Kant Flashcards
(good will)
Kant’s theory is deontological. This means that it is based on rules, not on the outcomes of what we do.
So for Kant, it is our intentions that decide whether we are doing the right thing or not.
If we try to do something good and we don’t manage to actually do it, through no fault of our own, then it was still a good act. For Kant the good will is the only truly good thing.
(Duty)
Kant believed that we should always act out of our moral duty and not for any other reason. In other words Kant believes that the reasons why we do something good are very important.
Even if we do something that looks good but
we do it for the wrong reasons it’s not a good act.
Duty is the only reason to do something that will make it a moral act.
hypothetical imperative
Hypothetical imperatives depend on what you want to do whereas categorical imperatives do not.
if you don’t want to rule the world then there is no reason to build a nuclear spacestation.
Categorical imperative
Hypothetical imperatives say ‘if you want this to happen then you should do that’. However categorical imperatives just say ‘do this’.
However categorical imperatives just say ‘do this’.
Kant’s view on Categorical and Hypothetical
So Kant says that the commands we should follow are categorical imperatives. These are commands that simply say ‘do this’.
They don’t depend on the person or on their situation.
FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
Kant thought that every version that he wrote of the categorical imperative were equivalent (the same).
this formulation tries to get us to universalise how we feel about our own importance.
Many scholars have argued that this formulation of the categorical imperative has very different conclusions from the last.
Quote LOL (kinda rly good to use in a essay) 1st formulation
‘ACT SO AS TO TREAT HUMANITY, WHETHER IN YOUR OWN
PERSON OR IN THAT OF ANY OTHER, IN EVERY CASE AS AN
END AND NEVER AS MERELY A MEANS.’
What does this mean?
A means is a way of getting something. An end is something that’s worth having in itself.
So for example if you are being nice to someone you hate to get tickets for Arsenal/ Radiohead, you are using them
This is treating them as a means. But if you are kind to somebody because you care about them, then you are treating them as an end.
THE THIRD FORMULATION
OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
Autonomy
described as the principle of autonomy, because
autonomy means being able to choose for yourself and this formulation mentions this specifically.
Third formulation quote
‘ACT AS IF YOU WERE BY YOUR MAXIMS IN EVERY CASE A
LEGISLATING MEMBER IN THE UNIVERSAL KINGDOM OF
ENDS’.
Autonomy
Maxims are your rules (before they’ve been universalised). If you are a legislating member of a kingdom then you can make the laws.
Remember that for Kant if you can get a maxim through the categorical imperative then it becomes true for everybody and this is called a law.
This means that you should think about the rules you live by as if everybody would follow them and everybody is an end.
What does this mean?
heteronomy
heteronomy.
Loosely heteronomy is the
idea of following the crowd.
Opposite of autonomy
USING THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE TO WORK OUT MORAL LAWS.
Kant believes that the categorical imperative shows that we shouldn’t do 4 things.
Suppose that we want to commit suicide we would have to make a maxim something like ‘ I am so unhappy
that my life isn’t worth living so it’s OK to commit suicide’.
When we apply this to the categorical imperative and universalise it we get something like ‘it’ s OK for anybody, ever to commit suicide if their life isn’t worth living’.
Kant says that this doesn’t make sense because this would lead to the destruction of the human race and so this would be a contradiction. because we are looking
to care for the human race and this would lead to destroying it.
This is hard. Like damn bruh.
There is a basic process that you always have to go through when trying to work out Kant’s position on things, and it’s as follows:
1. Decide what you want to do.
2. Make a maxim.
3. Apply your maxim to the categorical imperative.
4. See if it makes sense.
5. If it does it’s a law, if it doesn’t it’s got to be given up.
This means that when we have a dilemma we have to be clear what it is make it into a rule and then see if our rule passes the categorical imperative.
Nothing here lol reread that
the better one
Kant imperative example
universalise the idea that you can make a promise that you don’t intend to keep
and it was OK for everybody never to keep a promise,
then promises would mean nothing
, and that’s a contradiction so we can’t universalise it.
I kant do this anymore
When using categorical imperatives
Kant would reply however that the categorical imperatives should be used only for deciding what is moral.
Honestly I Kant be asked
Making a maxim. This causes a great deal of confusion. How do we make a maxim? What should we include in our maxim? What should we leave out?
Suppose that we want to borrow money and never pay it back (like Kant’s example) we could write lots of different maxims like:
a) it’s OK to make a lying promise,
b) it’s OK to make a lying promise if you want to do something
good with the money,
c) it’s OK to make a lying promise if your name is Justin and you’re chinese
If I’m allowed to make a maxim like this then I could probably get away with it. We could universalise ‘it’s OK for all Chinese Justin’s’ to make false promises’
But I can’t make a maxim like c) because Kant says that the maxim we make must be the ‘maxim of the action’.
the maxim must include the reason why we actually want to perform the act.
This rules out silly examples like the last one but Kant doesn’t tell us how to choose between a) and b) and any others that we could make up.
