kantian deontological ethics Flashcards

1
Q

good will and duty

A
  • to have good will is to be motivated by duty
  • an action is only good when a person acts from a sense of good will
  • emotions are subjective and therefore not moral
  • good will + duty = moral action
  • duties include not: committing suicide, lusting, being greedy/drunk and lying
  • we should do our duty because it is our duty
  • you have a duty to follow moral law (which is summarised by the catagorical imperative)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is our duty

A
  • what is morally right?
  • what does good will, will?
  • how can good will be good in itself?
  • it must be something about the maxims it adopts but it can’t be what the maxims aim at
  • since the good will is only good without qualification
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

hypothetical imperative

A
  • a command to act to achieve a desired result
  • always begins with if
  • goal oriented
  • if the action would be good simply as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

the two types of maxims

A
  • categorical
  • hypothetical
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

the summum bonum

A
  • Kant uses it to mean the highest happiness
  • it is received in the afterlife and is a reward for acting out of one’s duty, as long as one has acted autonomously
  • the summum bonum is a happy, fulfilled state of mind
  • Kant said that the summum bonum is a necessary reward as otherwise it would be irrational to act morally (it ensures justice is served for those who acted morally/dutifully)
  • to achieve the summum bonum, the categorical imperative has to be followed in order to have known what your duty is and then to have been acted on
  • the reward is not give to those who preformed good actions for any other reason
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

the three postulates

A
  1. there is a god
  2. we have immortality
  3. there is the possibility of freedom
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. there is a god
A
  • only a divine being could have the knowledge required to reward the dutiful
  • the summum bonum could only be given by a wholly good being (god is omnibenevolnet)
  • this reward could only be given by a being with the power to do so
  • Kant argues the innate moral law also acts as proof of god’s existence as he claims it is the best and only rational reason to accept the the truth of god’s existence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q
  1. we have immorality
A
  • there must be an immortal soul because the reward of highest happiness could not possibly be obtained in a moral life (as such a joy could not be experienced in this physical world)
  • a reward would only really make sense when we have finished making moral decisions
  • the summum bonum is therefore awarded to the immortal soul in the afterlife and for that reason many have compared the summum bonum to heaven
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q
  1. there is the possibility of freedom
A
  • to obtain the summum bonum, you must have acted freely or a reward would not be appropriate
  • therefore, freedom must be possible
  • someone who acts morally but not freely can’t obtain the summum bonum
  • this is one reason why you should not lie or undermine the autonomy of others and to not use others as a means to an end
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

catagorical imperative

A
  • tells everyone what to do (applies to all things)
  • does not depend on a goal
  • absolute moral obligation
  • moral laws are catagorical
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

the ways to test whether a maxim passes the categorical imperative

A
  • contradiction in conception
  • contradiction in will
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

contradiction in conception

A
  • for a law to be universal, it must not result in contradiction in conception (which is something that is self-contradictory)
  • if a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a duty not to follow that maxim as it is always wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

contradiction in conception example

A
  • is ‘you should steal’ a universally applicable maxim?
  • if stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument against it
  • the concept of ownership wouldn’t make sense as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do
  • therefore, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, there is no concept of private property
  • and if there is no such thing as private property, then stealing is impossible
  • therefore, Kant would say, the maxim ‘you should steal’ leads to a contradiction in conception
  • and consequently, stealing is not morally permissible
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

contradiction in will

A
  • assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, it then must be asked whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will (can rationally will a maxim or not)
  • eg can we rationally will ‘not to help others in need?’
  • there is no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone else
  • but Kant says we can’t rationally will it because we have goals (ends) that cannot be achieved without the help of others
  • to will the ends, we must also will the means, therefore we can’t rationally will the goals without willing the help of others (means)
  • however, not all goals require the help of others
  • therefore, Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty (sometimes it is wrong to follow the maxim ‘not to help others in need’)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

formula of universal law

A

‘act only in accordance with that maxim through which you at the same time can will that it became a universal law’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Kant’s three formulations

A
  1. formula of the law of nature
  2. formula of the end in itself
  3. formula of the kingdom of ends
17
Q
  1. formula of the law of nature
A
  • whereby a maxim can be established as a universal law
  • for an action to be morally valid, the person performing the action must not carry it out unless they believe that: in the same situation, all people should act in the same way
  • Kant tests the morality of an action by imagining how it would be if it were generally practiced and you were in the receiving end
18
Q

