Kantian ethics Flashcards
Kantian ethics is helpful method of decision making
Yes:
- consequences cannot be predicted so we need objective rules
- not treating people as a means to an end values people
- based on reason, not emotion
- H.A Pritchard: we all know how we ought to act and easy to understand
- W.D Ross we can recognise the right course of action
No:
- inflexible: axe murder
- outcome is ignored
- no clear guidance on what to do when duties clash
- non-moral maxims can be universalised
- Fletcher: duty out of duty’s sake is impersonal - sympathy etc.
“Can judging something as right or wrong be based on the extent to which duty is best served?” essay
A: duty ignores emotions. Bernard Williams - giving to charity because you feel empathy is surely a moral act
CA: Kant - acting out of emptions is to act immorally, selfish. Emotions also change. Barbara Herman: emotions only lead to good consequences by luck
E: it is impossible to physically act without emotions. Not practical. Hume morality comes from sympathy of others. Phillipa Foot - hypothetical imperatives
A: goes against peoples moral intuitions. Consequences are not taken into account. Axe murderer
CA: cannot control consequences therefore not responsible or them. Consequences cannot be predicted . Having objectives are good. Clarke: If we think Kant literally meant to always tell the truth regardless, then we are giving little credit to his intelligence. Kant leaves open the option for silence
E: Bentham and Mill: we can predict consequences to an extent through experience. Therefore impractical as we need experience to decide what is right and wrong Pojman: puts too much emphasis on reason and questions the issue of people will different rationality.
“Kant’s categorical imperative is very helpful in moral decision making” essay
A: Unhelpful as can go against our intuition. - E.g. axe murderer. For Kant an action must be carried out with the good will. Rejects if statement but most people would agree that if you are giving to charity in the place is good. Can allow for immoral actions. Duty for duty’s sake
CA: no emotion = good. As can cause us to do the wrong thing. We make rash decisions under stress. Singer “devoid of emotion”
E: Phillipa Foot - hypothetical imperatives is what gives us our intention to do anything. Kant does not explain our motives and desires. Kant just tells us to do the categorical imperative without explanation for motives. - not good
A: conflicting duties = bad. Difficult to apply practically
CA: W.D Ross - must distinguish prima facie duties - with his amendment. Can use our judgement
E: relies on the fact we will always be able to devise which duties are most important and put them in order. Takes a while. Impractical overall
Scholars for Kantian ethics
W.D Ross: prima facie duties
Barth: can’t rely on human reason as is limited
Barbara Herman: emotions can only lead to right actions by luck. Emotions cannot be moral motives as they do not provide the agent with the moral interest in the rightness of their action
Nagel: we do tend to assume fixed duties in life and use out intuitions to break them. Nagel expects individuals to adhere to certain fixed duties like fairness and loyalty
Clarke: Kant’s emphasise on always telling the truth offers little credit to his intelligence as you can just remain silent.
Scholars against Kantian ethics
Foot: hypothetical imperatives is what gives us motive. Kant doesn’t explain where our motives and desires come from. Inspired by the virtue ethics of Aristotle - many of the virtues in human action are about what we freely choose.
Sartre: example of a soldier going to war or looking after his mother. Conflicting duties. Believed there is no objective guidance for moral actions.
Constant: said we would most likely lie in the axe murderer situation. - against our intuition
Hegel: Kant pictures humans as individual and ration but Hegel says that Kant overlooks social influence. Can somewhat control consequences
Williams: Kants morality is too narrow
Michael Stocker: friend comes to visit you in hospital but they only come because it is their duty
MacIntyre: can make up silly maxims that fit the categorical imperative
Hume: is ought problem
Singer: duty for duties sake leads to a closed system
Kantian ethics
- Kant believes that the only thing that is good at all times is the good will. This means having a good intention to do our duty
- Should not base out actions on the consequences as they are out of our control and our emotions change.
- Our duty is to act on any categorical imperatives, not hypothetical imperatives (a command that is followed to achieve a desired result)
- To find the categorical imperatives: they need to pass 1. The formula of the law of nature - would it make logical sense for it o be universalised? 2. Persons as ends - we should treat people as an end in themselves 3. Kingdom of ends - a combination of the first two
Perfect and imperfect duties:
- perfect duty: cannot be universalised as a logical contradiction would occur if we were to do so. E.g. if we would make a false promise with no intention of keeping it. If everyone were to lie that they are making promises then the very idea of promises are destroyed.
- imperfect duties: do not create logical contradictions as no rational person could desire or will
Kant’s reliance on reason:
- influenced by the enlightenment: reason is the source of human knowledge
- Kantian ethics relies on the accurate use of reason as he source of human knowledge so we can rationally understand he categorical imperative
The three postulates:
1. Human beings have free will - we have to assume the person we refer to is actually able to do the duty.
2. Must assume the existence of an afterlife - we are required to seek the summum bonum.
3. God must exist - so that the summum bonum actually occurs and to ensure that there is a God who ensures justice of the universe
