Kant ethics Flashcards
What is the good will?
“A good will is one which acts for the sake of duty”
A good will is one that isn’t one that’s motivated by any particular end or goal
But by the sake of duty (Acting out of duty)
Acting out of duty/in accordance with duty
Acting in Accordance with duty: carrying out what duty commands that they do, but not carrying it out because they recognise this as a duty, but for some other reason, meaning the action has no moral worth (Eg. A shop owner deals honestly with inexperienced customers because they don’t want to lose customers)
Acting out of duty: carrying out what duty commands that they do, because they have recognised this as their duty and not for any other reason, meaning the action has moral worth (Eg. a shop owner who is honest because they recognise this as their moral duty to carry out
Categorical imperative
Laws that apply to everyone (universal) and must always be done
Moral
Unconditional/absolute
Universal
Not goal directed
Do X
Hypothetical imperative
Must do in order to achieve something else
Non-moral
Conditional
Personal. if… then do X
Goal-directed
Contingent
First formulation of the categorial imperative
Categorial imperative: universal laws that should apply to everyone regardless of their desires. These are unconditional and absolute (eg. You ought to keep promises)
The first formulation of the categorial imperative is used as a test to derive more specific duties: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction
Acting on a maxim that doesn’t pass this test is morally wrong, and fails if universalising it leads to a contradiction
Eg. Stating that its okay to steal leads to a contradiction in conception as its self contradictory for everyone to follow it
P1-If stealing was ok, you could take whatever you wanted from someone whenever
P2-If you could do this, the concept of ownership wouldn’t exist as everyone would have as much right as the owner
P3-If the concept of ownership doesn’t exist, stealing wouldn’t either as nobody has rights to anything
C-Therefore if its always ok to steal, it isn’t even possible to steal
C2-So “Stealing is ok” leads to a contradiction in conception
Second formulation of the categorical imperative (Humanity formula)
“Act in a way that you always treat humanity never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (dont use people)
Eg. Tricking somebodyu into marrying you for their money
This would be treating them as a means to make money, which kant believes is wrong. He says we should treat people as ends
For kant, the deception of this is the issue as it undermines the rational agency of the other party.
By withholding our intentions, we prevent them from pursiing their own ends (loving partner)
This would be different if they were informed of your intentions, so that they can make a fair choice on whether this fits with their ends
Clashing/compelling duties
Kant believes we are creators of our own moral laws and we should never violate them
But what if we are put in a position in where its unavoidable
eg. we have a duty to never lie
what happens where we are in a situation where the only way to keep a promise is to lie
making either choice violates a duty
Philippa Foot
Morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives, not categorical
Moral systems cannot ignore desires, we need to be motivated in order to do an action
Categorical imperatives do not motivate but hypothetical does
Not all Universal maxims are moral
Kant argues that ignoring a perfect duty leads to a contradiction in conception.
the very concept of private property couldn’t exist if stealing was universally permissible.
by tweaking the maxim we can avoid the contradiction and justify stealing.
Instead of maxim being “to steal” we could say to steal from people with 5 letters in their name
this maxim could be universalised without undermining private property
shows that just because a maxim can be universalised, it doesnt make it moral
