Kantian deontological ethics Flashcards
explain what is meant by right and wrong in Kantian ethics
Right: an action which is in accordance with what duty demands
Wrong: an action which is against what duty demands
explain Immanuel Kant’s account of what is meant by a ‘good will’ (ends)
- a ‘good will’ represents the pure good in the world and is the source of all moral value
- most of us pursue ends that we think of as ‘good’ such as money, happiness, IQ, but Kant says that these ‘goods’ can sometimes be bad (someone could gain happiness from torture)
- no ‘end’ (money, IQ) that we pursue can be thought of as morally good itself, unless it is accompanied/ a result from good will
- a good will is one which acts for the sake of duty - you are not motivated by a goal, but by the duty to do the right thing (act in accordance with the moral law)
- it is the MOTIVE that is key in assigning moral worth
explain the distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty
- acting in accordance with duty is doing the right thing, but if you have the wrong motive then the act has no moral worth
- e.g. a shopkeeper who does not rip off his customers because he wants a good reputation
- the shopkeeper is acting in accordance with duty (not ripping off customers) but his action is not moral because he is doing it to pursue a good reputation, rather than out of a sense of duty for the moral law
- Kant is clear that acts done out of personal want/desire have no moral worth
- An act can be done out of desire, but it has to be accompanied by a good will for it to have moral worth
- e.g. a poor shopkeeper understands that being honest is the right thing to do and does not rip of customers for this reason
- he is acting in accordance with duty, and his act was carried out of a sense of duty, so has moral worth
- you can be motivated by a sense of duty + another goal
- as long as you are motivated by duty, then the act is good
explain the distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives
- an imperative is an ‘inner tug’ on our will, a reason we should act in one way rather than another
HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES:
- ought/should imperatives that depend on having a certain goal/desire
- e.g. if you want tea you should boil the kettle
- first part of statement tells us what to aspire to, second part tells us how to meet that condition
- the ‘ought’ is conditional upon the desire - which not everyone will have
- often linked to the word good, e.g. ‘it is good to boil the kettle when making tea’ but good is not used in a moral sense
- they lack the universality to be moral imperatives because they are based on desires that not everyone shares
- hypothetical imperatives are motivated by a personal goal, and actions motivated by personal goals have no moral worth
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
- for Kant the moral law should be universal
- categorical imperatives are central to morality because they are unconditional and absolute
- they are not dependent on any goals we have
- tell us that we have a certain obligation/duty regardless of the consequences (unconditional)
- e.g. you ought to keep your promises
explain the first formulation of the categorical imperative; universal law formulation (including the distinction between a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in will).
- moral imperatives are categorical ones
- categorical imperatives are based on the idea of reason and rationality itself
- it is the imperative that I should only act on principles that are at the same time universal and can also be rationally willed
- it is an imperative to be logically consistent
- a maxim (rule) that can become a universal law without contradiction
- Kant thinks this can be used a test to work out how to behave morally
fake promises-a perfect duty to avoid
- e.g. a man needs some money, so he promises to pay it back with no intention of repaying - can this be willed as a universal law with no contradiction?
- the underlying maxim would be ‘when in need, make promises with no intention of keeping them to gain help’
- we cannot conceive of a world where this maxim is universal, because if everyone made false promises no one would trust each other.
- Kant says this maxim cannot be a universal law without contradiction, because the concept of a ‘promise’ would become meaningless if this was universalised, as we would be conceiving of a world in which promising does exist and doesnt exist so it is inconceivable
- it creates a contradiction in will and the maxim created a perfect duty to not do it
Helping others-an imperfect duty
- a rich person sees others that need help but chooses not to help
- 1) work out the underlying maxim: I will not help those in need, when I easily could, through selfishness
- 2) can you conceive of a world with this maxim as a law?
- Kant says that is it possible to conceive of this world
2b) can you rationally will that this be a universal moral law?
