Kant Flashcards
Context of Kants theory
-Religious enlightenment philosopher, argued we need to use reason to develop ethical theories and rule based systems rather than emotions
-Deontological ethics
argue that the morality of an action lies in the intention behind the action rather than the consequence
Kants theory
-There are actions which are objectively and intrinsically right or wrong, there is a moral law which is part of the fabric of the universe, using reason we can understand this moral law and which actions are right and wrong and develop moral rules
-A moral action is one which follows a catergorical imperrative-an absolute moral rule we can discover through reason
Good will
-An action must be done with good will to be considered moral-with the intention to perform an action because it is our moral duty to do what is right, an action done with an alterior motive, e.g to gain personal gratification cannot be considered moral
Catergorical Imperratives
-Absolute moral rules based on reason alone and not instinct or emotion we should follow in all circumstances, they are universally applicable and binding, there are 3 factors we can consider to determine if an action is a catergorical imperrative we must follow,
it must be able to be universalised, practically able to be followed by everyone, and it must not exploit someone else or use a person as means to an end.
Catergorical Imperative- 3 factors
-Universiality-Able to be applied by everyone and benefit everyone
2. Persons as ends-must respect humans inherent value and not exploit the person or use them as means to an end
Examples of Catergorical imperatives
-Do not steal
-Do not engage in homosexuality
Strengths of Kants theory-Humanitarian
A strength of Kants theory is that it focuses on personal autonomy, his second formulation makes it a
universal law that we cannot exploit others for our own personal gain and we must respect their
autonomy, this is a strength as it makes it a useful means of resolving moral dilemmas because it
ensures, in theory we always chose the fairest outcome for all, it ensures we don’t make immoral
choices or exploit others, making it a humanitarian theory with beneficial applications as it ensures
we always reach the fairest outcome for all and do not harm others when making moral decisions,
suggesting it’s a useful means of resolving moral dilemmas.-humanitarian with beneficial applications
However, it could also be argued it’s not
a useful theory as it can lead to us making bad moral decisions due to its absolutist nature
-Absolutist moral rules
A limitation of Kants theory is that it is entirely absolutist and allows no exceptions. In some
situations, actions can go against the categorical imperative but still be moral, for example stealing
isn’t universalizable so is absolutely immoral according to Kant, but in some situations, stealing is
moral, for example, a poor parent stealing food to prevent their children dying of starvation, Kant
would argue it is more moral to starve them than to steal, this shows the categorical imperative is
flawed as it puts absolute limits on behavior which may sometimes be moral in exceptional
circumstances. This limits the usefulness of the theory as a means to resolve moral dilemmas as it
can lead to immoral and negative outcomes, for example letting your children starve rather than
stealing, when applied to moral dilemmas. Whilst it could be argued that our duty to protect our
children outweighs our duty not to steal, Kant is arguing for an absolute, unchanging moral law with
no exceptions which is problematic and limits the usefulness of the theory at resolving moral
dilemmas.
+Absolutist moral rules
-Puts clear limits on behaviour and accounts for intrinsic rights and wrongs, cannot justify immoral actions-legalist system which puts clear limits over behaviour-accounts for intrinsic rights and wrongs and is also practical and easy to use.
-Meta ethics
nother limitation is that it assumes an intrinsic, objective morality which cannot be verified thus can
be considered meaningless. Logical positivists such as Ayer argue that the view there is an objective
moral reality is invalid as it cannot be verified (as it cannot be empirically observed and isn’t an
analytic statement) thus using the criteria of verifiability is meaningless, ethical language isn’t
cognitive but describes subjective emotion, limiting his argument as many philosophers would reject
the view that there is an objective moral law we should follow. Additionally, Kants use of religious
language, the view God is responsible for intrinsic morality and virtue is rewarded in the afterlife is
also unverifiable and thus meaningless according to Ayer, undermining the usefulness of his theory
because if the existence of objective morality is invalid, we have no reason to follow the categorical
imperative, making it a flawed means of resolving moral decisions as its based on invalid assertions.
However, it could also be argued Kants theory can’t be considered emotive and non-cognitive
because emotion has no place in Kants theory, it is purely reason based. Additionally, just because an
objective moral law can’t be verified, it doesn’t make his assertion meaningless, many things can’t be
observed yet can be considered existing and cognitively meaningful, e.g., beauty, so Ayers argument
is flawed as verifiability is a flawed criteria of meaning and we can accept the existence of an intrinsic
morality, so it doesn’t undermine the theories usefulness at resolving moral dilemmas. However, it
does reduce its convincingness and universal application as many modern philosophers reject its
assertions
