kantian deontological ethics

Question 1

deontology

Answer 1

claims that actins are right or wrong in themselves, not depending on their consequences, we have moral duties to do things which it is right to do, and moral duties not to do things, which it is wrong to do

Question 2

maxim

Answer 2

a personal principle that guides our decisions

Question 3

good will

Answer 3

the will that is motivated by duty, which Kant argues means that it chooses in accordance with reason, it is the only thing that is morally good without qualification

Question 4

distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty

Answer 4

• to have a good will is to be motivated by duty
• to act in accordance with duty is simply to do what is morally right
• to act out of duty is to do what is morally right because it is morally right
• says this distinction doesn’t only apply where the action benefits ourselves, but also other people
• if you want to help someone just because thats what you enjoy doing, Kant says this is right because you are helping them because you want to, not because it is morally right to do so

Question 5

first articulation of the categorical imperative

Answer 5

• act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law

Question 6

second articulation of the categorical imperative

Answer 6

• we should always treat people as an ends and never only as a means

Question 7

hypothetical imperative

Answer 7

statements about what you ought to do, on the assumption of some desire or goal

Question 8

distinction between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative

Answer 8

• hypothetical imperatives can be avoided by simply giving up the assumed desire or goal
• moral duties are not hypothetical, they are categorical > what we ought to do
• they are duties regardless of what you want

Question 9

contradiction in conception

Answer 9

the situation in which everyone acts on that maxim is somehow self-contradictory
- e.g. can’t universalise the maxi to steal, because if universal, property would be a meaningless concept and theft would therefore be meaningless too

Question 10

contradiction in will

Answer 10

the maxim is not self-contradictory, but we can’t rationally will it - there is a contradiction in wanting it to be the case

Question 11

contradiction in will; premise form

Answer 11

p1. a will, by definition, wills it ends
p2. to truly will the ends, one must will the necessary means
c1. therefore we cannot rationally will a situation in which it would be impossible for us to achieve our ends, to do so is to cease to will the necessary means to ones ends, which is effectively to cease to will any ends at all, this contradicts the very act of willing
p3. it is possible that the only available means to our ends, in some situations, involves the help of others
c2. we cannot therefore will that this possibility is denied to us
c3. therefore, we cannot will a situation in which no one ever helps anyone else

Question 12

issue of clashing/competing duties

Answer 12

• Kant argues our moral duties are absolute, a duty is absolute if it permits no exceptions
• nothing can override a moral duty because it is categorical
• causes issues in cases where two absolute duties conflict with each other
  »> should i break a promise or tell a lie? whatever i chose, kant’s theory implies that i must be wrong

Question 13

Kant’s comment on clashing/competing duties

Answer 13

• real conflict duties can never occur
• if there appears to be a conflict we have misunderstood what at least one duty requires of us
• if duties are absolute we must formulate our duties very carefully to avoid them conflicting
• Kant himself thought that some duties were very straight forward
• you can believe the rest of Kant’s theory and not accept this view, could argue that ‘don’t lie’ isn’t a duty
• our duty could be ‘don’t lie unless you have to save a life’
• there will always be some maxim you can act on which you will be able to universalise, so it will always be possible to do your duty

Question 14

response to Kant’s comment on clashing duties

Answer 14

• argue that most duties are not absolute, there is a duty not to lie but it may be permissible to lie in order to save someone’s life
• less important duties can give way to more important ones
• in cases of conflict one will give way and no longer be a duty in that situation

Question 15

not all universalizable maxims are distinctly moral

Answer 15

• many trivial acts which do not seem to be moral can be easily universalized
• I will chew my food 32 times
• Kant says that those maxims that can be universalized are just morally permissable and we have no duty to do them
• it is those actions that we cannot univerasalize that generate moral duties
• leads to the criticism of Kants ethics only telling us what we can’t do with no aspect of what we should be aiming for

Question 16

Kant ignores the value of certain motives

Answer 16

• Kant makes the motive of duty the only motive that has moral worth; doing good for someone else because you want to is morally right, but not morally good
• Kant says we have to want to benefit people because it is our duty to do so, not because we like them
• may help a stranger moved by kindness, my action may well be in accordance with duty because i am motivated by my feelings, not because my concern is to do the right thing to do because its the right thing to do
• Kant would say this action has no moral worth, my emotions are not morally valuable
• even though most of the time we do good things because we feel a certain way towards the people we benefit

Question 17

Kant’s response to value of certain motives

Answer 17

• says he isn’t trying to stop us being motivated by our feelings
• when we are choosing what to do, how we feel should not be as important as what it is morally right to do
• our feelings shouldn’t decide the matter, out motive to do what is morally right should

(is this not inhumane)

Question 18

the view that consequences of actions determines their moral value

Answer 18

• Deontology is confused about moral value
• if it is a duty to not murder, this must be because there is something bad about murder, so we should try to ensure as few murders as possible
• if i know that unless I kill someone deliberately many people will die, how can i justify not killing that person? I would be killing in order to save lives
• Kant says that there are no ends that are good without qualification even happiness, so this cannot be right in the analysis of good will

Question 19

morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives - Philippa Foot

Answer 19

• Foot accepts that there are categorical imperatives, but denies that Kant’s claim that it is irrational to disobey them. This would mean reason cannot discover a universal moral law
• argument involves pointing to non-moral language that appears to involve categorical imperatives, but no one thinks it irrational or immoral to disobey.
• Think about rules of etiquette (politeness), like “you should not eat with your mouth open”.
• This contains the imperative ‘should’ and isn’t stated conditionally on desires or outcome, so it is a categorical imperative.
• No one thinks it irrational to break the rules of etiquette.
• This raises the question of why it is irrational to disobey Kant’s categorical imperative.
• Foot thinks Kant has no answer. We have no basis for claiming it irrational to violate categorical imperatives.
• Their power over us could simply be the result of social conditioning, not reason. So, Kant’s categorical imperative does not derive from reason.
• Foot concludes that it is only irrational to act against our own ends. Moral judgements are only rationally binding if we accept them as our end.
• This makes them invariably hypothetical. Stealing/lying is only irrational if it undermines our ends.
• Kantian ethics seems to be without justification for its claim that objective universal morality can be derived reason.