Kant and Deontology Flashcards
What is deontology?
ny moral theory according to which the rightness of an action is determined by the action itself, or on which certain actions are obligatory, forbidden, or permissible regardless of consequences
some actions are morally required or forbidden based on rules or duties, regardless of the consequences.
agent centered theory
focused on what the agent, the one who is acting does. Duty focused.
patient centered theory
focused on those who are impacted by our actions. Rights focused
social contract theory:
obligations, permissions, permissibility depends on what wuold be agreed to in some hypothetical contract situation
What distinguishes a right from an ordinary moral claim?
in the case of a right, you should be stopped/there should be consequences/some legal disincentives
a moral claim is more broad and usually legal action is not required
What is the problem with attempts to consequentialize deontology?
it undermines deontology
deontology is about duties, not outcomes
if you try and consequentialize it, it’ll no longer be deontology
Where does Kant think utilitarianism goes wrong?
in thinking that happiness had any value in itself to begin with, or any value independently of the people who deserve it
Kant says: show respect for one another’s humanity
humanity: the part of them that is free to act against their impulses and do the thing they think they should. To respect their humanity is to respect them as agents, as choosers
Utilitarianism: prioritize what is choosen over the chooser
Kantianism: prioritize the chooser over the choice
What does Kant think makes us free?
rationality
What is the thing that Kant thinks matters more than happiness?
freedom
What does he think entitles us to happiness?
respecting freedom
What are the various ways of stating the Kantian thesis, including the two formulations of the categorical imperative that we discussed and what do they mean?
Formulation 1: act so as to treat one another as an end in ourselves, never as means only
Formulation 2: act so that you could will the principle of your action as if it were a universal law
What is it to treat someone as a mere means?
To treat someone as a mere thing, useful only to your goals. To try and get them to act in a way that, if they had a choice in the matter, they would not act
aka: never act in a way that a person could not, in principle, consent to
How can we determine whether an action is permissible?
so long as a person can consent to it?
What objections did we discuss against Kantianism?
natzi fanatic: you lie to the nazi at the door/you should lie to the nazi at the door—should be a reductio
redescription: the idea that if people can simply rename their maxums, then any action becomes universializable. If you say to only lie in the circumstances where no one else knows you’re lying… you describe it in some way that makes it universalizable
specify something hella
evil but universalizable: there are some maxums that are themselves evil, but it seems like you can universalize them
the bad enough consequence: when a consequence of your action is bad enough, it would be morally okay (like the Natzi example), telling the truth would be too bad for it to be morally acceptable
Why does deontology do better than other kinds of ethical theories at explaining rights?
it’s more constant because it doesn’t depend on the outcome
