Kant-Humanities

Question 1

Historical context

Answer 1

• Germany in modern-day Russia before unification.
• Enlightenment: 18th century (when thinkers purge society from religious and political influence).
• All hopes on rationality- human reason (thought that humanity is capable of bettering itself).

Question 2

With what kind of perspective will Kant end up with?

Answer 2

Deontological
- Deon= duty
- List of fixed duties (moral rules)
Ex: “It is always wrong to… (lie, murder, disrespect people)”
“It is always right to… (respect, help others).”

Question 3

What is Kant’s number one criticism of Bentham?

Answer 3

Irrationality
- Utility charts evaluates consequences depending on prediction of future feelings.
-Kant believes future + feelings= both irrational, therefore we don’t have any control over them.
- What we do control is our thoughts.

Question 4

Criticism (Bentham) nb 2- Consequences

Answer 4

Consequences
- Future not within our power.
- we should control on that we can control.

Question 5

Criticism (Bentham) nb 3- Intentions

Answer 5

Intentions
- Intentions to kant: important to evaluate good will. - Idea that our intentions MUST be good to act well.
- Bentham completely disregards intentions which are core to one’s acts when it comes to Kant.

Question 6

Criticism (Bentham) nb 4- Justice & human rights objection.

Answer 6

• In Bentham’s pt of view, it may sometimes be right to disregard one’s rights in the aim of optimizing the outcomes for a greater number of people.
• Kant believes there are ABSOLUTE rules we must ALWAYS obey.
• To him: there is something divine about being human- superior to animals.
• All rational humans deserve respect for their dignity.

Question 7

How does Kant evaluate good will? Which boxes must be ticked for one’s action to be considered “good.”

Answer 7

1) To figure out with reason ONLY what is the morally right thing to do and do it.

2) To do it with the right intention or motive (not out of inclination/nature/outcomes).

Question 8

Why is it that for Kant, when one acts out of emotional inclination or nature, their intention must be considered bad?

Answer 8

• When emotions involved in “good acts,” it becomes hard to conclude anything about one’s intentions.
• If their nature of helping people happily shifts for example, or if they are simply not in the mood they would probably not act the same way.
• To kant, good intention: acting out of duty because then, no other affects the way we act.

Question 9

What is one thing that is core to Bentham’s utilitarianism that Kant completely disregards?

Answer 9

Context!
- Belief that there are ABSOLUTE values we must obey by REGARDLESS of context.

Question 10

Exercise: Do they deserve moral praise?
Your Boyfriend tells you that he has remained faithful to you because he is still madly in love with you.

Answer 10

Does not deserve moral praise
- Pleases him to stay faithful since he loves me
- No proof that he will stay faithful if his loved decreased or if he fell out of love.

Question 11

What is NOT good intention according to Kant?

Answer 11

• Acting well for the sake of the outcomes
  (outcome-oriented motivations)
• Acting out of inclination- because we are naturally led to do.
  Ex: refraining from cheating solely because part of our nature fears to lose the other is not good will.- if character shifts and fear is lost, not faithfulness anymore.

Question 12

But what if our intentions were good, yet we commit the morally wrong thing?

Answer 12

Kant believes it still does not deserve moral praise. - To him, the action itself matters more than intentions and therefore, it’s good nature should be checked first for something to deserve moral praise.

Question 13

What is the first rule of thumb- Kant’s categorical imperative.

Answer 13

“Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law.”
- Only act in a way that you can desire to become a universal law.
-maxim: the essence of an action expressed in infinitive form
-will: desire/imagine/conceive
Ex: To determine if lying is good, we must universalize it by imagining a world in which everyone lies. When everyone lies: truth does not exist anymore. Lying=witholding the truth- Rational CONTRADICTION.

Question 14

What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative?

Answer 14

“Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, as an end and never as merely as a mean.”
- As an end: worthy of utmost respect a=for their dignity
- MERELY as a mean: only as tools
- Categorical duty to respect humans
- We all use each other. However, using each other ONLY as tools to achieve a mean is profoundly disrespectful.
Example: Lying: always disrespectful regardless of context. - would be using him as a tool to attain her goal.
If Martine lies to her husband about cheating: acts disrespectfully and condescendently because she pretends to know better and doesn’t let her husband make his own choices rationality- no respect for human dignity and rationality.

Question 15

Exercise: Are they morally praise-worthy?
Specify the type of action + explain.
- A tradesman refreins from overcharging tourist at the risk of that people of his community will discover he does. They would consequently stop buying goods from him.

Answer 15

Not morally praise-worthy
- Acting in accordance with one’s duty: Good action/Bad intentions.
- Only cares about the outcomes

Question 15

What are the 3 types of actions?

Answer 15

1) Acting immorally: No good action/No good intentions
2) Acting in accordance with one’s duty: Good action/No good intentions
3) Acting for duty’s sake, namely out of good will: Good action/Good intentions.

Question 15

Exercise: Are they morally praiseworthy?
Specify the type of action + explain.
- A philanthropist is overwhelmed by sorrows of his own, extinguishing all sympathy with the lot of others. While he still has the power to benefit others, he is not touched by their trouble because he is absorbed with his own. Yet, he tears himself out of this insensibility and gives generously to the needy without any inclination to it, but simply out of duty.

Answer 15

Morally praise-worthy
- Acting in duty’s sake, namely with good will: Good action/Good intentions.
- acts out of duty only
- only reason why he does it: thinks it’s what decent people do.

Question 15

Weaknesses in Kant’s theory

Answer 15

1) Rigidity:
-Does not adapt well
-Concentrates solely on duty
-Completely disregards consequences and emotions

2) Only works with extreme cases taught in textbooks while in real life, we are confronted with more mundane choices.
- Hard to define maxim and what is the right thing to do.
Ex: “Should I change neighborhoods?”
- Impossible to analyze with both formulas.
- Formulation 1: what is the maxim? Changing houses? Separating daughter from school friends?
- Formulation 2: “Always respect others”
What is the most respectful thing to do?

3) Kant’s theory becomes impractical if duties conflict.
Ex: Friend is hiding at my house and abusive husbands shows up and asks if she is there. - We should never lie & We should always help each other _ CONFLICT

Question 15

Strengths to Kant’s theory

Answer 15

1) Emphasis on universal principles of duty
- Admits no exception (one should never…)
- Perspect of act itself: follows our profound intuition abt wrongdoings & gives shape to argue they are wrong.
- Perspective of people to whom actions are done: K’s theory provides important inalienable grounds for respect of human rights.

2) Impartiality: Everyone is treated equally regardless of their social class, gender, sexual ID.

3) Purely rational: saw it as BEST strength.
-Rejection of any irrational involvement in making choices.

4) Glues out neat solutions for how we should behave.
- Specific set of categorical duties
- Neat to its approach: no need for calculations.
- neat solutions (clear).

5) Kant’s theory prevents exploitation of human beings (using others only as tools.
if we implement it; no more exploitation.