Kantian ethics Flashcards
what is Kants ‘good will’
the only thing that is good at all times, means having a good intention - an intention to do our duty.
what are Kants two false intentions
- we should not base our views of right and wrong on consequences as these are not within our control
- we should not base our decisions on our inclinations (what we want to do), as our emotions change on a regular basis.
why should we do our duty
because it is our duty not for any reward
what is a maxim
when we carry out an action, Kant believes we have a rule or maxim
does Kant use a hypothetical or categorical imperative
categorical
what is a hypothetical imperative
‘if’ commands - consequence focused
what is a categorical imperative
no ‘if’ about them, they are absolute. It is our duty to act on anything that is categorical.
what are the three formulations
formula of the law of nature (universal law), person as ends and kingdom of ends.
what is the universal law
if considering an action: ‘would it be logical for this action to be universalised?’. For example, it would not make sense to universalise stealing. Stealing is taking someone else’s property. if we were to universalise stealing no one would really own anything. leading to an illogical conclusion: if everyone were always stealing, there would be no stealing.
what is the person as ends
how the maxim treats people. Kant believes that we should treat people as an ends in themselves; free rational beings who deserve dignity and respect. we should not treat them as a means to an end, using them to achieve some sort of purpose. we can use objects in this way but not people.
what is the kingdom of ends
kant asks us to imagine we are part of the law-making group in an imaginary country where everyone always treat others as an end. Kant suggests that a categorical imperative is an imperative that could be permitted in such a place.
what is an objection to the second formula
we can’t avoid treating others as a means to an end. when we buy things in a shop, are we not using the shopkeeper? Kant would not think so. the word solely often gets missed. we are not to treat others solely as a means to an end, consider them to also be a person.
what is Philippa foot’s criticism on morality based on categorical imperatives
Foot’s key interest is to answer the question of why we should be moral. in 1995 essay ‘Morality as a system of Hypothetical imperatives’, Foot argues that what is missing from Kant’s account is an adequate explanation of our motives and desires. only hypothetical imperatives give us a reason to act in a certain way. in the categorical imperative we are just told to act and do a certain thing, no account for our motives.
what was foot influenced by
Aristotles virtue ethics. This helps with issue of motivation. Many of the virtues and good character traits of human action are things we must freely choose; they are contingent. it is hoped that these virtues are things we desire and motivate us to action - but they may not. everything about morality is hypothetical.
what did foot reinterpret one of Kants remarks as
we should not be conscripts forced to be virtuous, but rather volunteers
Kantian ethics is helpful regarding our duty to ourselves as well as to others because
- duty as an idea is better than depending on our inclinations. our inclinations are led by emotion, changes. we are also less prone to personal bias if duty is our key principle
- Kants ethics are rational. Kant gives human beings the responsibility for making decisions and he believes that humanities ability to reason and work things out will enable us to reach the right answers
- kant is right that consequences can’t be predicted. Systems such as situation ethics and utilitarianism require us to make predictions about the future result of our actions. we cannot be held responsible for things that are not within our control.
- Kants principle of universal law is a useful rule. it has similarities with the principle that is found in all the main religious faiths of not doing things to others that you would not wish to be done to you.
- Kant’s ethics values persons. In addition to respecting their rationality, his principle of treating persons as an end is helpful in practical ethics and, in contrast to the utilitarians, ensures every human being is significant.
- modern views of justice and rights owe much to Kantian ethics, particularly the focus of the person
- Kant’s ethics can be seen as secular. The principles can be applied by all people of faiths and people of no faith.
kantian ethics is not helpful regarding our duty to ourselves as well as to others because
- whilst there is clarity about Kant’s rules, as with any absolutist ethical system there is inflexibility to the situation. For instance, Kant establishes that lying is morally wrong. he thinks it is morally wrong to lie to a murderer seeking his next victim. the idea that you must still do your duty and that it is the potential murderer whose actions are immoral will not be of much comfort to the victim
- the outcome of a situation is ignored. although the outcome of our actions is often foreseeable and predictable. To choose to do something that obeys a moral rule but will almost certainly lead to increased misery or suffering seems like the wrong decision.
- Kant gives no clear guidance on what to do when duties conflict. in the example of the axe murderer we can universalise telling the truth and we can also universalise trying to save a life. it would appear that both of these could be categorical imperatives. we cannot do both and Kant give us no way of deciding between conflicting duties.
- Kant’s ethics is a good theoretical solution to many moral issues; his kingdom of ends shows his aim to make moral rules for an ideal world. ethics is about how the world ought to be. this ignores reality. life is complicated and in the real world Kant’s solution and ideas can often appear impractical
- the principle of universal law does not necessarily show our moral duties. non-moral maxims can logically be universalised. national anthem very morning could be universalised, not moral duty. Just because I cannot universalise something doesn’t mean is it immoral. I cannot universalise eating nuts, nit immoral.
what are perfect duties
one where our maxims cannot be universalised because a logical contradiction would occur if we were to do so. if we were to make a false promise, we promise something but have no intention of carrying out the promise the promise, this is something that logically cannot be universalised as the whole concept of promising relies on the idea that people are telling the truth when they make promises. if everyone were to be lying when making promises, then the very idea of promises is destroyed.
what are imperfect duties
duties do not create a logical contradiction but they do present us with a situation that no rational person could desire or will. we could conceive of a world where people didn’t help others in need - it is not illogical in the way what a false promise is illogical - but a rational person could not sincerely desire or will to be part of such a world.
right and wrong does depend on duty because
- duty is rational and as such is not subject to our changing emotions or circumstances
- the concept of duty rightly involves giving to each person the things that we owe in terms of how we treat them. thus it allows us to respect persons.
right and wrong does not depend on duty because
- the concept of duties is useful in public sector employment but does not seem to apply to every area of life
- there is a danger of conflating duty with obedience to authority
- there are often issues with conflicting duties, where we cannot fulfil both of the good actions that seem to be required
Kant and the enlightenment
influenced by it and one of its key figures. the enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that valued reason as the source of human knowledge. there was an emphasis on scientific method and reason as the source of knowledge, as well as political ideas of liberty and tolerance. this emphasis led two rejection of traditional authority of church and monarchs. sowed the seeds to political revolution.
kant on reason and human nature (autonomy)
Kantian ethics relies on the accurate use of human reason. writes at time of enlightenment and somewhat influenced by it.
Kant believes in the power of human beings to reason accurately and to reach answers without the need for external authorities - this influences Kants writing on ethics and other issues. For kant, the moral law is a product of reason. we can rationally understand the categorical imperative. he also believes that we are autonomous beings; in choosing to follow the moral law or not we are making our own free decisions.
responding to kant
Aristotles view of human nature was that there was both a rational and irrational part of the human soul. The irrational aspect, which we might associate with emotions and appetites, does seem to be a key aspect of our nature. Featuring heavily in more recent philosophy and psychology, such as in Daniel Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence. This might suggest that the emotional aspects of human nature need to be equally embraced, not repressed.
