kantian deontological ethics

Question 1

define goodwill

Answer 1

inherently moral and right intentions that we follow out of pure duty, regardless of other motivations

Question 2

What is Kant’s view on ethics?

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

define hypothetical imperative

Answer 3

a rule that must be followed in order to achieve certain ends/goals
non moral

Question 4

define categorical imperative

Answer 4

Based on reason alone;

Maxims that always apply and are always morally correct regardless of our feelings/situations etc

Question 5

What is Kant’s 1st formulation of categorical imperatives?

Answer 5

universalise the maxim

only follow maxims that are ones you would want to be done by everyone without causing a contradiction to that maxim

Question 6

What are the 2 possible contradictions when universalising a maxim?

Answer 6

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)

Question 7

What is Kant’s 2nd formulation of categorical imperatives?

Answer 7

treat people as ends in themselves not simply as a means to an end

Question 8

Give 6 strengths of Kantian ethics

Answer 8

— 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

Question 9

Give 6 weaknesses of Kantian ethics

Answer 9

— 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

Question 10

How can Kant respond to the consequentialist attack on his theory?

Answer 10

Consequences CAN NEVER BE FORESEEN

so we shouldn’t base moral decisions on them

Question 11

How could Kant response to the motives beyond goodwill attack on his theory?

Answer 11

Whilst other motives do exist they can be used for immoral purposes

Goodwill is the only inherently good motive

Question 12

How could Kant respond to the lack of flexibility/partiality attack on his theory?

Answer 12

Lack of flexibility means that it is rational,

simple, easy to follow

and egalitarian

Question 13

Define maxim

Answer 13

simple/memorable

rule/guide/principle

for living

Subjective principle that guides behaviour

Question 14

Outline the axe murderer example and explain how Kant would respond to it

Answer 14

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

Question 15

how does the axe murderer example pose an issue for Kant?

Answer 15

Categorical imperatives say we shouldn’t lie. But we don’t want to let our family get murdered. So wtf do we do

Question 16

How does Constant attempt to rework Kant’s theory to cater for the issue posed by the axe murderer example?

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

How does Kant reject Constant’s reworking of his theory?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

what is Philippa Foot’s theory and how does it counter Kant?

Answer 18

— 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

Question 19

Kant essay

Answer 19

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.

1. 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…
2. 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.
3. 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.