Kant’s vs consequentialism Flashcards
What scenario did B. Constant use to criticize Kant’s deontological approach?
Strength: Kant’s critique of consequentialism
B. Constant proposed the “murderer at the door” scenario, where he argued that lying to a murderer to protect an innocent person fits most people’s moral intuitions.
What does B.Constant’s scenario imply about Kant’s absolute duty to tell the truth?
Strength: Kant’s critique of consequentialism
It implies that telling the truth cannot be an absolute duty, as it seems to depend on the consequences of the action.
How did Kant respond to Constant’s criticism regarding consequences in moral decision-making?
Strength: Kant’s critique of consequentialism
Kant argued that consequences cannot be relevant to moral decision-making because we cannot control them and thus cannot be responsible for them.
What did Kant illustrate to support his argument against considering consequences in moral decision-making?
Strength: Kant’s critique of consequentialism
Kant illustrated that if we lied to the murderer about the victim’s location and the victim had actually moved there unbeknownst to us, we would be responsible for their death, despite our intention to save them.
How does Kant’s approach to moral decision-making differ from most people’s moral intuitions?
Weakness: consequences do have moral value
Kant’s approach, which prioritizes duty and disregards consequences, goes against most people’s moral intuitions, especially in situations where terrible consequences result from telling the truth.
What flaw does Kant’s justification for disregarding consequences in moral decision-making have, according to critics?
Weakness: consequences do have moral value
Critics argue that Kant’s claim that we cannot completely control consequences and thus cannot be responsible for them is flawed, as we can predict and control consequences to some extent.
How do Consequentialist theories like Utilitarianism differ from Kant’s approach?
Weakness: consequences do have moral value
Consequentialist theories prioritize maximizing happiness and consider moral obligation to consist of doing what will best achieve this goal, taking consequences into account.
Why does Kant’s approach fail to address the arguments of Consequentialist theories?
Weakness: consequences do have moral value
Kant’s approach fails to address Consequentialist theories’ claims about the ethical relevance of consequences and why our intuitions about them might be wrong.
What hypothetical scenario is often proposed to challenge Kant’s approach to disregarding consequences?
Weakness: consequences do have moral value
Critics often propose scenarios where terrible consequences could be prevented by lying, such as the scenario involving the deployment of nuclear weapons, to challenge Kant’s position on the ethical relevance of consequences.
How could Kant be defended against the objection regarding lying to prevent harm?
Evaluation defending Kant
Kant could be defended by emphasizing individual responsibility and arguing that lying to prevent harm assumes responsibility for the actions of others, which individuals are not accountable for.
Why might Kant’s defense against lying for the greater good seem unsatisfying to some people?
Evaluation defending Kant
Kant’s defense may seem unsatisfying because it prioritizes individual duty over preventing harm, which can conflict with people’s intuitions about minimizing suffering and promoting well-being.
What argument does Kant’s defense offer against allowing bad actions for the greater good?
Evaluation defending Kant
Kant’s defense argues that allowing bad actions for the greater good corrupts individuals and leads to a slippery slope where individuals abandon their moral duty in favor of achieving favorable outcomes.
According to Kant’s defense, what might be preferable to abandoning moral duty because of consequences?
Evaluation defending Kant
Kant’s defense suggests that it might be preferable to uphold moral duty even in the face of adverse consequences, as compromising morality can lead to personal corruption and immorality.
What criticism does Kant face regarding individual responsibility?
Evaluation criticising Kant
Critics argue that Kant’s view of individual responsibility overlooks the complex webs of social influence and interconnectedness among individuals.
How does Hegel criticize Kant’s understanding of the self?
Evaluation criticising Kant
Hegel criticizes Kant for failing to recognize that individuals exist within social contexts and are influenced by their interactions with others, shaping their identities and actions.
