Kant Flashcards
Why did Kant not believe that actions or character traits could be good?
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.
What was the only thing that Kant considered good?
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)
What made something good?
Something is good only when someone carries out their duty to do it – so goodness is based on doing the correct thing.
What does Kantian ethics rely on?
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.
Why did Kant presume we were free?
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.
Why must rational beings follow rules?
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.
Why does the rational being need to determine the ‘a priori synthetic’?
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.
What did Kant say was different about normal statements compared to moral statements?
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.
What is an hypothetical imperative?
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.
What did Kant say was needed if an action was to be considered moral?
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 is the categorical imperative formed?
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])
What is the Summum Bonum?
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.
Why is Kantian ethics deontological?
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.
Why is Kantian ethics absolutist?
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.
What did Kant think was the innate moral duty?
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.”