Others.
• Distinction between Perfect and Imperfect Duties.