Kant Flashcards

1
Q

Why did Kant not believe that actions or character traits could be good?

A

In the search for intrinsic ‘good’, Kant did not believe that any outcome was inherently good. Pleasure or happiness could result out of the most evil acts. He also did not believe in ‘good’ character traits, as ingenuity, intelligence, courage etc. could all be used for evil.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the only thing that Kant considered good?

A

A good will- Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What made something good?

A

Something is good only when someone carries out their duty to do it – so goodness is based on doing the correct thing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does Kantian ethics rely on?

A

We must be free to be able to make decisions.
There must be an afterlife (or immortality) for us to be able to achieve the summum bonum.
God must exist in order to be a fair judge to bring us to the afterlife or not.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Why did Kant presume we were free?

A

If our actions are pre-determined and we merely bounce around like snooker-balls, we cannot be described as free and morality doesn’t apply to us. Kant could not prove that we are free – rather, he presumed that we could act morally, and for this to be the case we must be free.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Why must rational beings follow rules?

A

We do not follow predetermined laws. However, we must act according to some laws, otherwise our actions are random and without purpose. As a result, rational beings must determine for themselves a set of laws by which they will act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Why does the rational being need to determine the ‘a priori synthetic’?

A

These laws are not analytic (true by virtue of their meaning), but they cannot be determined through experience (a posteriori). Hume pointed this out when he said that you couldn’t move from an is (a synthetic statement about the world) to an ought (a statement about the way the world should be). The rational being has to determine the synthetic a priori – the substantive rules that can be applied prior to experience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What did Kant say was different about normal statements compared to moral statements?

A

Normal statements are either a priori analytic (they are knowable without experience and verifiable through reason) or they are a posteriori synthetic (knowable through experience and verifiable through experience).
For Kant, moral statements are a priori synthetic – you can know something is moral without experience, and it can be checked with experience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is an hypothetical imperative?

A

Hume realised you can’t get a should statement out of an is statement. In other words, experience can only give us hypothetical imperatives (If you want to be healthy, then you should exercise and watch what you eat). A description of the way the world is cannot tell us the way we should act. It is not obligatory if the end is not desired.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What did Kant say was needed if an action was to be considered moral?

A

Kant specified that moral actions are absolute actions that must be done in all circumstances - there are to be no conditions attached.
Moral actions cannot be hypothetical (based on something else - e.g. if I want X I must do Y) because they become too subjective.
If an action is to be entirely objective, it must be universal and if it is to be made properly, the human must be in total control (autonomous) and assume all others are autonomous.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How is the categorical imperative formed?

A

Always perform actions that may be made rules for everyone (universalisability) (Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. [Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785])
Always treat people as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. (Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means. [Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785])
Pretend you live as a member of (and as a leader of) the Kingdom of Ends where all people live as if these rules are totally valid ([E]very rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. [Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785])

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the Summum Bonum?

A

Kant noted that if we are to do our duty then we must be able to be rewarded for our actions.
He talked about the summum bonum - the place where our happiness and our virtue (good actions through doing our duty) come together.
This is obviously not something that can be found on earth - we see bad people living happy lives and good people living unhappy lives - therefore the summum bonum must be able to be achieved in the afterlife.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Why is Kantian ethics deontological?

A

It is concerned with the morality of duty. Kantians are therefore primarily concerned with the means to an end; the intention or motive for action. It opposes the view that the end justifies the means and as such does not take into account the outcome.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Why is Kantian ethics absolutist?

A

The morality of an action takes no regard to the situation it is in. Kant thus subscribes to the belief that morality is universal and prohibitive of actions regardless of circumstance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What did Kant think was the innate moral duty?

A

Kant’s starting point for moral philosophy was his observation that we all have experience of an innate moral duty which is shown when our conscience, alongside feelings of shame and guilt violate this. A good action therefore is one that fulfills our sense of moral duty “To act morally is to perform one’s duty, and one’s duty is to obey the innate moral laws.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What did Kant think we should not act out of?

A

Kant though that we are in a constant battle with our inclination and that we should not act out of emotion such as love or compassion. Even if our duty demanded the same action but the motive for that action was based on compassion, it would not be a moral action.

17
Q

What does “Ought Implies Can” mean?

A

It is not our duty to do what is impossible for us to do- Moral statements are prescriptive; they prescribe an action. I ought to do X implies I can do X.

18
Q

What is the differences between the hypothetical and the categorical imperative?

A

The hypothetical Imperative has ‘ifs’, have instrumental value, are conditional, and are a means to an end. The categorical imperative have no ‘ifs’, have intrinsic value, and unconditional and are ends in themselves- their authority does not come from achieving an end.

