Kantian Ethics Flashcards
What is meant by good will and duty?
-When people are asked what is good, they may give lots of different answers. For instance, making other people happy May be food, but it wouldn’t be good if you were making people happy by torturing others
-Courage is generally good, but there are situations where you can courageously do the wrong thing.
-Kant says that the only thing that is good at all times is a ‘good will’. This means have a good intetmtion- an intention to do our duty
-Our actions might be motivated by lots of different things. Kant rules out two false intentions. Firstly, we should not base our views of right and wrong on consequences as these are not within our control
-Secondly, we should not base out decisions on our inclinations (what we want to do), as our emotions change on a regular basis. One day we will feel like doing the right thing, the next day we won’t. Kant argues that the thing that does matter is that we do our duty; the thing that we logically work out is the right thing to do
-We should do our duty just because it is our duty not for any reward
How do we work out what our duty is?
-Kant believes that it is possible to work out what our duty is by establishing what sort of command (or imperative) lies behind it.
-When we carry out an action, Kant believes we have a rule or maxim in mind. We need to establish whether it is a hypothetical imperative or a categorical imperative
-Other commands are categorical, there is no ‘if’ about them, they are absolute
-‘Do not kill’ might be one such command. It is our duty to act on anything that is a categorical imperative
What are the 3 different tests Kant says can be applied to a maxim to see if it is a categorical imperative?
- Formula of the law of nature (universal law)
- Person as ends
- Kingdom of Ends
What is universal law?
If we are considering an action, we should ask ourselves ‘would it be logical for this action to be universalised’ (ie would it make sense if everyone did this?). For example, it would not make sense to universalise stealing. If we were to universalise stealing, then no one would really own anything, leading to an illogical conclusion: if everyone were always stealing, there would be no stealing
What is meant by person as ends?
A second test of our maxim is how it treats people. Kant believes that we should treat people as an end in themselves; as free rational beings who deserve dignity and respect. We should not treat them as a means to an end, using them to achieve some sort of purpose. We can use objects in this way but not people
What is kingdom of ends?
The final test is almost a combination of the first 2. Kant asks us to imagine we are part of the law making group in an imaginary country where everyone always treats others as an end. Kant suggests that a categorical imperative that could be permitted in such a place
How would we evaluate universal law?
In theory this works, we like to think that we only act in ways that we are happy for other people to act in too. It is a rule that should be easy to stick too. But it is too inflexible. What about situations where we are required to break the rule e.g. to tell a white lie as not to hurt somebody’s feelings, or to steal something because we have no money and our children need food. Does this mean that we are agreeing that lying and stealing are acceptable?
How would we evaluate humans as ends?
Kant says we are not allowed to use anybody for our own gain, we must always appreciate their intrinsic worth. Everyone has value, everyone has dignity however does this work in a service setting? For example if Mrs Bailey drives up to the McDonald’s drive thru and after ordering her happy meals enquires how the servers day is going, whether he feels appreciated, asks to speak to his supervisor to advise promotion then asks after his parents etc whilst the traffic is piling up behind, this actually makes the servers day more difficult. His job is to take orders and the customers duty is to abide by that
How would we evaluate law maker in the kingdom of ends?
We like to think that we give everybody equal value and treat everyone with equal worth. However in practice we cannot help but prioritise those that we know and the people close to us. For example Mrs Bailey would like to think that she feels compassion for factory workers who are working in difficult circumstances in Bangladesh. Nevertheless if both of her children need trainers at the same time for PE she is going to go where she can get them the cheapest
What is the hypothetical imperative?
-Not something that is necessary, but if you want something it is, for example ‘don’t eat cake, if you want a 6 pack’
-This was teleological though so Kant tried again and came up with a categorical imperative
What is the ‘summum bonum’?
-This is a state of supreme human virtue and happiness
-Although it cannot be achieved during our life on earth
-This led Kant to believe in an afterlife and God to provide an opportunity to reach this state of supreme good
-By summum bonum, Kant means that one should do what is moral, e.g one’s duty because we know what is morally right and wrong instinctively
-If we take our ethical nature seriously, we can see that it is what we aim to achieve
What are the three postulates?
- Freedom
- Immorality
- God
What is meant by ‘freedom’ in the 3 postulates?
Kant believes we have a duty to act in accordance with the moral law. When everyone acts in line with their duty, this ensures ‘freedom’ for all of society
What is meant by immorality in the 3 postulates?
In order to achieve the ‘summum bonum’ there has to be extra time for humans to perfect themselves. Therefore immorality is necessary, as the summum bonum is not achievable in one lifetime
What is meant by ‘God’ in the 3 postulates?
Whilst we do not refer to Kantian ethics as a ‘religious’ ethical theory, the existence of God is implied. God would be necessary in order to ensure the immorality needed for humans to achieve the summum bonum
