CH. 11 Challenges for Kantian Ethics Flashcards
Supreme Principle of Morality
SUPREME PRINCIPLE OF MORALITY – Valid for all times and places and for all rational creatures.
- Recall that Kant is looking for the “supreme principle of morality,”
- He suggests, that the demands of morality must be “categorical.”
The supreme principle of morality is the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE** – Which is so far formulated as “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Known as the “**FORMULA OF THE UNIVERSAL LAW”
- Other moral rules (which should also be categorical in form) are to be tested against it.
- Kant offers two other main formulations of the categorical imperative
FORMULA OF HUMANITY – So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.
FORMULA OF THE KINGDOM OF ENDS – Act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends.
- Act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends.
- They may well all have the same outcomes.
- Perhaps it will be easier to see that an act is wrong by measuring it against one, rather than another, formulation of the categorical imperative.
Formula of the Kingdom of Ends
FORMULA OF THE KINGDOM OF ENDS – Kant’s purpose is to emphasize that each of us is one person among others and that as far as morality is concerned, each of us is both ruler and ruled.
- Seem close to the formulation of universal law.
- Kant wants us to understand morality as a system of laws that each one of us, as a rational creature, makes; but it is also a system that binds us.
- We make the laws through our own reason, but these laws must be universal—binding everyone, including ourselves.
- Kant is asking you to consider what moral laws you could will if they were to be absolutely binding not just on other people but also on you as a lawmaker.
Formula of Humanity
FORMULA OF HUMANITY – Probably the most famous element of Kant’s moral philosophy, it contrasts the idea of treating other people as a means to your ends with the idea of treating them as an “end in themselves.”
- Introduce something new.
- Whether or not you wish to follow other aspects of Kant’s moral philosophy, this idea stands out as a potentially essential part of anyone’s moral code: It is wrong for you to use someone merely as a means to your own ends.
What, though, is it to treat someone as an end in themselves? – Treat someone as an end is to treat them as having their own interests, goals, and ambitions— and most importantly, their own will—rather than using them simply as a way to get what you want yourself.
- Treating another person as a mere means is an attempt to subjugate their will to your own.
- In ordinary life, however, we constantly seem to use people as means to our ends.
- When I buy a ticket at a station counter, I’m treating the person who sells me the ticket just as I would a ticket machine: as an object or device that can give me what I want, and I am apparently indifferent to that person’s own will. Of course, I should treat the person with courtesy and respect, and I should avoid being rude or dismissive; but if I am simply businesslike in the transaction, have I really done anything wrong?
- The obvious reply is that although I do use ticket sellers as means to my ends, I don’t use them as merely a means to my ends, without regard to their own concerns.
- Under normal circumstances, when the ticket seller has freely consented to the job under good conditions of knowledge, I am treating him or her as more than a means.
- If, on the other hand, I felt that the conditions of the ticket seller’s work were absolutely no concern of mine, then arguably I am treating him or her as a mere means; and so I can rightly be criticized.
- And this is not merely an academic example. Think of imported clothes and other goods sometimes made under the most brutal and exploitative labor conditions. Campaigners commonly protest the use of workers as “mere means,”
- Kant also argues, that it is wrong to treat yourself merely as a means, besides being wrong to treat others as a means. If you are treating yourse
- lf as a means, then it must be a means to an end.
- If it is a means to your own ends, then you are treating yourself as a means and an end at the same time.
- How can you subjugate your will to your own will?
- Perhaps you could treat yourself as a means to someone else’s ends; but that sounds, like self-sacrificing, altruistic action rather than an immoral action.
How, then, can you treat yourself as a means? – This is an important idea for Kant because it will connect with the idea explored above that you have duties to yourself.
- In ordinary moral thought, people do have some similar ideas.
- For example, we use the concept of degrading behavior. Some forms of work are regarded as problematic from the viewpoint of human dignity, such as sex work (mentioned above) or abusive forms of domestic service.
- But some people take on these roles for the money. Arguably they are treating themselves as means.
