Kantianism/Deontology (Immanuel Kant and Onora O’Neill) Flashcards
The good will
The only intrinsic good is the “good will”
The only intrinsic good is the “good will”
- all other valuable things, even happiness and virtue, are only —- instrumental to facilitating the good will
- this is directly tied to the capacity to reason
- the will is directly tied to our rational capacities, our ability to act on reasons
The good will is good only through its willing, not because of what it effects or accomplishes
- even if it does not have the power to achieve its goal, and only willing remains, it has full value in itself that its usefulness or lack thereof does not increase or decrease
The good will is show in an action done from duty not just in accordance with duty
- From duty: you did the right thing because it was your duty because it was the right thing
- In accordance with duty: you did the right thing, but for some that had nothing to do with it being your duty
- represents an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to another end, as a result of reason alone
- the action is good in itself, result doesn’t matter
Categorical Imperative
Four formulations of the categorical imperative
- Universal Law Formula
- The Human Formula/The Formula of the End in itself
- Perfect duties
- Imperfect duties
- “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”
- One must be able to will that the maxim of our action should be universal law
The Universal Law Formula
Is it morally acceptable to lie?
- Ask yourself: Would it possible for my maxim “I can lie to get out of difficult situations” to be held as a universal law for myself as well as others, so it becomes the law “Everyone can lie to get out of difficult situations?”
- No
- Why not? If this universal were held, then no one would ever believe you, so the maxim would destroy itself
- Universalizing the maxim creates a logical contradiction
- Lying is morally wrong
Examples of the Universal Law Formula
- “Act in such a way that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means”
- To use someone as a mere means is to involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent
- Doesn’t say there is anything wrong about using someone as a means
The Humanity Formula/The Formula of the End in itself
Is it morally acceptable to lie?
- Ask yourself: When I lie to someone, am I using them as a mere means to my ends, and not allowing them to rationally determine and pursue their own ends?
- Yes, because by its nature lying assumes the person would not consent to what you are doing if they knew
- You are preventing them from deciding something for themselves based on full information
- Kant argues that you can’t even lie to those intending to do harm
Example of the Humanity Formula
Kant argues that you can’t even lie to those intending to do harm
- Murderer trying to friend you’re hiding, you can’t lie to them about where your friend is
- You can do other things to help your friend (hide them, close the door, fight back, etc).
If you have a perfect duty not to do something, you can’t even think of it being a universal law without contradiction
Perfect Duties
If you have a perfect duty not to do something, you can think it without contradiction, but you can’t will it because the will would contradict itself
Imperfect duties
Example of perfect duty to oneself
Is it morally acceptable for a suicidal person to take their own life?
Maxim of perfect duty to oneself
“From self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction”
Perfect Duty to oneself: formula 1
No, there a contradiction if we are using a feeling meant to further life (self-love) in order to create a maxim that destroys it
Perfect duty to oneself: formula 2
No, you are using yourself as a means (to make your condition more tolerable) rather than an end
Example of perfect duty to others
Is it morally acceptable to borrow money without intending to pay it back?
Maxim of perfect duty to others
“When I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promises to pay it back, although I know I can never do so”
Perfect duty to others: formula 1
No, it would be self-contradictory, no one would believe what was promised anymore and promising would be meaningless
Perfect duty to others: formula 2
No, you’re using the friend as a means rather than an end, rather than respecting their own ends
Example of imperfect to oneself
Is it morally acceptable for someone has a talent that would make him useful in many ways, to not bother cultivating it because he’s comfortable and doesn’t want to bother?
Maxim of imperfect duty to oneself
“Does the maxim of neglecting natural gifts, besides agreeing of itself with his propensity to indulgence, might always with what is called duty agree”
Imperfect duty to oneself: formula 1
It is possible to have a consistent system of nature if this was a universal law
Imperfect duty to oneself: formula 2
It is not enough that the action does not conflict with humanity in our own person as an end in itself
Example of imperfect duty of a others
If you’re doing well, but others are struggling, should you take the attitude that you have no responsibility to contribute anything to others’ well being?
Maxim of imperfect duty to others
“I have no responsibility to help others that are struggling”
Imperfect duty to others: formula 1
It is not a logical contradiction, and the human race could subsist
Imperfect duty to others: formula 2
The natural end of all men as ends in themselves is their own happiness, and we must make the ends of any subject that is an end in themselves our own ends “if that conception of an end in itself is to have its full effect on me”
Objections to Kantian Ethics
- It is too rigid in the rules that it provides.
- The focus on rationality can be ableist and can lead to ethical system that excludes moral obligation to some that most people intuitively think should be included.
“an action is right in proportion to the happiness it promotes, and wrong in proportion to the pain it produces”
the right action produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number
happiness here means pleasure and the absence of pain
The Greatest Happiness Principle
- have greater permanency, safety, and uncostliness
- intrinsically more valuable
Higher pleasures: mental
more fleeting, riskier
Lower pleasure: bodily
In determining moral rightness, benefits to each person matter just as much as similar benefits to any other person
Equal consideration
Have to be strictly impartial about your own happiness vs. that of others
Agent neutrality
Objection to Utilitarianism 1
The idea that life has no higher end than pleasure is “a doctrine worthy only of swine”, and would also mean that we have to show the same concern for pain in pleasure in non-humans as in humans.
Objection to Utilitarianism 2
Its standard is just too high for humanity to achieve. Its too much to expect people to always act from the goal of promoting the general interests of society
Other objections to Utilitarianism
- They claim the answer is obvious and easy in these kinds of cases, but it isn’t or shouldn’t be
- It can be used to justify atrocities and horrific acts that most people intuitively think are morally wrong
