Kantian Deontology (Moral Philosphy)

Question 1

Deontology Essay Plan

Answer 1

P1. Intent (Against)

P2. Strengths; Kant’s understanding of humans having reason and autonomy
P2.2 Objective + Universal theory (why this is good)

P3. First formulation (Universal)
P3.2 Objection: Problem of clashing duties (Can solve imperfect vs perfect but not perfect vs perfect or i vs i)
P3.3 Objection: Problem of universalising maxims (non-moral + immoral) (eating chocolate)

P4. Second Formulation + Good Will
P4.2 Objection: Problem if other motives (vs Good will)
P4.3 Objection: Concequences are morally relevant (lying to axe murderer) - This leads to utilitarianism so..

P5. Reiterate strengths; and link between morality and rationality
P5.2 Objection: Philips foot critique.

P6. Conclusion.

Question 2

a good will def

Answer 2

a good will is described as the only purely good thing

a good will is one that performs a duty because it’s the right thing to do, not for any other motives.

it’s the motive, not the consequence that matters.

Question 3

Hypothetical vs Catagorical imperatives

Answer 3

Imperatives: a reason why we should act one way or another.

Hypothetical:

• Depends upon you having a certain goal
• eg you ought to/should boil the kettle if you want a cup of tea
• Has no moral worth as it’s motivated by a personal goal.

Categorical:

• The type of ought that you should definitely do
• Takes away the “if you want X” part of the imperative, leaving just the “you ought to do Y”
• Unconditional things that you should always do.

Question 4

How Kant understand humans as having reason and autonomy (and why it’s good)

Answer 4

The ability to create and follow your own rules is what gives humans both reason and autonomy (which animals lack)

This is what gives humans superiority over animals.

Question 5

Problem of other motives

Answer 5

Example:

• Parent A: Reads to their daughter and spends time with them because they enjoy it
• Parent B: Does the same but does not enjoy it but does it out of duty

Kant says that only Parent B’s actions have moral worth. However, this seems counter-intuitive as we would still value Parent A’s actions.