Kantian Deontology Flashcards
Deontological Ethics
Deontology claims morally right actions are actions which conform with moral maxims, rules or duties that are rational
- deontologists shows that moral actions are never justifiable by their good effects or consequences
- deontologists state that morality is all about obeying a set of moral rules without qualification
Kant’s Deontological key normative claim
The morally right action is the one that accords with moral rules (duties). The moral rules are objective, universal, unconditional, and necessarily binding duties or moral maxims that are arrived at through the satisfaction of a rational principle called the Categorical Imperative
- we are morally required to follow rational rules simpliciter
How is Deontological Ethics only focused on the morality of the action itself
The morality of the action solely depends on whether we can turn performing that action into a moral maxim, and whether the said moral maxim is itself rational (whether the act is on principle rational) according to something called the Categorical Imperative
- it is all about our actions being rational which is something we can establish by subjecting the action itself, as a potential a potential maxim, to a priori rational analysis. No other factor is being used in deciding whether the action is right or wrong
Expanded Central Claim
The morally right action is the one that accords with moral rules. The moral rules are objective, unconditional, necessarily binding duties that are arrived at through the satisfaction of a rational principle
Kants key ethical claim:
The morally right action is the one that accords with the moral rules arrived at through satisfying the Categorical Imperative
Categorical Imperative
a fundamental priori normative principle from which all moral rules or moral duties are derived and take on their necessary, universal and unconditional nature
- it is something that must be done without qualification
according to Kant:
act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
Hypothetical Imperative
tell us what to do provided that we have the relevant desires
- is something that must be done depending on the outcome (making it hypothetical)
- consequentialism is built on hypothetical imperatives
How does the Categorical Imperative relate to the morality of our actions
The morally right action is one whose proposed rule form satisfies the Categorical Imperative
The morally wrong action is one who’s proposed rule form does not satisfy the Categorical Imperative
relating to action:
The CI is a fundamental moral principle that must be followed unconditionally when acting. The CI is followed through devising moral rules (finding actions in rule form) that satisfy CI. The categorical imperative has two formulations which must be satisfied for an action to be morally right
The Formulae of the Categorical Imperative
CI as a fundamental unconditional and necessary bind moral rule from which all other moral rules are derived
For Kant, the CI can be formulated best in two ways
1. The CI as the “Universal Law Formula”
2. The CI as the “Formula for Humanity”
The Formula of the Universal law
One must always act in such a way that the maxim of your action could be willed as a Universal law - a rule for all people to follow
you should ask:
If i turned this action into a moral rule could i imagine a world where the rule is followed without the rule leading to any contradictions
2 tests to satisfy the Universal Law formula
- Coherence in Conception test
- Consistency in the Will test
- Coherence in Conception test
asks could everyone act in accordance with this maxim or if the maxim was universal Law, could the maxim be followed coherently without contradicting itself.
Yes: the maxim is potentially universalizable and can be a moral rule
No: the maxim leads to a contradiction is not universalizable
- Consistency in the Will test
asks could you will the maxim such that everyone acts on the maxim or would it be rational to allow everyone to follow this rule
yes: the maxim is potentially universalizable and can be a moral rule
no: not universalizable
Are these tests consequentialist?
No, for Kant when doing the tests we are looking at whether a logical contradiction or irrational conditions emerges, irrationalities or contradictions related to the action itself and the conditions for its possibility, not whether the maxim has good or bad outcomes
Formula for Humanity
states that one should act such in a manner that they do not use others as mere means but also as an end in themselves
- we should respect others as autonomous and rational individuals who are intrinsically valuable
not using others as mere means:
1. we can use people as means or to our advantage
2. However,you cant just do whatever you want with other people without considering how your actions impact them in their capacity as free rational agents
a person being an end in themselves:
1. this means that in your dealings with others, you must be respectful of their dignity and not violate their autonomy and rational standing
2. FH is anti exploitation and pro dignity
breaking promise example
Kant on lying
maxim: we should always tell the truth
can this maxim about lying be an unconditional, objective and necessarily binding moral rule? it must satisfy the CI through FUL and FH
Lying: Formula of Universal Law
- Coherence in Conception
We can all act in such a way that we always tell the truth because this will keep the practice of truth telling in-tact
Everyone following the potential moral rule will never undermine the possibility of following the rule - Consistency in Will: is it rational to will everyone to always follow this maxim
- you would be able to trust others so the practice of truth telling will be strengthened not undermined by everyone telling the truth
Lying Formula of Humanity
for Kant to tell the truth is to respect them as a rational free agent with dignity and intrinsic value; lying to someone corrupts and obstructs their ability to exercise their free rational agency
The Inquiring Murderer counterexample
Counterexample against Kant’s claim that there are such things that are unconditional and necessarily binding
- friend asks to hide in your house from a murderer. Given that it is morally required to help someone whenever it is reasonable to do so you allow them in. The murder arrives at your door asking where your friend is. Should you tell them?
