Kant 4/21 Flashcards
GoodWill
Idea of one who is committed only to make decisions that she holds to be morally worthy and who takes moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior. T
Only unqualified good: valuable in itself, not for its effects.
Acts purely from duty, out of reverence for the moral law.
Retains moral worth even if outcomes fail or backfire.
Foundation on which all other talents and traits gain ethical value.
Duty
The obligation to perform or refrain from an action based solely on the recognition of moral principle.
Moral necessity to act from respect for the moral law.
Gives an action its sole source of moral worth.
Motivated by reason, not by inclination, reward, or fear.
Often opposes personal desires, revealing the will’s freedom.
Maxim
A subjective principle or rule that an individual adopts as a guide for action.
Subjective rule: “WheneverS, I willA for reasonR.”
Reveals the agent’s true intent behind an action.
Must pass the universal‑law test to be moral.
Basis for praising or blaming a will, not merely the result.
CategoricalImperative
CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must follow despite any natural desires we may have to the contrary
Unconditional command binding all rational beings.
Core wording: Act only on maxims you can will as universal laws.
Provides the criterion for duty and moral permissibility.
Supplies reason’s own authority—no “if” clause attached.
HypotheticalImperative
A hypothetical imperative is a command that also applies to us in virtue of our having a rational will, but not simply in virtue of this.
It requires us to exercise our wills in a certain way given we have antecedently willed an end.
A hypothetical imperative is thus a command in a conditional form.
Autonomy
The ability of a rational will to govern itself without being controlled by external forces. A person acts autonomously when they follow moral principles they have freely and rationally chosen for themselves. In Kant’s ethics, autonomy is essential for moral responsibility.
Self‑legislation: will gives itself the moral law.
Freedom from external determinants (pleasure, custom, authority).
Source of human dignity and responsibility.
Opposite of heteronomy, where motives come from outside the rational will.
Inclination
Desire or emotion pushing toward an object (e.g., hunger, fear).
Morally neutral but non‑rational—cannot ground duty.
Can coincide with duty yet grants no moral worth by itself.
Often conflicts with the moral law, testing the good will.
MoralLaw
Universal rational principle: act only on universalizable maxims.
Known apriori through practical reason, not experience.
Commands with categorical necessity; no exceptions.
Inspires respect (Achtung), the unique moral motive.
What does Kant mean when he says only the goodwill is good without qualification?
All other “goods” (talent, intelligence, happiness) can be used for evil; their value is conditional.
The goodwill is good in itself, because it wills the moral law purely for its own sake.
Its moral worth does not depend on consequences or success; intention is everything.
Thus it is the unconditional foundation of Kantian ethics.
How does Kant distinguish acting in accordance with duty vs. acting from duty?
In accordance: the external act matches what duty requires, but the motive is inclination, habit, or self‑interest.
From duty: the act is performed because the agent recognizes it as morally required.
Only the second carries moral worth; the first may be prudent or agreeable but lacks ethical merit.
Distinction exposes why motive, not mere compliance, matters for Kant.
What role does autonomy play in Kant’s moral theory?
Autonomy = self‑legislation of the moral law by rational will; opposite of heteronomy.
Makes genuine moral obligation possible: we bind ourselves, not obey external pressures.
Grounds dignity and equal worth of persons—each is a sovereign moral legislator.
Explains responsibility: wrongdoing is self‑contradiction, not rule‑breaking imposed from outside.
Why is the Formula of Humanity morally significant?
Emphasizes the dignity of persons—you must always respect others as rational beings, not use them.
Commands: Treat humanity, in yourself and others, always as an end, never merely as a means.
Protects the intrinsic worth rooted in rational autonomy.
Bans exploitation: deception, coercion, and manipulation violate this principle.
Generates positive duties to promote others’ rational ends, not just avoid harm.
What is the Formula of the Law of Nature and how does it test actions?
Wording: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature.
Imagine your rule operating like a natural law—exceptionless, inevitable.
If universalizing the maxim produces a self‑defeating or impossible world, the action is immoral.
Strengthens the logical “contradiction in conception” test from the Formula of Universal Law.
What is Kant asking us to consider when evaluating a proposed action?
State the maxim: specify the act, circumstances, and motive.
Universalize it: can you rationally will everyone to adopt this maxim?
