Kantian Deontology ethics Flashcards
What is Emmanel Kant
A Deontologist
What is Deontology + what are the key principles Deontologists believe?
Deontologists believe morality is a matter of duty. We have moral duties do to something that is right. Wether something is right or wrong however doesn’t depend on consequences but wether ornate the action is wrong or right in itself.
- We should be most concerned with fulfilling our duties + not attempting to bring about the most happiness/good, and in some cases deontologist believe we should not maxmaize good because doing so would cause me to violate a duty (ie axe murderer)
Deontology focuses more on intentions of actions + doesn’t agree with ‘ends justifying the means’ as deontology claims you have to treat people ‘with rights’. Actions are the result of choices + should be understand in terms of choices. Deontologists argue we don’t know the action unless we know the intention of that action. We should judge if an actions morally right/wrong based by the agents intention.
What is a ‘Maxim’
Maxim - A personal principle that guides decisions.
What is ‘The Will’
The Will - our ability to make choices and decisions , we can make choices on the basis of reason +so our wills are rational.
Define morality
Morality - a set of principles which are the same for everyone/apply to everyone.
Explain Kants 1st Categorical Imperative
‘Act only on the Maxim that you can at the same time , will it to become a universal law’
Kant states if everyone acted on the maxims, it would be acceptable , functional and good. Therefore is the best choice people can make.
Explain the 2 contradictions Kant argues cannot be universalised
1- ‘Contradiction in Conception’
2- ‘Contradiction in Will’
1 - A Maxim is wrong if in a situation where everyone acted on the same Maxim(did the same) would be self - contradictory. Eg stealing if everyone helped themselves stealing would no longer be a thing.
2- If a Maxim ‘could’ be universalised yet it would lead to unfortunate + complicated situations and therefore we cant morally ‘Will it’
eg we could physically universalise not to help those in need’ however we cannot morally as you
‘cant will the means without willing the ends’
Explain Kants 2nd Categorical Imperative
’ Act in such a way , always treating humanity, never simply as a means to an end but always with ends’ (rights)
Kant states you cannot treat people merely as a means to an end because human beings have ‘Instinctive worth’ (unconditional worth)
Kant states you have to ‘Focus on Duty’
To have ‘good will’ is to be motivated by ‘duty’ + act OUT of duty + good intentions.
In order for actions to be moral they should be purely motivated by ‘duty’ + Kant argues there are no conflicts in ‘absolute duties’ so you cant have 2 conflicting one another.
This is ‘acting out of duty’ whereas doing something moral but not because its your duty is ‘acting in accordance with duty’
Explain Kants Axe Murderer Example
A murderer (Axe murderer) comes knocking at your door + asks you where your best friend is.
Do you lie + say that you have no idea or do you tell the murderer the truth because it is your moral duty.
However you know that the murderer will kill them.
- Kant would argue its never morally acceptable to lie and you should always obey an absolute duty regardless of personal feelings.
- Moral duties are categorical not hypothetical so are your duty regardless of what you want.
- This is shown by Shop keeper example + Axe murderer.
- Lying to murderer would be using an individual as a means to an end and not treating them as a free and rational being.
Therefore Kant would say yes you do have to tell the axe murderer the truth.
This is extremely controversial, but enforces Kant’s point that it is never morally acceptable to tell lie.
Explain what Kant means when arguing we should always ‘act out of duty;
Kant argues to be motivated by good will is to be motivated by duty + act out of duty(act because things are are duty)
Shop keeper example demonstrates this;
- Suppose a Shop keeper seems his goods at a fixed price, giving correct change + acting honestly - of course this is the morally right thing to do. However this doesn’t show that he has ‘good will’ or acting out of duty because he could be acting like this in order to benefit himself or out of self-interest. If all he cares for is keeping customers then he’s not doing it cause its the moral thing to do.
The shopkeeper may be acting in accordance with duty - (as he’s doing the right thing whatever the motif behind it) however the shop keeper is has not acted out of duty as he’s not being motivated by his categorical duty he is simply doing the right /moral thing.
Explain what Kant would respond to the question of wether its ever morally acceptable to tell a lie
- Kant would argue its never morally acceptable to lie and you should always obey an absolute duty regardless of personal feelings.
- Moral duties are categorical not hypothetical so are your duty regardless of what you want.
- This is shown by Shop keeper example + Axe murderer.
Therefore Kant would say yes you do have to tell the axe murderer the truth. - Lying to murderer would be using an individual as a means to an end and not treating them as a free and rational being.
Therefore Kant would say yes you do have to tell the axe murderer the truth.
This is extremely controversial, but enforces Kant’s point that it is never morally acceptable to tell lie.
How do Kantian Deontology + Utilitarianism differ?
Utilitarianiss argue that the consequences determined the morality of an action, thus lying to save a friends life would be morally acceptable + generates the most happiness, whereas Kant would argue telling the truth is a moral duty + categorical + your duty regardless.
Importance of consequences;
- Utilitarians would argue Kant misunderstands moral duty. If it is not duty to murder - it is because there’s something bad about murder + if its bad we should ensure there’s as little as possible, thus preventing it with one lie would be acceptable.
Importance of Motives;
- Utilitarians would argue Kant ignores emotions + moral judgement, as actions usually fuelled by emotions like love + compassion not usually because ; it is my duty’. If that was the only reason we acted it would make tings very meaningless.
eg Hospital example - if your friend thanks you for coming to see them in hospital + you respond im just doing my ‘categorical duty’ it would generate more unhappiness.
Explain the objection to Kantian deontology - ‘Conflicts Between duties’
Kant argues moral duties = absolute + permitting no exepeptions + that good will has to be motivated by duty;
However this creates problems in cases where 2 absolute duties conflict with one another + were faced with situations where were tasked with doing one or the other + Kants theory implied whatever I choose is wrong.
Should I break a promise or tell a lie?
Should I betray a freind, to save a life?
How would Kant respond to the objection of ‘Conflicts between duties’ ?
Kant argues real conflicts of duties never occur + if there appears to be a conflict then we’ve misunderstood understood what at least one of the duties requires of us. Because absolute duties are for elated very carefully to avoid them ever conflicting. Kants argues duties are very straightforward. If our duty = not to lie then we should never lie.
Reply;
However we could object that we could amend these duties ie ‘dont lie unless you have to lie tp save a life’ This could certainly be universalisable and thus we Cana argue most of Kants duties are not absolute as there will be instances where wr have to lie to create the most kraal outcome. So duties shouldn’t be categorical.
Explain the objection to Kantian deontology from utilitarianism
Utilitarians would object + argue Kants deontology Is confused about moral value. For instance if ‘do not murder’ is a duty the its because here is something bad about murder, therefore surely we should minimise the amount of murders as much as possible. Ie there could be an instance where its my duty to save lives + so I have to kill someone who’s taking other peoples lives - this would generate the most happiness and thus Hurley that’s ore of a duty.
Kant would respond by arguing there are no ends that a re without qualification, even happiness. So this cannot be the right analysis of the ‘good will’