According to Kant what should you do?
you should tell the truth because it is a moral rule you are required to follow without exception
- this means that the murderer is going to murder you friend, is this morally right to do?
- some believe lying would be wrong considering that it would be to avoid your friend being murdered
First Deontological Solution
A good Deontologist would avoid lying
- one could avoid telling where the friend is by telling another truth such as “they came by” or remain silent
Problem:
we are looking for loopholes around the moral rules which undermines the necessary binding and unconditional nature of moral rules
Second deontological solution
Perhaps a good Deontologist would make a rule that can accommodate just this one exception
- eg. lie only when someones life is danger
Problem:
- what stops us from making other “reasonable looking” exceptions to any other moral rule
- we are seemingly eroding the moral rules and sliding back into consequentialism
- to change rules is to allow consequences to determine our morality
- this undermines the unconditional and necessarily binding nature of deontological rules
Third Deontological Solution
Perhaps a good deontologist would Bite the Bullet and tell the truth only if they really must and have explored all other avenues
- you could stall the murderer short of telling them the truth until we must
Problem:
- what if you promised your friend that you wouldn’t tell the murderer where they are?
- following the moral rule of promise keeping and truth telling therefore seems to result in a contradiction between moral rules
- in this situation where following the moral rules doesn’t necessarily result in an individual acting in a morally right or good way
- to use the circumstances to break the impasse would be to appeal to consequences not the rules
1st critique of Universal Law Formula
Arbitrary Differences in Duties:
- how general or how specific should the moral laws that must satisfy UL be?
- the concern raised: how do deontologist non arbitrarily determine how broad or narrow a rule is?
- if Kant cannot explain why he would dismiss some rules for being too specific there is a threat of arbitrary difference between moral rules, which could result in some rules being arbitrarily dismissed for being too specific.
- This shows that formula of universal la cannot by itself justify the moral rules without having to accept that there will be arbitrary differences in the moral rules resulting in the arbitrary acceptance or dismissal or moral rules
2nd critique of UL Threat of Subjectivism
concern that the consistency in the Will test makes moral rules too subjectivistic, this is a problem for Kantian Deontology which is committed to producing objective moral rules
- worry that placing the individual at the center of determining whether they could rationally will the action such that everyone follows it then it is too subjective
- Kant would like us to believe that the action is right or wrong because of some objective (solely logical) feature about it but the consistency in the will test may show otherwise by depending on the individual
- morality is made too dependent on what we think about the action when centering what the individual thinks in the consistency in the Will test
1st critique of FH: formula of humanity undermines the objectivity of categorical imperative
Treating people as end-in-themselves reveal problems for Kants CI:
1. If by treating others as an end entails treating them as they would want to be treated as rational free agents
- this makes morality subjective because people have their own conceptions of how to be treated as rational free agents
- morality based on CI cannot be subjective and Kant does not propose an objective standard of treatment
2nd critique of FH: formula of humanity is underdeveloped
One issue is that Kant himself isnt too specific on what “not treat people as mere means but ends in themselves” means. we mostly infer this form Kant’s position on autonomy (rational free agency). However, we might find the FH difficult to apply due to its ambiguities
- what this critique shows is that FH may be theoretically underdeveloped because it isn’t clear what it wants from us
eg. it does not provide an explain on transactional relationships in which people are fine with manipulating each other
3rd critique of FH: Animals and rationality
FH is predicted on treating others as rational free agents which makes the moral worth of a subject dependent on whether they are rational free human agents
problem: what do we morally owe to animals?
Kant believes that the FH cannot apply to animals
P1: we have moral worth because of our rationality
P2: animals have no rationality
C1: thus animals have no moral worth
C2: therefore we can treat animals what way we want
this critique challenges that while non rational, animals are worthy of moral consideration but Kantian deontology cannot account for this using FH
4th critique of FH: Rational animals, non rational humans
there are two further issues that can be raised against FH hinging moral worth on rational free agency
Rational animals:
To treat them differently would be to show that rationality is not sufficient to determining moral worth meaning that a morality based on rationality like kantian deontology would be insufficient in determining morality
Non rational Human Beings:
Ask how are we meant to treat those whose rationality is underdeveloped or incapacitated
- perhaps Kant could still say yes in that having the capacity for rationality is sufficient but the problem is that mentally handicapped people have lost the capacity so this response does not work
