kantian deontological ethics Flashcards
define goodwill
inherently moral and right intentions that we follow out of pure duty, regardless of other motivations
What is Kant’s view on ethics?
- Deontological ethical theory
- arguing that to behave morally is to act purely out of goodwill and duty
- by following certain universal categorical imperatives rather than personal hypothetical ones
define hypothetical imperative
a rule that must be followed in order to achieve certain ends/goals
non moral
define categorical imperative
Based on reason alone;
Maxims that always apply and are always morally correct regardless of our feelings/situations etc
What is Kant’s 1st formulation of categorical imperatives?
universalise the maxim
only follow maxims that are ones you would want to be done by everyone without causing a contradiction to that maxim
What are the 2 possible contradictions when universalising a maxim?
Contradiction in CONCEPTION (self-contradictory and paradoxical)
—> results in perfect duty (always)
Contradiction in WILL (goes against what we want)
—> results in imperfect duty (sometimes)
What is Kant’s 2nd formulation of categorical imperatives?
treat people as ends in themselves not simply as a means to an end
Give 6 strengths of Kantian ethics
— moral autonomy 💪: only focuses on motives which we can control (others actions don’t impact your morality e.g. Jim and Indians)
— don’t have to rely on unpredictable consequences ❓
— SIMPLE 😌
— RATIONAL: ➕✖️➗➖can’t be blinded by emotion
— UNIVERSAL and can be applied at any time and place (egalitarian)
— HUMAN RIGHTS 🕊 are supported
Give 6 weaknesses of Kantian ethics
— PROBLEMS with UNIVERSALISING maxims (some universalisable maxims aren’t moral and vice versa)
— some duties CONTRADICT and clash 💥
— CONSEQUENCES do matter!!
— ignores motives beyond goodwill (sympathy, love etc)
— ignores commitments to family/friends: TOO IMPARTIAL
— INFLEXIBLE 📏 : no grey areas allowed
How can Kant respond to the consequentialist attack on his theory?
Consequences CAN NEVER BE FORESEEN
so we shouldn’t base moral decisions on them
How could Kant response to the motives beyond goodwill attack on his theory?
Whilst other motives do exist they can be used for immoral purposes
Goodwill is the only inherently good motive
How could Kant respond to the lack of flexibility/partiality attack on his theory?
Lack of flexibility means that it is rational,
simple, easy to follow
and egalitarian
Define maxim
simple/memorable
rule/guide/principle
for living
Subjective principle that guides behaviour
Outline the axe murderer example and explain how Kant would respond to it
murderer with axe turns up at door: “I want to kill your family where are they”
your family are inside. do you lie or tell the truth?
KANT: we have a duty to tell the truth so ?? just tell him what the heck
how does the axe murderer example pose an issue for Kant?
Categorical imperatives say we shouldn’t lie. But we don’t want to let our family get murdered. So wtf do we do
How does Constant attempt to rework Kant’s theory to cater for the issue posed by the axe murderer example?
We only have a duty to tell the truth when the person has a right to the truth.
Axe murderer has no right bc they will use the truth to do harm.
How does Kant reject Constant’s reworking of his theory?
we MUST NOT LIE!!
Universalising the maxim of lying is a contradiction in conception
If we stick to categorical imperatives we aren’t responsible for the consequences
what is Philippa Foot’s theory and how does it counter Kant?
— morality doesn’t equal rationality. An immoral person can act rationally
— goal of morality is different for everyone
So, concept of categorical imperatives is fundamentally flawed and morality is about achieving hypothetical imperatives
Kant essay
Pretty good, but fails to consider factors other than duty; it’s oversimplification. Consequentialism or Virtue ethics may be more successful but also come with their own issues and similarly fail to consider factors beyond their own theories, so maybe moral anti realism is best as all realist theories fail.
- Kant values goodwill and duty
BUT ignores consequences so not pragmatic. He says if we follow C.I. we aren’t responsible for consequences but this could be dangerous (axe murderer)
Kant: consequences are too unpredictable to guide morality
BUT they are still significant and to ignore them is to be too impractical and not consider reality enough.
So, consequentialism succeeds in critiquing Kant. BUT he is a little bit right in saying consequences are unpredictable… - Universal and egalitarian
BUT too rigid and inflexible, not considering individual circumstance or cultural relativity.
Kant: this is good as it allows all to be rational, and for morality to be simplified and made straightforward
BUT Philippa Foot: oversimplification, we should follow hypothetical not categorical because rationality doesn’t mean morality. - only favour goodwill
BUT what about other motives like compassion, justice, bravery, etc
Kant: other motives aren’t purely good
But ‘good’ depends on the situation and the person, not the act
Aristotle virtue ethics is good because of this, doctrine of the mean
But too vague, fails to define morality with clarity and lack of guidance
Moral anti realism… all of it fails, including Kant.