- Kant says no, because we have all been in situations where we need the help of others and unable to help ourselves e.g. as a baby
- because this maxim is conceivable as a universal law but could not be consistently willed, it is a contradiction in will - creates an imperfect duty
explain the second formulation of the categorical imperative (humanity formulation)
- Kant says that the ability to create and follow your own rules gives humans reason and autonomy
- the second formulation has the idea of autonomy as its central premise
- says that we should never treat people as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end
- it is always wrong to involve someone in an action that they do not have a chance to consent to
- e.g. lying or drugging me would involve me in acts which I did not have the chance to consent to, so the person would be using me as a means to further their own ends
- this doesnt mean you can never use people as a means e.g. when I take a taxi I use the person to further my ends, but they consented to the arrangement and are using me as an ends too
- the moral problem arises when you don’t have the chance to consent, so your rationality and autonomy is undermined
- e.g a woman pays you in fake money but does not tell you
- this action is wrong because she is bypassing your autonomy and treating you merely as a means to her own ends and not treating you as a person with your own ends
explain the issue for Kantian deontological ethics; clashing/competing duties
Clashing perfect and imperfect duties
- imagine an axeman asking where your friend is
- Kant, and most ppl, would say that is is wrong to lie as we cannot universalise lying
- but we also have a duty to care for others
- this presents a clash between our perfect duty not to lie and an imperfect duty to care for others
- perfect duties have no exception, and imperfect duties do not have to be performed all the time, so we should not lie
- for kant, duties cannot clash, by definition because if two moral duties are rationally inconsistent then they cannot be duties
CLASHING PERFECT DUTIES
- but imagine I made a promise to my friend to lie for them
- I have two conflicting duties a) to keep my promise and b) to never lie
COUNTER
- however we cannot rationally will a maxim where we keep promises to lie, so I am not obliged to keep this promise
- it was wrong to make this promise, so the duties do not clash as I don’t have a moral duty to keep this promise
COMPETING IMPERFECT DUTIES
- situation is less clear when imperfect duties are involved e.g. duty to help others, develop our own talents
- these are duties we don’t have to follow all of the time
- this leaves us with a vague moral duty - an imperfect duty doesnt tell us when to perform this duty
- Kants approach is less clear; instead of looking at the consequences we need to examine our reasons and see which are stronger
- e.g. do I care for my mother or fight for my country (both imperfect)
explain the issue for Kantian ethics: not all universalisable maxims are moral and not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral
Not all universalisable maxims are moral
- many trivial acts, which don’t seem moral, can be successfully universalised e.g. I will chew food 32 times before eating
- can be consistently willed and is conceivable but it is not a moral act, just telling us what to do
- does not help us achieve morality and the act itself has no moral worth
Not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral
- e.g. when taking an exam, I will try to come in the top half
- this seems reasonable, but a world where everyone tries to come in the top half is inconceivable as we cannot all be in the top half
- this means we would have a perfect duty not to try to come in the top half
- the act of coming in the top 50% does not seem immoral
- ‘I will donate to the poor every time I get money’
- if everyone did this there would be no ‘poor’ and seems we have a perfect duty to not donate to the poor
explain the issue for Kantian ethics: the view that consequences of actions determine their moral value
- Kantian ethics places all the moral worth of an action on the motives
- imagine an axeman asking where your friend is
- kant would say it is wrong to lie as we cannot universalise lying
- but this seems counter-intuitive, because telling the truth will have bad consequences
- on this occasion, the moral value of the act seems to be in its consequences, not the motive
- Kant says that we should focus on our own sphere of control, making sure that I don’t lie.
