Kantian Ethics

Question 1

Introduction - how did Kant view knowledge/ make decisions

Answer 1

Should make decisions on what is moral not based on desires/ emotions
Deontological/ absolutist/ reason
Kant saw true knowledge and morality as a priori (not validated by experience) He said moral laws are: rational, categorical, eternal and presuppose freedom.

Question 2

Hume criticism

Answer 2

makes no sense to suppose that someone acts from the motive of duty unless there is in human nature some ‘natural passion’ providing a motive to perform the action.
Kant - incoherence

Question 3

The Good will

Answer 3

acting in accordance with moral law for the sake of duty
-Excludes acting out of obedience, for self-gain/ curiosity/enjoyment – made known to us through application of reason

Question 4

Advantages of the Good will

Answer 4

Nagel – to achieve ‘deontological requirement of fairness’ we need fixed duties
As indvs we expect basic equality
Theoretical idea of morals based on motives – logical

Question 5

Disadvantages of the Good will

Answer 5

Hard to define what an action based purely on the GW will entail

Question 6

Kants counter - the Good will

Answer 6

Kant = argue = accessed by everyone via a priori reason + deemed ‘true’ via synthetic proof

Question 7

Disadvantages of the counter of the Good will

Answer 7

But to what extent = poss. to separate morality from emotion?
-Humans = v complex + every situation = no. of influential factors
Kant’s theory contradicts human behaviour – practical? motives are not always pure; we often do things for others because we love them or we feel sorry for them.

Question 8

Disadvantages of Kant being a moral absolutist

Answer 8

-Kant was a moral absolutist so does not allow for exceptions, but if two duties conflict it is impossible to be moral. For example the duties to preserve life and to protect life, in a situation where self-defence may be necessary one cannot satisfy both duties and a more teleological approach is needed

Question 9

The Hypothetical/ Categorical Imperative

Answer 9

HI - Things an individual must do to achieve an end i.e. If I want X I must do Y (immoral as acting out of desire not duty)
CI – Moral commands that sets out objective universal laws independent of everything – 3 main formulations

Question 10

The Categorical imperative: Universal law

Answer 10

This imperative says the only actions that are moral are those which can be universalised w/o contradiction. i.e., promise keeping, if the maxim ‘I may always break my promises when it benefits me’ was universalised there would be no point in making promises so this would be immoral

Question 11

Advantages of universal law

Answer 11

Appeals to everyone, regardless of culture or individual situations
Clear to follow as fixed guidelines

Question 12

Disadvantages of universal law

Answer 12

animals and certainly any non-rational creature has no intrinsic value. Many environmentalists see this as dangerous and wrong.
Universal laws aren’t helpful in the real world where every situation is different. If no two situations are the same, morality then should be relative, not absolutist e.g. SE outcome of love.

Question 13

Universal law applied and the disadvantage

Answer 13

Kant is asked what should one do if a murder asks if his victim is hiding in a certain house. Kant responds by saying we cannot predict the consequences of not telling the truth e.g. that the murderer would go kill them, so much adhere to absolute moral rules ‘do not lie’ and tell the truth. We are morally required to tell the truth.
-Too hard to apply to everyday situations
-Seems immoral and wrong as it goes against conscience
-theory also is v. inflexible and unforgiving; it doesn’t allow you to break an unhelpful rule if individual circumstances warrant it

Question 14

Treat humans as ends/ Act as if you live in the kingdom of ends

Answer 14

The Categorical Imperative: Treat humans as ends
We should not exploit others or treat them as things to achieve an end. We should treat everyone of equal value
The Categorical Imperative: Act as if you live in a Kingdom of Ends
Everyone should act as if every other person was an ‘end’ — a free autonomous agent -every individual has the ability to understand the principles of practical reason and follow them.

Question 15

Advantages of Ends

Answer 15

Not swayed by emotion and disallows favouritism to friends / purely rational theory, because then we get well-reasoned moral decisions, not just decisions decided in the ‘heat of the moment’
If you allowed people to break rules because of the consequences e.g. Util or out of love like SE, the legal system would be a mess. KE underpins most UK and international laws, so it clearly is good.

Question 16

Disadvantages of ends

Answer 16

Unrealistic as not everyone will act in accordance to the maxims i.e. pacifism some agree/disagree and those who agree may be an easy target for those who disagree
Abstract, cannot always be applied to moral situations. Kant is clear about not treating people as ends in general terms, but what about specific situations? What about a terminally ill person who wants to die or protecting innocent people from murderers. The non-relativistic view means doing ones duty can lead to immoral acts.

Question 17

Major advantage of Kant

Answer 17

KE is a secular theory, unlike NL, there is no requirement to believe in God as your decisions are worked out rationally rather than commands from God, this makes KE attractive to atheists

Question 18

Summum bonum and 3 postulates

Answer 18

The summum bonum
When vice and virtue are achieved after death where duty and happiness are in harmony in the presence of God
1) Freedom
2) Immortality
3) God

Question 19

Disadvantages of summum bonum

Answer 19

Critics suggest Kant does not totally manage to escape the idea of God. SB is based on the idea that God exists to reward those who do their moral duty, he contradicts himself. Essentially he has created a hypothetical imperative. Where if we do our duty then we will be rewarded with SB in the afterlife.

Question 20

W.D prima facie duties - rather than an absolutist approach

Answer 20

Other things matter too, ‘prima facie’ duties, duties to repay acts of generosity or to help those who are dependent on us. We cannot tell in advance what the relevant prima facie duty will be, only the situation we are in will reveal it and some element of judgement will be necessary before we decide. PF are not ranked in order of importance, but are a shapeless list of things which, in some way, make a difference. A conflict between two PF does not negate one or both of them but is rather a conflict between two things which do matter. It is resolved by not discarding one or the other, but by making a decision about what matters more in a particular situation. The only way we can come to any moral knowledge, according to Ross, is through moral experience, since we only learn form experience when certain moral duty smatter and when they are less important. Ross therefore agreed that kantian duties should not be taken as absolute duties, but as PF.

Question 21

Strengths of Ross

Answer 21

His theory removes some of the aspects of inflexibility and absolutist. It doesn’t follow a purely rational, deontological way of thinking, it doesn’t use purely a priori evidence and takes into account emotion and situations. Better than KE.