Kantian Deontological Ethics Flashcards
Kant’s account of what is meant by a ‘good will’.
The only good without qualification
Intrinsically good - good within itself.
Examples; distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty
1) sells goods at a fixed price, giving the correct change etc to avoid losing business - self interest in accordance with/ duty
2) sells goods at an honest price because duty to be honest - out of duty alone
2 is motivated by duty alone which makes their motives and actions morally correct - motivated by the fact that doing the action is their duty.
What is a hypothetical imperative?
Means-end reasoning; what you ought to do on the assumption of a desire/goal you have (if, then based)
E.g, if i want to run a marathon then i ought to train.
What is a categorical imperative?
Command that is universal, binding and absolute - applies to everyone regardless of desire; obeyed for its own sake, not as a means to any other end.
What does Kant say moral imperative must be?
Moral imperatives must be categorical so that w can evaluate all moral actions through reason and make the correct moral judgement each time.
What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?
Act only on the maxim (principle) that you can will to become a universal law.
What is a contradiction in conception?
Leads to a perfect duty not to perform act (always wrong)- can’t conceive of it being a universal law e.g, i will steal if i can’t afford something.
-> If everyone stole, the concept of property wouldn’t exist, nobody would own anything and thus it would be impossible to steal.
What is a contradiction in will?
Leads to an imperfect duty (sometimes wrong) - can’t rationally will it to become a universal law e.g, i will not help others - not inconceivable but situations may arise where we need the help of others
-> It would be irrational to will something that makes achieving our own ends impossible in the future.
What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative?
treat others never simply as a means but always at the same time as ends in themselves
-> each person’s rational will gives them dignity/autonomy/intrinsic worth as other free agents.
Provide an example of the second formulation of the categorical imperative - humanity.
‘I will make promises i don’t intend to keep’
This prevents other people from pursuing their own ends and doesn’t treat them as autonomous, rational agents that deserve the opportunity to make their own rational judgements and to not be manipulated.
Explain the issue of clashing/competing duties
Axe-man thought experiment - clear conflict between telling the truth and preserving life
(Each duty is absolute according to Kant and must be obeyed so we have no guidance on how to prioritise duties)
-> Kant argues that no conflicts exist and we have misunderstood if we think there are - perfect duties never clash because they are negative.
-> will always be possible to simply do nothing
Goes against the intuition of humans to prioritise one duty at her than do nothing.
Explain the issue of not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral
Acting upon maxims that are universalisable is morally right - but not all maxims that we can universalise are to do with morality (e.g, to chew 20 times before you swallow)
Therefore, universalisability is a flawed metric for assertion of morality and we can universalise morally incorrect maxims (e.g, to steal from large shops when there are 4 letters in my name)
Known as an arbitrary maxim rather than what our intention is, which is to steal.
Explain the issue that not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral
Maxim - ‘to be in the top 10% of students’
-> Can’t be made universal law - only 10% of people (by definition) can achieve this, therefore it is logically impossible to universalise, but not morally wrong to try to be in the top 10% of students.
Explain the issue that consequences of actions determine their moral value
Kant says we can’t control consequences, thus we can’t be responsible for them + they’re irrelevant to our moral decision-making.
Axe-man; if we lied about where the victim was, yet unknown to us the victim had moved and ran into the axe-man, then we would be responsible for their death.
-> We can predict and control consequences to some degree so we should try to mitigate negative ones as best as we can - a tendency or reasonable expectation of maximising utility.
-> You are only responsible for what you do not what the axe-man does - abandoning our duty because of consequence justifies bad actions for the greater good.
Explain the issue of how Kant ignores the value of certain motives e.g, love, friendship etc
The only good without qualification is ‘the good will’ - acting out of duty/for duty’s sake by employing and following moral law.
1) Dad A visits his son in the hospital as he wanted to and thought the visit would be appreciated by the son.
2) Dad B visits his son in the hospital but didn’t want to - he does this out of a sense of duty.
-> Dad B’s dedication is more morally worthy according to Kant.
-> HOWEVER< this is counterintuitive; goes against intuition to claim that reason and duty alone can be the source of morality for humanity - love and deep relationships are what set us apart from non-animals, thus it’s counterintuitive.
Explain Foot’s criticism - morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives not categorical
Moral systems shouldn’t ignore desires and motives - these are what give us reason to act morally imperative not categorical in Kant’s sense (reason and duty) because by themselves they don’t give us sufficient reason to act (only ends-based hypothetical imperatives can do this)
-> We simply feel that the rules are binding - thus they seem to be non-hypothetical. Foot argues that we are made to follow categorical imperatives through social conventions and upbringing.
-> Kant assumes that acting immorally involves disregarding a rule that you have accepted but morality is not universal - it can be avoided. (Foot provides examples of grammar and etiquette -> She argues that
-Grammar, isn’t necessarily a voidable, but isn’t moral
Etiquette, shr argues is avoidable e.g, don’t write letters.
THEREFORE< failing to act according to categorical imperatives or good will isn’t a failure of reason - it simply means acting on the desires that motivate us.
Explain the 2 objections to Foot’s criticism + RESPS
-> Morality only applies to those who want to o their duty BUT Foot replies that there are multiple good motives (e.g, you may help somebody because you want to help)
-> Foot’s approach implies that amoral people are justified in not caring about morality but she would respond that there’s no magical binding force from the word ‘ought’ that gives everyone reason to be moral.
