Ethics-Kantian ETHICS Flashcards
Immanuel Kant
German Philosopher-believed there were ABSOLUTE MORAL RULES
His ethical system KANTIAN ETHICS did not rely on GOD
KANTIAN Ethics focuses
Does not rely Heavily on God
Heavily ABSOLUTE
Deontological- interested in RIGHT ACTIONS not RIGHT OUTCOMES
Good will
The only truly intrinsically good thing having good motives and intentions
Kant Good Will
Kant believed the only truly GOOD THING, is GOOD WILL-HAVING GOOD INTENTIONS
ALL other things such as COURAGE or WEALTH are always Good DEPENDING on the SITUATION
Kant Argues even if we are PREVENTED from CARRYING out our INTENTIONS: all that matters is AIMING TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
‘Good will SHINES LIKE A PRECIOUS JEWL’
Duty
The action that is morally required
Kant Duty
Kant Believed- Doing the RIGHT THING out of SELF-INTEREST is NOT DUTY
Doing the RIGHT THING due to INCLINATION( because we feel like it ) is NOT DUTY
Duty is DOING THE RIGHT THING REGARDLESS Of HOW WE FEEL about the OUTCOME -ABSOLUTE
Kant Duty Example
A policewoman’s DUTY is to INTERVENE when a CRIME is COMMITTED regardless of whether she thinks SHE WILL SUCCEED in CATCHING THE CRIMINAL or whether SHE FEELS LIKE IT
Hypothetical Imperative
A MORAL OBLIGATION that is DEPENDENT upon desiring the GOAL in QUESTION
Autonomy
Literally ‘self-ruling’. The belief that we are FREE and ABLE to make our OWN DECISIONS
Principle Autonomy Kant
Kant believed that there are ABSOLUTE MORAL DUTIES.
He believed that Humans have RATIONALITY and are ABLE TO WORK OUT THESE RULES
Maxim
Another word for MORAL RULES OR PRINCIPLES. They are the things that we ACT UPON
Maxim Kant
Kant argued that whenever we are carrying out an action we are acting upon a maxim
Maxim Kant Example
If someone steal a chip from your plate without your permission
Their MAXIM could be ‘ TAKE OTHER PEOPLE FOOD FROM THEIR PLATE WITHOUT ASKING’
Hypothetical Imperative Kant
The COMMAND that we would FOLLOW in ORDER to ACHIEVE an END RESULT
Hypothetical Imperative Example
teacher gives the instruction to do your homework
If you want to pass the course
Categorical Imperative
An UNCONDITIONAL MORAL OBLIGATION that we are able to work out using REASON
Categorical Imperative Kant
A command which Logically HAS TO BE FOLLOWED
It does NOT DEPEND ON THE END RESULTS
Kant believed that CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE are followed UNCONDITIONALLY
Categorical Imperative Example
You act upon the DO NOT KILL RULE because it is an UNCONDITIONAL COMMAND
Kant’s Three formulations
Kants suggest there are THREE WAYS to test whether an ACTION are CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
UNIVERSAL LAW
PERSONS AS ENDS
KINGDOM OF ENDS
Kant’s Three formulations -Universal Law
The PRINCIPLE that we should only CARRY OUT those ACTS that we are ABLE to USE as a law for EVERYONE AT ALL TIMES.
Is it Something that ALL PEOPLE could LOGICALLY do
Kant’s Three formulations -Universal Law Example
If someone PLANS TO STEAL. This would be ultimately wrong and would not be considered for EXCEPTION, because if everyone in the world stole there would be Chaos
Kant’s Three formulations -Person as a ends
Kant believed that human beings are RATIONAL and AUTONOMOUS. Which means we have a DUTY to treat EACH OTHER as PERSONS not as a MEANS TO AN END
Kant’s Three formulations -Person as a ends-Example
If you try to GET back your Ex-Girlfriend y DATING THEIR SISTER to make them JEALOUS
YOU are using the Sister as a MEANS TO AN END I.e an OBJECT
Kant’s Three formulation-Kingdom of ends
Kant’s HYPOTHETICAL STATE where People always ACT according to the MORAL RULES and TREAT each other as ENDS- would are MAXIM be PERMITTED?
