Kantian deontological ethics Flashcards
what is the main claim of Kantian deontological ethics
- To act morally is to act out of duties which are discoverable by reason.
- To act morally is to act out of duties which are discoverable by reason alone (a priori)
- The only thing that is good in itself is a good will.
- You act with a good will when you act with the right motive.
what is meant by a ‘good will’
Wanting to do the right thing is the most valuable thing of all.
wanting to do the right thing because it’s the right thing - is the highest good for Kant
Kants account on what is a good will
- wanting to do the right thing because it’s the right thing - is the highest good for Kant
- It is the only thing that is good ‘without qualification’ i.e. always good
-It is the source of all moral worth - It is good regardless of the consequences of any actions that might result
- Acting with a good will ultimately means wanting to do something because it’s your duty.
wanting to do the right thing because it’s the right thing - is the highest good for Kant
- for Kant what is morally important is our motivation, or our intention
- An action is morally right or wrong depending on the intention behind it
- the good will - wanting to do the right thing for the right reason - is the most valuable thing for human beings.
It is the only thing that is good ‘without qualification’ i.e. always good
for kant, there are many other things that we think are good: being clever or having great artistic talents, being hardworking or courageous; however, for Kant it’s possible for all of these things to be bad.
e.g. A clever scientist who uses her knowledge for evil purposes is not good. A great artist who doesn’t care about other people is not good, nor is a hardworking thief or a courageous fraudster. Someone can be happy or gain pleasure because of the suffering of others, and again this is not good.
- The good will, on the other hand, is always good. It can never be bad.
source of all moral worth
- something is morally valuable only if it comes from a good will
- kant thinks that virtues like courage, self-control etc., are only good if they are accompanied by a good will.
what analogy does Kant use to portray that good will is good regardless of the consequences of any actions that might result
the analogy of the jewel
It is good regardless of the consequences of any actions that might result
- a good will has moral worth, regardless of the actual consequences that result.
e.g. Imagine someone jumps in a freezing lake to try to save someone who is drowning. Imagine they are unsuccessful in saving the other person, and imagine even that their attempt was never going to be successful because of the temperature of the water.
For Kant, such an action would still have moral worth if it was the result of someone acting with a good will - wanting to do the right thing because it’s the right thing. - analogy of the jewel
the analogy of the jewel
- A jewel is valuable in itself, regardless of whether it is in a piece of jewellery or not
- In the same way, the good will has value in itself, regardless of whether the actions result from the good will have good consequences or not.
Acting with a good will ultimately means wanting to do something because it’s your duty.
- Acting with a good will means wanting to do the right thing.
- human beings have lots of other different motives - sensations, feelings, emotions, desires - that can influence our actions.
e.g. while the right thing might be to give up my seat on the bus to the heavily pregnant woman, I might also have a desire to sit down myself because I’m tired. - we often have other motives that clash with our wanting to do the right thing, for Kant acting with a good will typically means acting for the sake of duty - doing the right thing just because it’s the right thing and our duty, regardless of the many other motivating feelings we have as human beings.
acting in accordance with duty
doing the right thing for some other reason
(e.g. shopkeeper giving fair change because it’s good for business).
- has no moral worth
acting out of duty
doing the right thing because it’s the right thing (e.g. shopkeeper giving fair change because it’s the right thing).
- has moral worth
How do we know if someone is acting merely in accordance with duty or acting out of duty?
- we can never know whether someone else is acting in accordance with duty, or acting out of duty.
- Kant thinks I can never even be sure whether I myself am acting out of duty or merely in accordance with duty.
- Kant thinks our own motivations are complex and hard to untangle, and when we look to our motivation for doing right actions, ‘the dear self’ is always turning up - we can typically see other reasons that benefit us for doing a right action that might have been motivating us rather than duty alone.
how does moral knowledge come
- a priori, through experience alone. if it came a posteriori then we could never gain knowledge of the idea of acting out of duty as we can never be sure if people do act out of duty
what are the 2 types of imperatives
- hypothetical
- categorical
hypothetical imperative
commands that only apply to you if you want something
(e.g. you should revise if you want to pass)
- morality consists of categorical imperatives
- command that applies to you only if you want a certain ‘end’ (or ‘goal’)
- hey are ‘oughts’ that only apply on the assumption, or ‘hypothesis’, that you want something.
- They have the form ‘you ought to X if you want Y’
e.g.
You ought to go to work if you want to keep your job
You must revise if you want to pass the test
Don’t just eat sweets if you want to be healthy
categorical imperatives
commands that apply regardless of what you want and so apply to everyone
(e.g. do not lie)
You ought to do X
it applies ‘categorically’. They have the form ‘you ought to X (regardless of what you want)’.
e.g.
You must not steal
Do not lie
You ought to help other people in need
