Kantian Ethics Flashcards
Basic principle
‘Do the right thing because it is right’
Should will action because it is good, not because consequences are good, focus on intention
Acts = intrinsically right - do it because its right - fully deontological
Moral statements
Moral statements are different to normal statements
Moral statements are a priori - can know something is moral without experience and can be checked through experience
Use reason and dont rely on past exps. To work out morality e.g. dont need to experience murder to know its immoral
Two types of maxims (rules)
Categorical and hypothetical
Hypothetical rules are qualified by an ‘if’ statement e.g. you should do your homework if you want to do well in an exam
Categorical rules are not qualified by an ‘if’ statement, apply universally e.g. you shouldn’t steal
Moral rules are categorical not hypothetical
Kant gives ways 2 ways to test where a maxim passes the categorical imperative: contradiction in conception and contradiction in will
Three formulations of categorical imperative
- Formula of law of nature: universality
- Formula of the end of itself: means to an end
- Formula of the kingdom of the ends
2 and 3 are clarifications of 1 - not something separate
Universality
Action is right if the maxim can be universalised - if what i proposed to do is to be considered right, be prepared for everyone else to work on same principle
‘Live your life as though your every act was to become universal law’
If you’re not willing for ethical rule you claim to be following to apple to everyone then not a valid rule - no exceptions allowed
Test 1: for law to be universal, must not result in contradiction of conception e.g. stealing = universally a acceptable however private property would disappear so stealing would be impossible
So a maxim like ‘you should steal’ would lead to contradiction in conception - not morally permissible
Test 2: contradiction in will - whether we can rationally will a maxim or not
E.g. we can rationally will ‘not to help others in need’? No contradiction in conception where nobody helps anyone else but we cannot rationally will it
Not all goals require help of others, Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty (should help others but wont happen 100% of the time)
The practical imperative (means to an end)
Humanity formula: dont use ppl as means to achieving own end
All ppl are free moral agents in own right and shouldn’t be dehumanised - everyone entitled to their own ‘end’
‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end’
Moral lives must respect human beings - treat everyone equal and free
Members of shared moral community - intention must respect humanity
Ethics cannot manipulate ppl. Rules can’t treat a person if they were an inanimate object - coerce a person to get what you want
Kingdom of ends
Always act as though you were responsible for making rules in a. Kingdom where everyone is treated as an ‘end’ to a means; society of free and autonomous inds
Community element: stresses humans dont operate alone and must use reason to create a Soc which are all valued
‘As if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends’
So categorical imperatives cannot be absurd,creating states that cannot possibly work in human society
Riles only work for and individual but for all of society
Radical evil
Categorical imperative is challenged by existence of ‘radical evil’
Recognises human existence contains moral evil - happens when we subordinate the moral laws to our own self interest
Humanity has a universal tendency towards radical evil - happens when ppl. Focus on maxim of self interest, leads them bending every other maxim to that one maxim
Summun bonum
Highest good
Underpinned by the 3 ‘postulates of practical reason’ - God, freedom and immorality
Kant arg. One shouldn’t strive to be happy but to be worthy of happiness and no respect for those who appeared to achieve happiness without regard to morality of their means of doing so
Joining of virtue and happiness
Virtue has to be the starting point - its the virtuous person who posses the ‘good will’ and happiness is an optional bonus (not guaranteed and not our aim)
Morality is internal in that it concerns ‘good will’ - simply have to will the highest good
Autonomous individual is worthy of happiness if you act morally
If you seek sunnum bonum you must assume its achievement is at least possible
If good will tells us what we ought to do (moral duty) sense of ‘ought’ implies we ‘can’ do our moral duty
All our actions should will the good of others
God and immortality
God doesn’t comment moral laws they arise from reason and good will so though ‘ought implies can’ - we can assume universe is fair - did my duty to become morally worthy - implies must be a reward of happiness in proportion to my obedience to moral law
Reward for highest obedience = the sunnum bonum - perfect match between morality and happiness
Perfect happiness cannot be achieved in this life - there must be immortality in which sunnum bonum can be achieved
Only god can provide immortality - god exists to guarantee the bonum
Freedom
Freedom of will is the core of morality - cannot show any experience we are free but we know a priori we are free (innate sense of moral duty)
If we are not free then morality has no sense and would have to give up on morality
Freedom is an a priori assumption
These are presuppositions and not prior requirements - can’t wait until you’re certain you’re genuinely free to act before you do anything
Evaluation of kantian ethics
STRENGTHS:
Simple and effective as a tool to use our reason to discover moral laws
In its most basic form could even be understood by children - shows its universality
Removes emotion from moral decision making, everyone will be treated equally and nobody will be shown favouritism
Shows consequentialist theories (UT) justifies bad actions to bring about good consequences - however some acts that are morally justifiable
WEAKNESSES:
Doesn’t make it clear what humans should do when there’s two conflicting duties
Too rigid and restrictive - if consequence is good then shouldn’t act be good
Unrealistic - Hume states its impossible to ignore human desires and emotions
Anthropocentric (human centred) believes only humans have intrinsic value - animals not considered as non rational and not members of a moral community - could justify cruelty towards animals
Compatible with religion
Kant concept of good will is compatible with Christian’s view of virtue
Kant says its not nec. To believe in Jesus is son of god but important to believe possibility that jesus attained moral perfection
Emphasis on use of reason to define moral truths is similar to aquinas use of reason and NML
Principle of universality is comp with religion - treat others how you wish to be treated
‘Postulates of practical reason’ include two religious ideas : God and immortality needed to make sense of morality
Not compatible with religion
Moral law is autonomous, not religious, for person to have a good will - only good in itself - would reject DT as they accept moral will is gods auth.
No appeal to any religious scripture or text as a form of ethical authority
Based on enlightenment values of reason and autonomy
Worshipping god becomes a daily chore instead of choosing to follow the law becaause its good in itself
Humans can make moral decisions without the influence of an external authority