- But, a means to what? A means to make money, presumably. In the Groundwork Kant, inspiringly, says that humanity has a dignity, not a price.
- But even if we agree, why is it degrading to take on some jobs for pay, but not others?
- What is the difference between a lap dancer and a railway ticket seller.
We can illustrate his ideas by looking at how he uses the formula of humanity to explain again what is wrong with suicide:
- Kant says of the suicidal person:
- If he destroys himself in order to escape from a trying condition he makes use of a person merely as a means to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life.
- For Kant, life has this sort of intrinsic value.
- Kant’s position contrasts with an alternative view that life is essentially little more than a container for pains and pleasures. In such a view, a valuable life is one that contains a positive balance of pleasures over pains.
- People who hold this more utilitarian view have every reason to consider committing suicide if all they see ahead is torment or pain. But for Kant that would be to degrade life from intrinsic value to instrumental value, for then life is regarded as an instrument for delivering positive experiences.
- In this thought we finally see how it is possible to treat life as a means— a means to pleasurerather than as an end of intrinsic value.
- In short, a person contemplating suicide is already regarding life in the wrong way, as a means rather than an end in itself.
Autonomy and Heteronomy
AUTONOMY AND HETERONOMY:
AUTONOMY – Normally taken to be synonymous with freedom in the sense that to be autonomous is to be free.
- Kant would push the understanding of autonomy to a deeper level.
- Autonomy means “self-law.” And for Kant, the moral person is autonomous in this sense: He or she must act as if making law that would hold for all rational creatures.
- Thus for Kant, morality, reason, and freedom coincide.
HETERONOMOUS – In contrast, is essentially someone who acts non-autonomously, perhaps in self-interest or even out of sympathy for others.
- Suppose that you decide not to cheat your customers in order to preserve your reputation, or even because you like them. Then, although you are acting in accordance with the moral law, Kant would say your action is heteronomous, not autonomous, and therefore not of genuine moral worth.
- Neglecting your talents was the third example.
- We can again regard this example as sharing some of the characteristics of suicide:
- In Kant’s view, the person engaged in this action is putting self-indulgence ahead of taking life seriously.
- He says that although failing to develop your talents is compatible with treating the humanity in yourself as an end, everyone has a duty to promote the end, and neglecting your talents fails to promote the end.
Kant thinks – That life has intrinsic value, we have a duty to cultivate our talents, and failing to do so is failing to promote the value in life.
- In ordinary life we are unhappy to see those with great potential waste their talents, even if in other respects their lives go reasonably well. Think of someone with great athletic and academic ability who spends too much time partying, doesn’t make the team, and fails some courses. We might observe that the choice is theirs, but we are likely to say so with a little sadness.
Final example from Kant was indifference to the suffering of others – It is hard to see how by ignoring someone, I am treating him or her as a means. But I am clearly not treating that person as an end.
- To treat another as an end, we must take seriously his or her own ends too.
USING KANT’S THEORY
USING KANT”S THEORY:
To apply it to a particular moral problem, you need to answer the following questions:
- What action do you propose?
- What is the maxim of your action?
- a. Can you will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law?
b. Are you proposing to treat yourself or another person merely as a means and not as an end in himself or herself?
c. Are you acting in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a kingdom of ends? TJB– Meaning you are bound by universal law that you propose from your MAXIM.
What action do you propose? – When we are confronted with a moral problem or dilemma, we generally do become highly aware of the options that face us.
What is the maxim of your action? – We noted that this is not always a straightforward matter, using the example of someone who wants to become a carpenter. What is their maxim? “Become a carpenter”? “Follow your vocation in life”? There are many maxims we can offer, and some of them could be universalized and others not. Which maxims are genuine, and which are not?
- TJB** – Remember a **MAXIM is a rule that you personally follow. Kent sats your MAXIMS should be universilizable, and if they are not, then you should not be using them.
- Remember that Kant said even we ourselves do not always know the maxim of our action, because we are all prone to self- deception.