Kant’s Three formulation-Kingdom of ends Example
If Someone Hits you it may be LEGAL TO HIT THEM BACK but
KANTS KINGDOM of ENDS asks you to ACT how SOCIETY SHOULD BE rather than HOW IT IS -therefore it would be WRONG TO HIT THEM BACK
Kant’s Four main Examples of CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
It is Wrong to make a LYING PROMISE
IT IS WRONG to COMMIT SUICIDE
It is WRONG to NEGLECT ONE’S TALENT
It is WRING to REFRAIN from HELPING SOMEONE
Applying KANTIAN Ethics LYING TO MURDERS
If A MURDER asks if his NEXT VICTIM is HIDING in a CERTAIN HOUSE
Kant’s MAXIMS would require us to TELL THE TRUTH Kant Argues that We would have done our DUTY no matter the OUTCOME
Assessing idea of Duty-Strengths
Use Concept of our INCLINATIONS and DESIRES about What we WANT are SUBJECT TO CHANGE. The Concept DEMANDS that we PUT FEELINGS ASIDE to do the RIGHT THING
Assessing idea of Duty-Weaknesses
The Problem of Conflicting Duties in the ‘Lying Murderer Example’ Kant does not give a Clear Way of deciding Which Duty we Should Follow when they conflict- Duty to tell truth Duty to Save a Life
The Concept of Duty can also be ABUSED with the idea of OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY I.E NAZI
Postulates
Things that have to be ASSUMED or are a BASIS for REASONING.
Duty Issue with Reward
An issue with Kant’s reliance on duty is it’s link to God
Kant’s emphasis on doing Duty regardless of Reward
However there is a reward for duty
Postulates Kant
Kant believed that FRE WILL IMMORTALITY and GOD have to be POSTULATED ( ASSUMED) for MORALITY to make SENSE
Three Postulates- Free Will
If we are not genuinely free to do either Good or Evil, then there can be no MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
Three Postulates- Immortality
There is an AFTERLIFE we are IMMORTAL
Kant Argues that MORALITY requires SUMMUM BONUM (HIGHEST GOD) to be ACHIEVED
Three Postulates- God
God exists
In order for the SUMMUM BONUM to occur there must be God who ensure the JUSTICE of the Univers
Strengths of Kantian Ethics
The Principle of Universal Law is a useful application to making MORAL DECISIONS.IT treats a PERSON EQUALLY and stops MAKING OURSELVES a SPECIAL CASE
The Heavy Focus on DUTY and REASON LIMITS BIAS in KANTIAN Ethics
Respects the intrinsic value of persons enables the concept of rights to be used
Weakness of KANTIAN Ethics
Too ABSTRACT and Theoretical offers perfect solutions for HYPOTHETICAL KINGDOM OF ENDS but cannot COPE with a REAL World where people ACT IN an Immoral Way and WE HAVE TO RESPOND
Only Shows what we OUGHT to do rather than What we SHOULD DO
Seems that Outcome DOES NOT MATTER. Although we TOOD the TRUTH to the MURDERER we HAVE LED THE VICTIM to their DEATH which we would feel GUILTY ABOUT. Suggesting Kant is Wrong to IGNORE OUTCOME
Does Not Fare well with DILEMMAS where we are OBLIGED to CONSIDER which is the LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS I.e WHICH OF TWO DYING PEOPLE TO SAVE
Developing Arguments for KANTIAN Ethic -Strength Absolute theories
It offers a clear and fixed guideline. We are clear How to APPLY KANTIAN Ethics.
Developing Arguments for KANTIAN Ethic -Strength Absolute theories COUNTER
There is a level of INFLEXIBILITY in KANT’S thinking. We should be able to CONSIDER Extreme SITUATIONS where we may be REQUIRED to use the UNCONVENTIONAL RESPONSE I.e Stealing to feed Starving Kids
Developing Arguments for KANTIAN Ethic -Strength Secular Theory
Do not have to BELIVE in God as the IMPERATIVES are worked out RATIONALLY rather than being GIVEN as COMMANDS by GOD
Developing Arguments for KANTIAN Ethic -Strength Secular Theory COUNTER
Critics suggest that Kant’s use of SUMMUM BONUM is based on the idea that GOD EXISTS to REWARD those who do their MORAL DUTY
As well as one of his POSTULATES being that GOD EXISTS
Developing Arguments for KANTIAN Ethic -Strength Rational Lack of Emotion
It is RATIONAL and is no based on the CHANGEABLE NATURE of our EMOTIONS
Therefore we get WELL-REASONED MORAL DECISION
Developing Arguments for KANTIAN Ethic -Strength Rational Lack of Emotion COUNTER
the ASSUMPTION about HUMANS CAPACITY to REASON
EMOTIONS such as COMPASSION can be very POWERFUL. It would be STRANGE to ARGUE that an ACT of GIVING to CHARITY is MORE VIRTUOUS because the PERSON DID NOT FEEL LIKE IT