19
Q

What are the strengths of Kantian ethics?

A

It is universal so everyone is treated equally and given equal value.
Human life is given particular value.
You have particular rules to follow - you know where you are with the theory.
It promotes good will, which is beneficial for society
There are no references to the future or to consequences, which cannot be known.

20
Q

What are the weakness of Kantian ethics?

A

It does not seem to account for the complexities of life – universalisability cannot work as no two situations are the same.
For example, would you tell a known murderer where his victim was? (Kant says we have to.)
It does not account for any particular duty we may have for certain people (e.g. family).
It does not account for times when two absolutes clash.
Some would say that sometimes human life has to be sacrificed to stop others or more people being killed or suffering.

21
Q

What are the main criticisms to Kantian ethics?

A

All deontological (duty or rule-based) systems will have problems when two rules come into conflict. It is possible to have a third rule (Always tell the truth unless doing so endangers someone’s life), but this complicates the theory, resulting in rules with lots of clauses and sub-clauses. There could also be literally millions of rules that are not self-contradictory but, if universalised, would seem absurd. Here Kant says that we should reject those rules which, if universalised, would produce a state of affairs utterly objectionable to all rational people. This suddenly looks less convincing than before – how can we tell what rational people would find objectionable?

22
Q

What did WD Ross do?

A

Ross adapted the Kantian approach. He described our obligations as ‘Prima Facie’ duties. This means that they are, ‘at first appearance’, things that we must do. Just like Kant, he might say that we have an obligation not to kill, steal etc.

23
Q

What are some of the obligations that Ross lists?

A
Duties of fidelity.
    Duties of gratitude.
    Duties of justice.
    Duties of beneficence to others
    Duties of self-development.
    Duties not to injure others
24
Q

In what way did Ross disagree with Kant?

A

So, we have obligations, but Kant said these were absolutes, Ross disagrees. They appear to be absolute (prima facie), but if two of them contradict, we clearly cannot honour both obligations. We need to determine which is the greater obligation, and then we have an absolute duty to follow that.

25
Q

What is an example of how you would follow Ross’ form of Kantian ethics?

A

For example, I have promised to stay with a colleague’s class while he makes an urgent phone call. I am clearly obliged to honour my promise. Someone rushes in and announces that a student is dying next door, and I am the only one who can save her (I have a First Aid Certificate). I clearly have a duty to save the student’s life (save the cheerleader, save the world…). So, which duty am I obliged to honour? Ross would say I have a prima facie obligation to keep my promise, but an absolute obligation to save the student.

26
Q

How would you apply Kantian ethics to a real-life example?

A

Start with a maxim - Jenny, whose life is threatened by her pregnancy and wants an abortion, should abort.
Make it universal - All women whose life is threatened by their pregnancy and want an abortion should abort.
Is it self-contradictory? - No, it’s not self-contradictory
Is it a contradiction of the will? Could a rational person want to live in a world with this rule?
Could you will that it became a universal law of nature?
Is it using a person merely as a means to an end?

27
Q

How can Kantian ethics support euthanasia?

A

“Someone who is terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, who are suffering greatly and wish to die should be helped to die”.
You could universalise this into a decent universal law that doesn’t contradict the will:
“All people who are terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, who are suffering greatly and wish to die should be helped to die”.

28
Q

In what ways would Kantian ethics not support euthanasia?

A

However, could this be a law of nature? I’m sure you could imagine a world where people die when they are suffering greatly through terminally illness with no hope of recovery. Could we imagine a world where wanting to die led to death? Even if combined with the other factors, would we want to live in such a world? Surely some people feel they can’t cope when first diagnosed but change their minds later?

29
Q

What is the difference between the a universal law and a law of nature?

A

In other words, we get one answer when we think about making laws in society - we’d need two doctors to verify that someone had no hope of recovery. We’d do tests to make sure someone was in their right mind and had time to think through the alternatives etc. We get a different answer when we imagine that this all happens according to nature. The universal law of nature makes us think twice before we start making universal laws

30
Q

Why might Kant not approve of euthanasia?

A

Kant isn’t utilitarian, and never wanted to take account of the effects of the laws we make. He just wanted to work out the moral laws that could be made into universal laws of nature. So if euthanasia produced a negative universal law of nature, than it would be against it.

31
Q

What does Kantian ethics think of PGD?

A

You are not allowed to use someone as a means to an end, so you could only do it if it had some benefit to the embryo, like in the case of the Hasmir’s when there was an inherited disease as well as looking for a match. The whitakers were not allowed because there was no inherited disorder, so no benefit to the embryo so they would have been using it as a means to an end.