Kantian Deontology (moral philo)

Question 1

What does a deontologist say about the consequences of an action?

Answer 1

• a wrong action cannot be right if the consequences are good because we cannot judge an act on its consequences at all.
• if someone tries their hardest to do the right thing but fails, it is still good as the consequence does not matter, their intention was good, so the act is good.
• therefore, the only acts that have moral worth are ones that are carried out from a sense of duty (motive/intention > consequence of an action)

Question 2

what is meant if an action has intrinsic value?

Answer 2

it is right or wrong in itself

Question 3

duty def

Answer 3

= doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing (even if it produces a bad result).
-> not influenced by consequences

Question 4

what are the two classes of duty + def

Answer 4

1) General Duties
= we have these towards anyone (“do not kill”)

2) Particular Duties
= we have these towards certain people due to our relationships with them (“ if you are a parent, you should provide for your children”)

Question 5

moral agent

Answer 5

someone with the ability to make moral decisions

Question 6

Good will (Kant)

Answer 6

= Someone with ‘good will’ does things for the right reasons, they act out of duty

• what is good about the will is not its consequence (what it achieves) but rather that it is good in itself( intrinsically good)

= to be morally correct you must have good will

Question 7

Acting in accordance with duty vs acting out of duty

Answer 7

accordance = simply doing the right thing, whatever your actual motivations for doing it are (e.g a shop keeper not ripping people off as it would ruin his reputation) . Therefore, not moral.

out = doing what is morally right because it is morally right (e.g A shopkeeper not ripping people off as being honest is the right thing to do).

= Sometimes we can be motivated by both duties and motivation (ie enjoyment) which makes the motive of duty less clear. But as long as you are motivated by duty, then the act is a good act.

Question 8

Kantian Deontology

Answer 8

= A normative moral theory (something we ought to do) that promotes an objective universal criterion for judging the morality of actions.
- ignores consequences

Question 9

What does Kant say is the morally right motive for an action

Answer 9

The goodwill which is the only thing good in and of itself, it is acting for the right reasons and therefore acting out of duty

Question 10

objection: ignores the value of certain motives

Answer 10

= Kant’s theory ignores the influence of other motivations on morality (not just good will).
- e.g Someone who tells us they don’t enjoy, want to help us out but just did so out of duty, would seem heartless.
- We want people to act out of love or friendship, not just duty. But Kant’s theory ignores human emotions and feelings.
- These other motives are morally valuable.
- But Kant says the goodwill is the only good motivation for action (out of duty).

Question 11

strength of KD (1) : objective and universal

Answer 11

KD does not take into account emotions and feelings
Focus on reason and duty: objective
Rather than feelings and emotions: fickle and changeable.

• Acting in accordance with duty is clearly better than doing the wrong thing but, it is just not as morally pure as acting out of duty.

Question 12

Hypothetical imperatives versus categorical imperatives(Kants beliefs)

Answer 12

h-> Commands that you ought to do in order to achieve some goal, these are not universal as not everyone has the same desires/goals (e.g “Treat others kindly if you wish to be treated kindly-? you do not have to treat others kindly if you don’t want the same in return, thus hypothetical imperatives are not moral as they are not universal/too subjective)
c-> Commands that you must do whether you want to or not (e.g “Treat others kindly” -> therefore, categorical imperatives are moral imperatives). Kant believed that we should act according to the maxim that we wish all other rational people to follow, as if there was a universal law.

Question 13

Modern example of a categorical imperative that is not a moral statement (evidence for philippas criticisms)

Answer 13

• wear school uniform
• do your work
• etiquette such as ‘ do not eat food with your hands’ -> not immoral just rude

Question 14

Kant vs Foot’s beliefs (irrational, c/h morality)

Answer 14

Kants argument ->
1) morality is based on categorical imperatives (e.g a hypothetical imperative such as ‘ do not hit your brother if you want to be a good person’. You can decide not to listen if you do not want to be a good person. Kant argued that this does not matter, no one should be ‘let off the hook’ in morality, it is important that everyone listens to the rules- thus morality should be categorical.
2) it is illogical/irrational to be immoral (acting in accordance with duty). E.g if you want to do an action, you must think about it being a UNIVERSAL LAW. If this would result in implications, then the act is immoral.
Foots argument (woman) ->
1) morality is based on hypothetical imperatives because categorical imperatives have nothing to do with morality.
2)To be illogical/irrational is it do something that is self-defeating. Therefore, it would be more irrational to not steal if we could save our family from starvation; it would be irrational however to not steal the bread.
3) Moral commands only feel more important than others due to the way they were taught to us as kids. No true categorical force behind them.

