Kant Flashcards
what does kant mean by duty?
reason enables us to reflect on ourselves. By duty Kant means doing what we ought to do. We have a sense of obligation to perform certain actions, such as telling the truth, obeying legitimate instructions, being truthful and doing good for others.
we have free will and so we must use our will as we can, which means the will to do good. Outcomes are never clear but we must will to do right.
is kant deontological or teleological?
deontological
a theory by which the goodness of an act is not dependent on the outcome but on the goodness itself.
absolutist?
kant is very absolutist this means the command to do one’s duty is invariable
hypothetical imperatives?
what we must do to achieve a particular goal. There is no requirement to follow this, but it is how we should act if we wish to achieve something
e.g. IF i want to be a doctor I MUST THEN do medical school
note the if and the must/then
what is the FIRST form of the categorical imperatives?
principle of universalisation
we should only act on a maxim that we are willing to follow as a law in every situation
e.g. if i rob a bank am i willing for everyone to be allowed to rob a bank
what is the SECOND form of the categorical imperative?
principle of the priority of ends or occasionally as the ‘formula of the end in itself’
treat everyone as ends and never as means
e.g. wrong for a shopkeeper to treat customers as a means for a profit and to cheat them
what is the THIRD form of the categorical imperative?
the ‘kingdom of ends’
follows on from the other two
so act as to treat everyone, including yourself, as an end in the kingdom of ends. This connects with the second form of the categorical imperative, and insists upon human dignity. Actions are done or the sake of persons and thus everyone should be treated for good.
what does kant mean by the three postulates for practical reason?
that we are free beings
that we are immortal
that God exists.
kant, duty vs consequences, point 1
- Kant believed there were absolute moral rules, which could be worked out rationally, and applied in all situations. Moral principles are thus autonomously derived through reason (influenced by Rousseau and freedom). Kant believed whenever one acted they were acting upon a maxim (a principle) – we must consider whether such maxims are categorical imperatives (unconditional moral obligation), or merely hypothetical imperatives (moral obligation carried out depending on the goal in question) “good simply as a means to something else” or “good in itself, in accordance to reason” (Kant, ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’)
- Kant, in his ‘Foundations for the Metaphysics of Morals’, claimed that the only truly good thing was a good will; having good intentions. It does not matter if we are prevented from carrying out our intentions – what matter’s is that we will to do good. “Good will is good because of how it wills – i.e. it is good in itself” everything else’s goodness comes about based on how it is used e.g. power or intelligence.
focus on duty is inflexible argument against kant (rachels)
- ‘The Case of the Inquiring Murderer’ poses the question to Kant of what one should reply to a murderer who asks if his victim is hiding in a certain house. Kant responds by saying we cannot predict the consequences of not telling the truth (i.e. cannot be the murderer would certainly go to the victims hiding place) so must adhere to absolute moral rules, “do not lie” and tell the truth, as we would be held responsible for the consequence of lying.
- James Rachels, in ‘The Elements of Moral Philosophy’ argues 1) human predictive powers are essential to functional societies. 2) “Kant seems to assume that although we would be morally responsible for any bad consequences of lying, we would not be similarly responsible for bad consequences of telling the truth”.
flexible maxims defene against rachels
• The response to the ‘Case of the Inquiring Murderer’ would be to change the maxim “do not lie” to “do not lie unless doing so will save a life” – this maxim does not seem to contradict the will or be self-defeating
relativity over deontology defence of kant against flexible maxims
- Yet this highlights moral duties DEPEND on situations in question, thus relativist, situational morality is favourable. Without being able to adapt one’s principles to the situation in hand, people may be forced to make ill-favoured decisions because they feel it is their duty to do so.
- Kantian ethics seems to be a form of virtue ethics, but really “good people” are people who commit “good acts” – acts which have successful outcomes. One may favour pragmatism over moral truth – truth based on what works in a given situation.
2nd formulation, valuing persons argument in favour of point, point 2
• “treat humanity… always as an end, never simply as a means”, known as the ‘humanity formula’ and has had the biggest impact on Western thought. One must never treat another as a means to an end, as humans are rational creatures deserved of dignity and respect; thus they must always be treated as ends in themselves. For example, helping an old lady to cross the road in order to gain praise for helping the elderly.
argument against 2nd formulation, unrealistic
• The second formation of the CI is unrealistic – if we were not allowed to treat people as means to an end then society would break down as no one could pay for services!
onora o’nell defence of 2nd formulation
- Often frivolous objections are made to the second formulation of the CI of not treating others as means to an end. Yet the contemporary Kantian Ethicist Onora O’Neill, in her paper ‘Kantian Approaches to some famine problems’ argues Kant means “do not treat others as mere means to an end” using someone entirely as a tool, thus involving lack of consent. There is nothing wrong about using one as a means, as any cooperative scheme of action requires so, yet there must be consent involved in this use.
- Clearly the second formation of the CI, of treating people as ends in themselves, makes the theory highly favourable and beneficial Onora O’Neil (a contemporary Kantian ethicist) discusses the duties of those living in more affluent societies have to the less fortunate. Kantian ethics specify duty of benefice which “develop or promote others” ends. Thus charitable acts must be performed towards the poor, as they are least able to pursue their own ends.