Kant on Lying
KANT ON LYING:
- Kant’s argument seems to work best in the example of making a false promise.
- Again the maxim of “tell a lie when telling the truth would lead to difficulties” seems incapable of being made a universal law.
- We can argue that having moral permission to tell lies would result in nobody taking anyone’s word for anything, and so telling a lie would no longer even be possible.
- But might it be possible to have a principle that allows us tell lies in some cases rather than others?
- Kant cites Constant’s argument that in acting immorally, the murderer forfeits the protection of morality and so has “no right to the truth.”
- The maxim of the action would be as follows: “Tell a lie if it would save a life and the person to whom you are telling the lie has no right to the truth.”
- Because the circumstances of this case are so specific, it may be possible to universalize this maxim without abandoning the practice of truth-telling.
- Would a murderer really expect people to tell the truth in these circumstances anyway?
- Kant does not approve of the idea that the murderer has no right to the truth. Telling a lie harms humanity as a whole rather than only the murderer, by weakening the practice of truth-telling.
- Kant also argues that telling a lie could backfire.
- Kant also argues that if you tell the truth and then the murderer goes into your house and kills the person, you are blameless.
- That argument may be right as a point about punishment, but it is harder to agree that morally you have done no wrong by helping the murderer in this way.
- Kant is on stronger ground when he suggests that we humans are very bad at calculating consequences, and we do better when following firm principles; that leads to RULE UTILITARIANISM.
Kantian Ethics in Real Life
KANTIAN ETHICS IN REAL LIFE – Let’s return to the question of how to use Kant’s theory.
- One of his tests was whether you can will the universalization of the maxim of your action.
Kant suggests two ways in which a proposed maxim can fail that test.
PERFECT DUTIES – It is impossible to universalize the maxim, as in the case of lying or, more controversially, suicide.
IMPERFECT DUTIES – It is impossible to will the universalization, as in failing to develop your talents or declining to help those in need.
FORMULA OF HUMANITY – Never treat a person, whether yourself or another, as purely a means to your ends; but at the same time, treat that person as an end in himself.
FORMULA is the KINGDOM of ENDS:
- If, as Kant claims, these are equivalent, then any action that passes one formula should pass them all. And equally, any action that fails one formula should fail them all.
- The key question is whether Kant is right. Certainly his formulations of the categorical imperatives are useful guides to moral behavior. It will be significant to know whether or not a person can will the universalization of the maxim of his or her action.
- For example, if I am contemplating taking something from a shop without paying, I might ask, “Could taking goods whenever you prefer not to pay for them be universalized?” The answer, presumably, is that if theft became very widespread, then we would lose the concept of individual property because we would have lost the guarantee of safe possession. But without the concept of property, there is no concept of theft. Hence this fits neatly with Kant’s account: It is impossible to will the universalization of the maxim of permitting casual theft. The institution of owning property would break down, and there would be no such thing as theft. This shows me that theft is wrong.
Is passing Kant’s test necessary for an act to be morally acceptable? – (It cannot be morally acceptable if it fails the test of the categorical imperative.)
- And is it sufficient? (Anything that passes is morally acceptable.)
- We need to consider at least three questions:
First, it is not always clear whether an action passes the test.
- There can be room for disagreement about the maxim
- It is possible that you can will the universalization of one maxim, but not another.
- But even when there is no doubt about the maxim, it is not always clear whether you can will its universalization.
- Although Kant gives us a formula, seeing how it applies is far from straightforward.
Now we need to look at the question of whether all morally correct action will pass the test.
- Consider the example of telling a lie to the murderer at the door. What is the right thing to do here? Personally, I’m attracted to the idea that the right thing is to tell the murderer that it is none of his business. But realistically, that response is unlikely to settle the matter. The next thing the murderer might do would be to take out his gun and point it at my head. At that point, out of fear, many people may well tell the truth; but a courageous person may tell a lie and say that the person is not in the house.
