evaluation of Kantian deontological ethics

Question 1

Main claim of kantian deontological ethics

Answer 1

• To act morally is to act out of duties which are discoverable by reason
• The only thing that is good in itself is good will, you act with a good will when you act with the right motive
• You act ‘out of duty’ as opposed to ‘merely acting in accordance with duty’

Question 2

how can these duties be expressed as

Answer 2

These duties can be expressed as “categorical imperatives” as opposed to “hypothetical imperatives”

Question 3

how can these duties be identified

Answer 3

using two “formulations of the categorical imperatives”

Question 4

1st formulation of the categorical imperatives

Answer 4

1st formulation: you have a perfect duty to refrain from acting in ways that cannot be universalised without a contradiction in conception; you have imperfect duties to refrain from acting in ways that cannot be universalised without a contradiction in the will

Question 5

2nd formulation of the categorical imperative

Answer 5

2nd formulation: you have perfect duties to never treat anyone including yourself as a mere means to an end

Question 6

1st objection to Kantian deontological ethics

Answer 6

problems with the 1st formulation: not all universalisable maxims are moral

Question 7

problems with the 1st formulation: not all universalisable maxims are moral

Answer 7

• In kants view, if a maxim can be universalised then it is morally permissible
• it has been argued that there are many maxims that can be universalised without a contradiction in conception but they seem intuitively morally wrong
  -E.g. ‘to steal gifts from a large shop only when there are 7 letters in my name
• When you universalise this maxim, only people with 7 letters in their name would steal only gifts from only large shops.
• This case would apply so rarely that there would be no general breakdown in the concept of private property (i.e. no contradiction in conception), so it would be perfectly possible for this law to apply to everyone .

Question 8

why is problems with the 1st formulation: not all universalisable maxims are moral a problem?

Answer 8

• This is a problem as it means that the 1st formulation fails as a way of using reason to work out which actions are right/wrong
• It also seems to force kant to contradict himself, to have to say that we both have a perfect duty not to lie, and dont have such a duty

Question 9

response to 1st formulation: not all universalisable maxims are moral a problem?

Answer 9

This objection misrepresents what Kant said and so we need the 2nd formulation as well

Question 10

This objection misrepresents what Kant said and so we need the 2nd formulation as well

Answer 10

• Kant never said that all universalisable actions are morally acceptable
  
  • Instead, he said that:
• All morally acceptable actions are universalisable
• All non-universalisable maxims are not morally acceptable
• This means that knowing that a maxim is non-universalisable shows that it is immoral, but knowing that it is universalisable tells us nothing as it could still be moral or immoral
• This means that the maxims in the objections are not counter-examples to what kant said

Question 11

how does This objection misrepresents what Kant said and so we need the 2nd formulation as well show that we need the 2nd formulation

Answer 11

• This raises a new problem as we need to work out which universalisable maxims are wrong and which are acceptable
• Both formulations together must jointly be employed to determine whether an action is moral. We can conclude that an action is moral only if it passes the test on both formulations of the categorical imperative. Each alone is sufficient to determine whether an action is immoral
• The 1st formulation alone is not sufficient to determine whether an action is moral
• However if a maxim passes the test of both formulations then action on the maxim is moral
• So in order to know whether an action is morally acceptable, we need to know that:
  a. It is universalisable (does not violate the 1st formulation)
  b. That it doesnt require us to treat someone merely as a means to an end (doesnt violate the 2nd formulation)

Question 12

counter-response to This objection misrepresents what Kant said and so we need the 2nd formulation as well

Answer 12

1st formulation still gives us insufficient guidance

Question 13

1st formulation still gives us insufficient guidance

Answer 13

• Although the 1st formulation gives us an interesting way of working out that things like lying are wrong.
• It does not give us enough guidance if the 2nd formulation is needed in addition to deciding between moral and immoral universalisable maxims.

Question 14

2nd objection to kants deontological ethics

Answer 14

Problems with the 1st formulation: not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral

Question 15

Problems with the 1st formulation: not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral

Answer 15

• Kants view is that if a maxim cannot be universalised, then it is morally wrong at act on it
• It has been argued that there are many maxims that cannot be universalised but are morally good or atleast neutral
• E.g. I will play tennis with Katrina on the public courts every Wednesday at 4pm in order to improve my backhand
• This would be ruled out as immoral by kant’s universalisation test because they cannot be universalised without a contradiction in conception, but they do not seem to be morally wrong
• If so, then kant’s first formulation is not successful in guiding us in what duties we have and so how we should act

Question 16

why is 2nd objection: Problems with the 1st formulation: not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral

Answer 16

This is a problem because if there are exceptions, then this means that we cannot rely on the first formulation as a way of working out how we should behave

Question 17

response to 2nd objection: Problems with the 1st formulation: not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral

Answer 17

they are either (a) rephrasable into maxims that are moral or (b) they are immoral if left as they are

Question 18

they are either (a) rephrasable into maxims that are moral

Answer 18

• It is very likely that the person’s real intention/maxim is a more general one which is universalisable and so morally fine.
• This would mean that “I will play tennis with Katrina on the public courts every Wednesday at 4pm in order to improve my backhand” would change into “I will play tennis with a skilled partner when the public courts are available and my work schedule permits it”

Question 19

b) They are immoral if they are left as they are

Answer 19

• Kant could accept that if this really is their maxim, then this just means that it is immoral
• Applied in the tennis example: if our tennis player insisted that she must play every wednesday at 4pm with katrina, and she appeals to no additional and more general reasons, then we would have to conclude that her acting on the maxim is wrong.

Question 20

counter-response to they are either (a) rephrasable into maxims that are moral or (b) they are immoral if left as they are

Answer 20

a. works as it is true that the moral general maxim is universalisable
b. does not work as specific doesn’t mean immoral

Question 21

what does clashing/competing duties mean

Answer 21

where the agent is morally required to do each of the 2 or more actions

the agent can do each of the actions

however the agent cannot do both or all of the actions.

This means that the agent seems condemned to moral failure not matter what they do they will do something wrong

Question 22

objection 3: