Kantian ethics Flashcards
normative ethical theories
type of theory
-based on reason/logical so not clouded by emotion or sense experience
-Kant = rationalist
-ethical dilemmas based on intentions, not unknown future outcomes = deontological
-absolute theory: command to do one’s duty is invariable – not doing one’s duty is absolutely wrong
concept of duty
-“duty involves freely choosing the action” - Kant
-duty is what you ought to do, have a moral obligation to preform certain actions
-have freewill to follow our duty, worked out through reason
-doing what is right for no other reason than because it is good/the right thing to do (regardless of consequences)
-as long as you do your duty you are morally blameless
-duty is discovered through the categorical imperative
importance of following duty for duty’s sake
- no emotion, kindness/generosity aren’t wrong just amoral
- personal gain,
- authority command
-only type of morality = morals that follow duty
good will
-act only good is its an act based on the sense of good will
-a moral action is one performed with good will, wanting to benefit others – good intention
-“goodwill shines forth like a precious jewel”
-goodwill is the highest form of good
-example of shop keeper, a shop keeper might be pleasant but is is because they want the customers money to make a profit
-“it is impossible to conceive of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except good will”
-all other qualities e.g. kindness can be misused
moral law
-duty and good will together make the moral law
-“the moral law within” meaning that everyone can reason how they ought to behave in a situation
-free to choose to act towards moral law or not
-all moral life strives for the summon bonum
-Kant argues that errors occur in moral thinking when following heteronomous approaches, arguments based on following laws set down by others
-not acceptable to Kant
-only moral law we should follow is that which is knowable by reason
imperatives – hypothetical imperative
-imperatives – essential acts
-a command to achieve a desired result
-“if i want X i must do Y”
-kant didn’t agree with this imperative, not an imperative for morality:
1. no obligation to obey it unless you want to achieve the outcome – teleological
2. not an absolute moral rules
3. judgements not connected with ethics, not ethical
imperatives – categorical imperatives
-an act that is good in itself regardless of the consequences
-not dependent on what i might wish
-doesn’t differ between people
-“you should” “you must” = absolute/objective; right thing to do, no justification, in line with duty, helps to be moral
-3 formulations of the CI
1. formula of the law of nature: universalisability
2. formula of the end itself: means to an end
3. formula of the kingdom of ends
- formula of the law of nature: universalisability
-most important
-“act only according to that maxim (general rule) by which you can at the same time will that it will become a universal law”
-action is right if the maxim can be universalised
-example, if everyone gave a bit of money to charity, universally, people in poverty could improve their lives
-Kant’s four examples:
1.lying promise
2. suicide
3. neglecting one’s talents
4. refraining from helping others
- formula of the end itself: means to an end
-every rational being exists “as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will”
-should always treat persons as ends, never as means only
-do not use people as a means to your own end
- formula of the kingdom of ends
-every individual should behave as though every individual was an ‘end’
-i should think of my action as a rule for everyone, done for the good of persons, and i should treat the actions of all other rational people as rules for me
-for Kant, the 2nd and 3rd formulations are just clarifications of the first form, not considered separate
three postulates
-postulate = solution to a problem
1. freedom (autonomy)
2. immorality
3. God
- freedom (autonomy)
-it is ‘the highest degree of life’ and the ‘inner worth of the world’
-rational creature are free but they gain this freedom by adopting a formal law of action whereby principles can be universalised
-reason grasps rules
-moral choices are only possible if people are free to make them, have to be free to do our duty
-fully rational beings capable of knowing absolutely what our duty is, when making moral decisions we are acknowledging our freedom
- immorality
-perfect virtue ought to be rewarded with perfect happiness
-perfect happiness and perfect goodness = summon bonum (highest good)
-clearly not achieved in this life but the next = immortal
-virtue should be rewarded, not we should be virtuous because we can be rewarded (intention)
-human beings have the opportunity for endless improvement, even beyond death
- God
-if summon bonum can be achieved in the next life, there must be someone to ensure it happens = God
-happiness is distributed in accordance with the moral acts that people have undertaken
evaluation - weaknesses
-is human reason reliable?
-can we switch off emotions?
-is there any such thing as an action that doesn’t have an ulterior motive (personal gain)?
-ethics based on culture – cultural relativism
-cold and inhuman basis for morality: morals based on love and compassion not classed as moral
-meant to be deontological but isn’t the question “what happens if everyone did this universally” look at the end results?
-what if our duty cannot be universalised?
-what happens when duties conflict?
-does everyone have a duty?
-what happens if your duty leads to a bad outcome – Hitler?
axe murder weakness
-Kant would argue it is your duty to not lie
-so even though you know the outcome will be the person dies, it is your duty/action to tell the truth so you are morally blameless