Check for contradictions—either logical (practice collapses) or volitional (you couldn’t rationally will it while seeking your own end).
Assess whether it respects persons as ends (Formula of Humanity).
Example: Assess a maxim for universalizability
Action chosen: Keeping found cash that belongs to someone else.
Maxim: “When I find unattended money, I will keep it for myself to gain easy profit.”
Universalization test: If everyone kept unattended money, trust in rightful ownership would erode; people would no longer expect lost property to be returned—making the very practice of “finding” property meaningless.
Result: Contradiction in conception; the maxim cannot be universalized.
If a maxim fails the universalization test, what follows morally?
The action is contrary to duty; performing it is morally impermissible.
Acting on such a maxim uses personal exception—an irrational inconsistency.
Good will rejects the maxim; choosing it shows heteronomy and lacks moral worth.
The agent is blameworthy, having violated the categorical imperative.
Reason
Theoretical reason: sets its own limits (Critique of Pure Reason), supplying apriori forms (space/time) and categories that make experience possible.
Practical reason: shifts from knowing to doing by issuing the categorical imperative, the apriori moral law.
Autonomy: reason self‑legislates this law, giving humans dignity and moral responsibility.
Goodwill: will ruled by reason alone; acts from duty and is the only unconditional good.
Universalization & Humanity tests: reason checks maxims for logical coherence and respect for persons.
Kingdom of Ends: reason projects an ideal moral community where every rational agent is both legislator and subject.
Reflective judgment: in the Critique of Judgment reason harmonizes nature and freedom through the idea of purposiveness.
Unified system: reason is architect and critic across knowledge, ethics, and aesthetics, stitching Kant’s philosophy into one rational whole.
FormulaofUniversalLaw (FUL)
Wording: Act only on maxims you can will as universal laws.
Test: Ask whether everyone could adopt the maxim without logical contradiction.
Key aim: Filters out self‑serving exceptions; enforces impartiality.
Focus: Form of the maxim—its universalizability—not its content.
FormulaoftheLawofNature (FLN)
Wording: Act as if your maxim were to become, by your will, a law of nature.
Test: Imagine the maxim operating like an unbreakable natural law; does the practice destroy itself?
Key aim: Makes the contradiction vivid by picturing an ineluctable world shaped by that rule.
Focus: Logical “contradiction in conception” (e.g., universal theft cancels ownership).
FormulaofHumanity / End‑in‑Itself (FH)
Wording: Treat humanity, in yourself and others, always as an end, never merely as a means.
Test: Would the action exploit, deceive, or coerce a rational being?
Key aim: Safeguards the intrinsic worth rooted in autonomy.
Focus: Moral value of persons—respect and non‑instrumental treatment.
FormulaofAutonomy (FA)
Wording: Act so your maxims could be universal laws you give yourself.
Test: Can I endorse this maxim as a law I rationally legislate for all?
Key aim: Highlights that the moral law’s authority comes from self‑legislation, not external command.
Focus: The will’s freedom and rational self‑governance.
FormulaoftheKingdomofEnds (FKE)
Wording: Act as a law‑giving member of a kingdom of ends where every rational being is both legislator and subject.
Test: Does my maxim fit a community of mutually respecting autonomous agents?
Key aim: Projects the social ideal of moral cooperation and equal dignity.
Focus: The systemic harmony of universal laws and respect for persons.
How the Five Formulations Work Together
Same moral core, different angles: Each formulation expresses the one categorical imperative, stressing form (FUL/FLN), value (FH), source (FA), and community (FKE).
Stepwise deepening: FUL/FLN check for logical consistency; FH adds respect for persons; FA roots that respect in self‑legislation; FKE scales it to a moral commonwealth.
Mutual reinforcement: A maxim that passes universality but uses people fails FH; a respectful maxim still must be logically universalizable—all tests must agree.
Unified picture: Taken together, the formulations show that moral action is (i) rationally coherent, (ii) non‑exploitative, (iii) self‑imposed, and (iv) fit for a community of free and equal legislators.
ContradictioninConception
Definition: When universalizing a maxim destroys the very practice or concept it depends on, making the maxim inconceivable as a law of nature.
Effect: The world envisioned is logically impossible; the rule would annul its own conditions of success.
Moral Result: The action is strictly forbidden (perfect duty to self or others).
Example: A universal law of deceptive promises would abolish trust; promising itself would become meaningless.