- Is his or her action morally wrong? Kant thinks so, apparently.
- What if we disagree with Kant and think it is right to lie to the murderer, but we agree with Kant that the maxim of the action of lying to a murderer cannot be willed to be a universal law? Then we disagree with Kant’s moral theory. Using this combination of views, we do not need to pass the test in order to act in a morally correct way.
- Alternatively, we might say we need to find a more specialized maxim of the action; but then this throws us back to the first problem of identifying the maxim.
Third question? Is passing the test enough to show that an action is morally correct?
- Telling the truth to the murderer passes the test, Kant says. Yet if we think this action would be morally wrong, then some morally wrong actions pass the test.
- We have to concede that it is far from obvious that Kant has solved the problem of how to know whether we have acted morally even though he has made some extremely important contributions to the question of how to approach moral problems.
FREEDOM AND MORALITY
FREEDOM and MORALITY:
HETERONOMY – Was, in essence, acting on the basis of your desires.
AUTONOMY – Or freedom—involves acting on the basis of your reason.
- For Kant the main difference between humans and other animals is that human beings are capable of autonomous action, which is to say action based on reason. And that trait comes down to being able to override your desires and act according to the MORAL LAW.
MORAL LAW – The law you create through your own reason.
FREEDOM – Then, is acting in accordance with the moral law.
- To act freely, many will think, is to act without constraint. But the moral law is a form of constraint.
- Therefore, some will argue, acting in accordance with the moral law is to act unfreely rather than freely.
- How can I be free if I have to follow the moral law?
- But Kant would argue that this argument gets everything upside down. Kant would pose the opposite question: How can you be free if, like the animals, all you do is follow your own desires and inclinations?
- Freedom is the act of overcoming your desires to act in accordance with REASON;
- And reason, in turn, requires you to act as if through your will, your maxim would become a UNIVERSAL LAW. Reason—the exercise of freedom—yields morality.
His position has some merit.
- Consider someone offered a large bribe to do something they know to be wrong.
- Who has more freedom: the person who accepts the bribe or the person who declines it?
- Certainly we would say that the person refusing the bribe has some strength of character that the other lacks.
- We admire people who overcome temptation to do the right thing.
KANT AND CHRISTIANITY
KANT and CHRISTIANITY – Kant made it clear that he would not argue from religious premises. Kant’s views may have a religious aspect.
- Kant’s arguments against suicide and against neglecting your talents would fit well with a religious view that we have been put on earth by God and that we are here to serve God’s purposes, not our own.
- A religious conception of ethics right from the start by assuming that morality takes the form of “law” or “command.”
- By which he means the Ten Commandments, is the model and source for Kant’s “theological” morals.
- Ultimately the basis of Kant’s system is something like religious faith in a new form, consistent with the Lutheran Protestant tradition into which Kant was born and raised.
MORAL PRINCIPLES, RACE, AND GENDER
MORAL PRINCIPLES, RACE, AND GENDER – In reading Kant’s moral philosophy, it is natural to think that it could be an inspiring foundation for gender and racial equality. The idea that we should never treat others as a means only to our own ends appears to rule out domineering forms of marriage, slavery, abusive contracts of employment, and many social ills.
- The proposal that you should imagine yourself as a legislator for the kingdom of ends suggests that, as with social contract theory, you must take everyone’s viewpoint into account.
- In looking at Kant’s own writings, we do not find him developing his ideas in these directions.
Summary
SUMMARY:
Kant offers three main formulations of the categorical imperative:
Formula of universal law;
Formula of humanity;
Formula of the kingdom of ends.
- They are supposedly equivalent.
FORMULA OF HUMANITY – Which tells us never to use others merely as a means to our ends.
- Kant’s distinction between AUTONOMY** and **HETERONOMY was also explained.
- Kant’s approach may seem overly strict because he believes it shows that we are required to tell the truth even to a potential murderer.
- Kant’s theory is strongly linked to notions of freedom.
- Link also exists between Kant’s ethics and his religious belief.
