Kantian Ethics

Question 1

Duty and Good Will

Answer 1

-Good will is held by a person who has the right intention when performing their duty

-Use reason to figure out duties- leave out personal feelings and desires

Question 2

Hypothetical and Categorical imperatives

Answer 2

-Categorical imperative: something we always have a duty to do- reason tells us we are equal

-Hypothetical imperative: moral action that a rational will adopts for reasons other than duty (should do x if you want to achieve y)

-Should follow the categorical imperative, regardless of desires

Question 3

Formulae of the Categorical imperative:

Answer 3

1. Universalisation- only act on an ethical principle if it is possible for everyone to act on it- for example lying
2. Treat people as ends, not means- rational agents seek goals called ‘ends’. To treat someone as a means is irrational and contradicts that they have their own ends
3. Kingdom of ends- if everyone followed Kant’s ethics, we would live in a ‘kingdom of ends’- a word of rational beings where everyone is treated as an end

Question 4

The three postulates:

Answer 4

1. Free will
2. Immortality
3. God

-Good people aren’t always rewarded in life, and sometimes bad people seem to be rewarded- this is unjust, and conflicts with God’s omnibenevolent nature. There could be an afterlife where good people are rewarded with happiness (the ‘summum bonum’), and where bad people are punished

-There must be a God to bring about this afterlife

-Without free will, we can’t be responsible for our actions, making ethics pointless

Question 5

Clashing duties

Answer 5

-If duties clash and one can’t be done, then it can’t be our duty. If they are obtained through the categorical imperative, then Kant’s theory can’t tell us our duty

-Sartre- existentialist- soldier trying to decide whether to go to war to defend his country or stay home to look after his sick parent. Can’t do both, but both are universalizable and don’t involve treating people as means. Kant can’t provide the clarity needed for autonomy

Question 6

Kant’s response to clashing duties:

Answer 6

-If there are clashing duties, we haven’t used our reason properly. Distinguishes between perfect and imperfect duties

Question 7

Constant’s criticism of Kant’s murderer at the door scenario:

Answer 7

-If a murderer asks where the victim is and we knew, constant argued we should lie, fitting most people’s intuitions. Telling the truth can’t be an absolute duty- depends on the consequences
-Can slide into the slippery slope argument

Question 8

Kant’s response to Constant’s criticism:

Answer 8

-We can’t control consequences so we can’t be responsible for them- not relevant to moral decision making. If we lied about where the victim was, the victim might have actually moved there without us knowing, making you responsible for their death.

Question 9

Consequentialism’s response to Kant:

Answer 9

-Moral obligation consists in doing what we are best able to judge will have the best outcome

-Singer- we ought to act on a ‘reasonable expectation’ regarding what will maximise utility

Question 10

Consequentialism example:

Answer 10

-As a rational agent, you are responsible for what you do. Lying to prevent a Nazi from killing is to act as if you are responsible for the Nazis’ action, but you are not. We are only responsible for what we do- don’t lie.

-Hegel- part of who we are depends on our interactions with other people. We exist in deep connection to others, so we are responsible for each other’s actions

Question 11

Role of emotion in ethical decision making:

Answer 11

-Hermon- supports Kant- emotions can only lead to a right action by luck.

-Williams- Kantian morality is too narrow

-Stocker- imagine being ill in hospital and a friend visits, but only says they came because it is their duty- not very nice

-A virtuous person can cultivate their emotional reactions so their feelings motivate them to do what’s right