Question 15

3 reasons of Foot that claims categorical imperatives are not uniquely moral

Answer 15

1) Opts outs?
Not all categorical imperatives are moral imperatives (e.g etiquette, rules of a club, school rules) -there is no ‘opt out’ of these rules, they must be obeyed, but they are not moral commands. E.g if I do not wear my school uniform, it does not make me immoral.
2) Illogical/Irrational
It is not always irrational to be immoral. Sometimes doing a ‘wrong’ act can be reasonably explained in a difficult situation. (e.g stealing bread to avoid starvation is not irrational, it would be irrational not to steal as you would be doing something that is self-defeating). Therefore, morality could be seen as hypothetical (there are opt outs in extreme situations).
3) FEELING
-It only ‘feels’ like moral commands are more important than other commands (e.g etiquette) because of how morality is taught to us when we were young.
- But in reality, there is no categorical force behind a moral statement, they are not objectively true.

Question 16

Why would Kant say a person’s actions are without moral worth?

Answer 16

• Anyone who acts for a reason other than ‘good will’ is acting in accordance with duty, and not out of duty. Therefore, their action is of less moral worth than someone simply acting as it’s the right thing to do.

Question 17

(First formulation of categorical imperative)
examples of perfect duties/ logical contradiction

Answer 17

=To understand whether an action is moral not we must imagine it as a universal law that - if it would lead to a logical contradiction - would be immoral.

IE ->
1) PROMISES
Making a promise with full intention of not keeping it
-If it were the case that anyone could make false promises whenever they wanted, it would result in the whole idea of a promise being defeated.
- Promises only work when another person believes you will keep them.
- Thus, if it were known that promises were not to be kept there would be no point in making them as they would not be trusted (thus, cannot lie as lying demands the other person not knowing you are deceiving them)
2) STEALING -> if made universal would lead to contradiction in conception/logical contradiction as property rights would not exist. Thus, logically impossible to steal as you would have the right to take what you wanted .

Question 18

perfect duties vs imperfect duties

Answer 18

perfect -> laws we must follow all the time (caused by contradictions in conception/logical)

imperfect -> laws that can be broken for exceptions (caused by contradiction in will)

Question 19

Examples of imperfect duties (cont in will)

Answer 19

Maxim : “everyone should neglects their talents/gifts and not develop them”

• NOT LOGICAL -> it is easy to imagine a world where eveyones is lazy and doesn’t make the most of their abilities
• CONTRADICTION IN WILL -> Humans want and need others to use their talents (e.g for medicine). If everyone neglected their talents then these type of advances wouldn’t be made. and I would have to work harder to look after myself. Therefore, i’m desiring to be lazy, I am frustrating my own will as if everyone was lazy, we would all have to work harder to look after ourselves. = leads to imperfect duties

2) Maxim : “never help others who are in need, never be charitable”

NOT LOGICAL -> we can imagine a world full of selfish people who don’t help others

CONTRADICTION IN WILL -> Your killing a world where no one comes to your aid when you are in need. Kant says no one can reasonably desire this. Thus, it is frustrating your will.

Question 20

Contradiction in conception (logical contradiction) vs contradiction in will

Answer 20

conception : imagining something as a universal law leads to logical contradictions (contradicts itself). These lead to perfect duties which we must always do.
will : imagining something as a universal law ends up with a scenario where our will is frustrated (something that undermines our self interest/negative impact for ourselves )

Question 21

Objection of first formulation: universalisable maxims that are not moral

+ Kant’s weak response

Answer 21

Maxim: “always eat a small chocolate bar on a Monday” -> I can easily imagine a world where this is universalized without contradiction in conception + contradiction in will either because i like eating chocolate and it would not be so much as to make me unhealthy (so does not contradict my will). But according to Kant if a maxim can be universalised it is moral.

BUT…
- Eating a chocolate bar every Friday has nothing to do with morality and therefore there is no link between universalising maxims and morality.

Weak R -> Kant would suggest that what is more relevant are things we cannot universalise.
-> weak as it comes across as a negative theory as it only tells us what not to do; not what we should do. This is pointless as (e.g driving instructor telling you only what not to do - will not learn) so how can Kant expect humanity to live morally if they don’t know how to?

