Kantian ethics Flashcards
3 formulations of the categorical imperatives
Test of universability “Act only according to that maxim whereby at the same time will that it should be a moral law”.
Does it commit contradictions in the laws of nature? (is it illogical?) Does it commit contradictions in the will? (is it unacceptable?) if it commits neither, it is morally permissible.
Kingdom of ends “Act if you were, through all your maxims, a lawmaker in the kingdom of ends”
Dont treat a person as a means to an end “Act in such a way that your always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, NEVER simply as a means, but always at the same time an end”
Kant on Human Nature
Kant believes human beings are rational and ultimately autonomous, which he considered to be the defining features of human nature. It seems to reconcile human nature by emphasizing the inherent dignity and moral worth of an individual.
weakness of Kant
Conflicting duties, as suggested by ‘Jean Paul Satre’ in existentialism is a humanism. There is no hierarchy of duties in kantian ethics’ e.g it is ALWAYS wrong to lie and ALWAYS right to keep a promise. There is a conflict in duties if you need to lie in order to keep a promise. Kant does not favour the value of one moral action over another.
E.g if someone came to your house and you were hiding your friend from them as they were trying to kill them, it is unclear in applocation which duty to abide by.
possible solution of conflicting duties- ross
Possible solution: WD Ross ‘Prima Facie’ (first sight) duties. Ross disagreed with kant that moral rules ‘admit no exception’. These prima facie duties are intuitively obvious at first sight so can admit exception. These duties can be put in a hierarchy depending on the situation. E.g in a situation of telling a lie to keep a promise, Ross would say it is intuitively obvious to adhere to the ‘duty of fidelity’. Kant therefore could be criticised as he does not recognise/ accredit the intuitive awareness of humans in performing the most moral action.
But the application of the categorical imperatives survived criticism
Problems with Ross
Problems with Ross: he doesn’t believe there is an absolute criterion for deciding what is right and wrong. He suggest prima facie duties are ‘self-evident’. To be self evident, however, you have to have reaches ‘sufficient mental maturity’ for prima facie duties to be intuitively obvious. Once reached, prima facie duties have the same status of knowledge as arithmetic: we recognise them to be part of the nature of the universe. How do we know when someone has been able to reflect on the ‘moral reflection of many generations? Ross is unclear
Hence, this does not solve the issue of conflicting duties
STRENGTH- moral motivation of actions
Kant places emphasis on the moral motivation of an action- according to kant, an action can only be considered good if its performed out of a sense of duty and adherence to moral principles. This focus on intention allows individuals to cultivate a morally virtuous character and develop genuine commitment to ethical behaviour. It encourages others to act in a way that respects the dignity and inherent worth of others. Regardless of outcome.
weakness- Do we always have moral motivation?
in a sense, Kantian ethics runs contrary to human nature. Before performing an action, we tend to exhibit consequentialist tendencies in our decision-making and behaviour; most of us would feel guilty if a moral action resulted in harm for any individual
Weakness- universalising a maxim
Universalising a maxim: allows for a person to fufil their own needs and desires within the strictures of kantian ethics. Alsdair Macintyre states, ‘all people called mark, living in manchester and having a cat named troy should be given free access to concerts’ This can be universalised without a contradiction in the will and contradiction within the laws of nature
Strength- solves the problem of universalising
Kant would perhaps respond by emphasising the need of reason in universalizing a maxim. Although it may not violate contradictions, it is ultimately unreasonable to impose. He would also argue that ethical decisions should be done out of a sense of duty rather than personal inclinations.
But are we all reasonable? Who decides what maxims are reasonable? Does this mean that contradictions in the will and contradictions in the laws of nature are not sufficient tests?
either way, kant fails :(
FINAL WEAKNESS- Phillipa Foot Morality is a system of Hypothetical rather than Categorical imperatives
Foot attacks the meta-ethical foundation of Kant’s ethics. She denies that reason can discover a universal moral law.
Reason can understand categorical imperatives, but that doesn’t make them our duty.
Rules of etiquette can be categorical, e.g. “you should not eat with your mouth open” contains the imperative ‘should’ and isn’t stated conditional on desire or outcome, so it is categorical.
No one thinks it irrational to break the rules of etiquette. Foot questions what exactly makes moral categorical imperatives rationally binding? She argues we have no basis for claiming it irrational to violate categorical moral statements. Their power over us could simply be the result of social conditioning, not reason. So, Kant’s categorical imperative does not derive from reason.
Actions are only rational/irrational if it undermines our ends
Kant claims it is irrational to steal/lie. Foot disagrees. It is only irrational if it undermines our ends. For example, “You should not steal if you want to be a member of society” is rational, but it is not categorical. It depends on our wants/desires. Foot concludes that morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives.
“My argument is that they [Kant] are relying on an illusion, as if trying to give the moral “ought” a magic force” – Foot