formula of the law of nature example

A
  • if a sinister looking man carrying an axe knocked on your door and asked where your best friend was, would it be morally acceptable to tell a lie?
    1. come up with a maxim: I will lie to the sinister axe man who asked where my best friend was
    2. universalise it: all people should lie to the sinister axe man who asked where their best friend was
    3. is it logically possible for everyone to act like this: yes
    4. do you want everyone to act in this way: no
  • Kant says this is because telling the truth is an absolute duty
  • you can’t universalise always lying because that would diminish the value of the truth
  • if you lied and this led to the axe man finding your friend, that would be in your conscience
  • if you tell the truth, the consequences are not
19
Q
  1. formula of the end in itself
A
  • whereby people are treated as ends in themselves and not means to an end
  • a moral code must treat humans with respect and not just as a means to an ends
  • humans must be the end in themselves
  • to tread someone as an end for Kant meant keeping the view that people have a life of their own and deserve justice/fair treatment
20
Q
  1. formula of the kingdom of ends
A
  • whereby society of rationality is established in which people treat each other as ends and not means
  • the kingdom of ends is a society made of people, all of whom are entitled to be treated as ends not means
  • the formula of the kingdom of ends enjoins us to follow those rules that we would make us legislating members of such a kingdom
  • it requires us to work out a set of rules that we would legislate if we were doing so from a certain ideal point of view
  • Kant uses formula 1 and 2 by saying that everyone should act as though everyone else has the same human rights as themselves
21
Q

not all universal maxims are moral
(objection)

A
  • Kant argues that ignoring a perfect duty leads to a contradiction in conception
  • in the stealing example, the concept of private property wouldn’t exist if stealing was universally permissible
  • but by slightly changing the maxim, this is avoided and stealing is justified
  • eg instead of the maxim being ‘to steal’, the maxim could be ‘to steal from people with nine letters in their name’
  • both of these maxims can be universalised without undermining the concept of private property as they would apply rarely enough to not have a concept breakdown
  • this shows that just because a maxim can be universalised, that does not mean it is inherently good or moral
  • by defining maxims cleverly, we can justify any course of action
22
Q

not all universal maxims are moral
(response)

A
  • Kant would likely argue that modifying your maxim in this way is cheating
  • because the extra conditions (eg the number of letters in a person’s name) are irrelevant to this situation
  • the categorical imperative is concerned with the actual maxim I am acting on and not an arbitrary one I just made up
23
Q

ignores consequences

A
  • there is a strong intuition that consequences are important in regards to moral decision making
  • this intuition can be drawn out by considering ethical dilemmas, eg the trolley problem:
  • is it right to kill one person to save five people? Kant says no
  • but what about 100 people?
  • surely, if the consequences are significant enough should we consider breaking certain rule

Another example is stealing. Many people would have the utilitarian intuition that it’s morally acceptable to steal
- this seems to draw out absurd and morally questionable results from following rules too strictly

24
Q

ignores other valuable motivations
(objection)

A
  • being motivated by duty is the only motivation that has moral worth
  • eg imagine a close friend is ill in hospital and you pay them a visit because you genuinely like them and want to make sure they’re ok
  • Kant says the motivation (concern for your friend) has no moral value
  • however, if you didn’t really care about your friend but went to visit purely out of duty, this would have moral value according to Kant
  • this seems ridiculous
  • Kant seems to be saying we should want to help people because of duty, not because we genuinely care
25
Q

ignores other valuable motivations response

A
  • Kant would respond by making a distinction between acting for the sake of duty and acting in accordance with duty
  • there is nothing wrong with being motivated by motivations such as love, but we shouldn’t choose how to act because of them
  • instead, we should always act out of duty, but if what we want to do anyway is in accordance with duty then that’s a bonus
26
Q

conflicts between duties
(objection)

A
  • Kant argues that it is never acceptable to violate our duties
  • eg what if you were in a situation where this was unavoidable
  • Kant would say we have a duty to never lie
  • but what happens if you make a promise to someone but then find yourself in a situation where the only way to keep that promise is by telling a lie?
  • whatever choice you make you will seemingly violate one of your duties
27
Q

conflict between duties (response)

A
  • Kant says that a true conflict of duties is impossible
  • our moral duties are objective and rational
  • therefore, it is inconceivable that they could conflict with one another
  • if it appears that there is a conflict in our duties, he says, it must mean we have made a mistake somewhere in formulating them
  • you can’t rationally will a maxim to become a universal law if it conflicts with another law you rationally will – that would be contradictory
28
Q

foot: morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives

A
  • Foot argues that moral laws are not categorical in the way kant thinks, there is no categorical reason to follow them; instead morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives
  • the motivation for the hypothetical imperative is that the desires provide a rational reason to why we should act according to these imperatives
  • the reason to act in accordance with the categorical imperative is less clear (if there is no desire to follow it, then should i)
  • kant would say that following moral laws is a matter of rationality and that reason tells us we should follow the categorical imperative
  • foot argues that we should see morality as a system of hypothetical rather than categorical, imperatives
  • there is nothing irrational about disobeying the categorical imperative if you never accepted it in the first place
  • the categorical imperative does not itself provide any rational reason to follow it
29
Q

strengths of Kantian ethics

A
  • it is universal, everyone is treated equally and given equal value
  • human life is given particular value
  • you have particular rules to follow
  • it promotes good will, which is beneficial for society
  • there are no references to the future or to consequences, which cannot be known