- but the focus on being consistent seems to miss the bigger, consequentialist, picture
- Kantian ethics is more concerned about being rationally consistent than whether our friend is killed
explain the issue for Kantian ethics: Kant ignores the value of certain motives, eg love, friendship, kindness
- imagine two parents
- parent A enjoys reading to her daughter and spending time with her
- parent B does not enjoy these things but does so out of duty
- we would want to say that parent A is the better parent
- but Kant would say that only parent B’s actions have moral worth as they are carried out from duty, not desire
- this seems counter-intuitive
- for kant, these actions that are based on the want to help others have no moral value as they are not done out of a sake of duty
- some object to Kants approach, claiming it encourages a cold and calculative approach to ethics by demanding that we put aside our feelings for the suffering of others
- Kant is clear that acting only from desire has no moral worth
explain the issue for Kantian ethics: morality is hypothetical, not categorical, imperatives (Foot)
- Foot says that moral systems cannot ignore desires
- without such motives we do not have a good reason to behave morally
- she says that moral law doesnt give sufficient reason to follow it, only end-based, hypothetical imperatives give sufficient reasons to act, which Kant tried to eliminate
- for categorical imperatives the reason to act on them is not given
- stripped of desire, what is the reason to obey the ‘ought’
- Foot rejects reasons to act on categorical imperatives
e.g. one reason to act on CI is to be rationally consistent, Foot rejects the as she says that the man who rejects morality because he sees no reason to obey its rules will be convicted of villainy, not inconsistency - Foot points out that some people genuinely just want to help others, and some care about justice, liberty and fairness
- if we accept that these are moral goals then we have the proper motivation to be moral
- moral oughts are not categorical but hypothetical oughts, depending on if you have the relevant moral ends
apply Kantian ethics to stealing
- stealing is morally and legally wrong for Kant
CI first formulation (universal law) - a world where the maxim ‘steal when in need’ is not conceivable as the concept of property + ownership would lose all meaning
- so we would be willing that there’s a world where property and stealing does exist and where property and stealing doesn’t exist
- it is a contradiction in conception and so it is inconceivable and we have a perfect duty not to steal
CI second formulation (humanity)
- by stealing you are bypassing the owner’s autonomy/not getting consent
- you are treating them as a means to an end
- so we have a perfect duty not to steal
- Kant says that a world without laws would be ‘a state of nature’
- laws allow us to co-exist
- if we break the law and steal it moves us towards a state of nature, which cannot be consistently willed
apply Kantian ethics to eating animals
- reason enables humans to transcend our animal instincts
- through reason we can work out what to do + following our own rules give us autonomy
- animals lack autonomy because they are driven by instinct and cannot work out what to do through reason
- they do not act on ‘will’ because they cannot conceptualise what they should do
- animals do not pursue ends so we do not have to treat them as beings with ends themselves (beings with moral status)
- but this does not mean we can be cruel to animals
- kant believed we have a duty to perfect our own moral nature
- and this involves an imperfect duty to sympathise with the suffering of others
- e.g. if a man shoots his dog he does not fail in his duty to the dog, but the act is inhumane and he is not showing the humanity towards others which is apart of our duty
- this rules out cruel farming methods, but only for the farmer as it is his duty to work towards self-perfection
- eating animals from a cruel farmer is not morally wrong for the consumer to eat, it is only wrong for the farmer
apply Kantian ethics to simulated killing
CI first formulation (universal law)
- On the surface, the maxim ‘when I want to be entertained I will engage in simulated killing’ seems conceivable and consistent, we could will this as a universal law
- but what if simulated killing makes us less compassionate towards others? we have an imperfect duty to have compassionate feelings
- we cannot consistently will things that make us less compassionate
- maybe we shouldn’t entertain ourselves in this way
- this argument depends on wether there is a causal connection between simulated death as entertainment and being less compassionate to humans
- although empathy levels have decreased, the cause of this is unclear
- some say that wider societal changes such as capitalism and parenting are bigger factors than films/video games
CI second formulation (humanity)
- when I view simulated killing I am not bypassing anyones autonomy
- the actors chose to be in the film, the pixels aren’t real people
- so I am not violating anyones consent or autonomy
- but it can be argued that being entertained by simulated killing is not in harmony with the humanity formulation as it makes us inclined to treat others with less compassion
apply Kantian ethics to telling lies
CI first formulation (universal)
- we can’t universalise a maxim of telling lies
- the concept of lying relies on concept of truth telling
- if everyone lied, then there would be no truth telling and lies would not deceive
- we cannot universalise the maxim ‘lie for your benefit’ as we would be willing a world in which there are no lies (everything is deception so a lie is meaningless) and also relying on the existence of lies
- this is inconceivable, so we have a perfect duty not to lie
CI second formulation (humanity)
- lying undermines the autonomy of the listener
- they did not consent to being lied to
- you are not treating them as a person with ends
In the case of the axeman asking about your friend, Kant says we should not lie, which seems counter intuitive
First formulation
- surely we can universalise a maxim such as ‘I will lie if it saves a person’s life’
- this is not inconceivable as in real life truth-telling exists but lies do occur
- also this maxim can be consistently willed as I would be happy to be lied to in these circumstances
Second formulation
- in this formulation the axeman is aiming to undermine the autonomy of someone else
- he is entering a state of nature
- in doing so he has given up his entitlement to be treated as a person with full autonomy and so we can lie to him