Question 22

Objection to Kants First formulation =Example of a maxim that is non-universalisable (leads to contradiction in conception) but is not immoral + issue + response

Answer 22

Maxim : “Always give any money you can afford to part with to the poor”
= If this was universalized then wealth would be shared equally and there would be no longer be any financially poor people to give money to.
- Therefore, leads to a contradiction in conception as we are willing a world where it is logically impossible to help the poor (ends up being a perfect duty -> “never give money to the poor”

Issue: This suggests we have a perfect duty not to give money to the poor to avoid the logical contradiction, but this seems clearly wrong. Therefore, basing moral decisions on logical contradictions is flawed.

Response/issue: Kant says that helping those in need is an imperfect duty and we therefore do not need to do it all the time - but that leads to the issue of what to do when duties clash (which ones should we follow, and which should we ignore).

Question 23

Summarise the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative + link to good will (2nd form)

Answer 23

• Inherent value: always treat others as if they have inherent value (respecting their ability to reason and to consent).
• NEVER act in such a way that withholds information and prevents someone from fully understanding what is happening. ( never ‘merely as a means’ : to use someone to help you achieve a goal without their consent. E.g a doctor taking organs from someone who has not consented).
  Link to GW…
• the only thing good without question is the good will
• if we treat humanity as an end in itself, we are promoting the ability of others and ourselves to be rational and to act for reasons
• enabling more people to act with good will

Question 24

example of someone using another person merely as a mean

Answer 24

-Person A is deceiving person B by making a false promise
- A is using B to gain money dishonestly, B does not know this.
- B does not understand that they will not be repaid so is not able to give consent rationally to this situation.
- Therefore, their humanity is not being respected

Question 25

positive harmony def

Answer 25

= the ability to be rational and to pursue their own ends
- those in poverty are restricted to pursuing their own ends
- giving to others in need will alleviate their financial worries, giving them the opportunity to purse their own ends + will live a life they rationally will.

Question 26

How does developing one’s talents harmonize with humanity as an end in itself

Answer 26

• humans who develop their talents more can help all humans reach greater heights
• thus, the more talented we are, the more we further the ends of humanity (ISSUE NOT ALL TALENTS ARE MORAL + E.G GOOD AT KILLING)

Question 27

First formulation of the categorical imperative explained

Answer 27

= Kant claimed we should only follow rules that we could imagine everyone following, all of the time. To do so a maxim should not lead to…
1) contradiction in conception (when imagining something as a universal law leads to a logical contradiction). = shows we have perfect duties
2) contradiction in will (when imagining something as a universal law ends up with a scenario where our will is frustrated) = shows we have imperfect duties

Question 28

Objection of first formulation: Clashing Duties

Answer 28

When there are two competing duties such as an imperfect and perfect duty. We can use deontology to pick perfect>imperfect as we should prioritise the duty that no exceptions.

• HOWEVER: Perfect vs perfect? Imperfect vs imperfect? KD does not give us any advice in what to do when two of the same duties clash. Which do we prioritise? Therefore too vague and does not give a coherent theory for what we should do when faced with two similar duties. Which choice is moral/immoral?

Question 29

Strength of KD (2) : Reason + Autonomy

Answer 29

Reason (rationality) -> doesn’t require experience - we canfigure out what to do just by using our reasoning.
- no guesswork or predictions about the future.
- We simply rely on our ability to act accordingly to rational principles.

Autonomy (freedom) -> because it creates an optimistic light on humanity it suggests we have complete control over our decisions so if we go against goodwill we can be held accountable for our moral injustice, as it was at the decision of our own free will. Therefore, creates a simplistic and efficient theory in understanding morality.

Question 30

Strength of KD (3) : Human dignity (utilitarianism)

Answer 30

utilitarianism struggles to accommodate human rights, like the tyranny of the majority, but the second formulation of the categorical imperative demands we treat humanity with dignity, it wouldn’t allow us to treat a minority badly to gain pleasure.

Question 31

Objections of the second humanity formulation of CI : consequences are morally relevant

Answer 31

= Kant ignores the morality behind the consequences of an action. He argues against utilitarianism.

Does not seem moral to place your duties above everything, when in doing so leads to a negative consequence (e.g not lying to axe murderer about the whereabouts of your friend to save your duty). In doing so you are saving your duty at the expense of your friend’s death. How can Kant say this is moral?