Week 4: Kant Flashcards
Jeremy Bentham: Intention:
which consequences the agent wants to bring about.
Immanuel Kant: Motive
what the agent envision to achieve with those
consequences.
THE SUPREME PRINCIPLE OF MORALITY
How can I recognize whether an action is ethically sound?
- Through reason alone that you can deduce it.
FIRST FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE
The formula of Universal Law: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law”.
Maxim = the motive or principle inspiring your action, your plan.
Universalizing is a test for moral evaluation: In a world in which everyone acts according to my maxim, would then my action still be effective?
SECOND FORMULATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
The Formula of Humanity as an End: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always as an end”.
Mill vs. Kant
Mill: Motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action. The morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention.
Kant completely reverses Mill’s perspective.
A PRIORI
(= from the former) is used in e.g. ‘a priori truth’ or
‘a priori knowledge’ or ‘a priori statement’ to indicate a truth/piece of knowledge/statement that does not require any empirical procedure in order to be ascertained.
Kant: The highest good
the Highest Good for humanity is complete moral virtue together with complete happiness, the former being the condition for deserving the latter
Connection between the two formulations of the categorical imperative
when acting on maxims failing the test of universalization (immoral maxims) you are using others as means, not as ends. If you do something that is effective only because most people do not do it, their actions are making your action work.
You are using other people’s honesty/fairness to make your action effective.
UTILITARIANISM AND KANT/LIBERTARIANISM: Similarities
- Both are critical of dogmas;
- Both stem from a rationalistic philosophy.
UTILITARIANISM AND KANT/LIBERTARIANISM: Differences in Focus
Utilitarianism is centered on an abstract (to various degrees) notion of happiness/utility/good, not on the individual human beings;
Libertarianism is centered on the individual human beings and their dignity and freedom, but not necessarily on their happiness.
UTILITARIANISM AND KANT/LIBERTARIANISM: Differences in method for ethical evaluation of actions/behaviour
Utilitarianism: look at the consequences of actions/behaviour.
Kant: look at the motive inspiring actions/behaviour.
ARISTOTLE AND KANT: SIMILARITIES
Both philosophers put reason at the core of ethics;
Both philosophers try and give some (reason-based) guidelines as to what to strive for when evaluating ethical behavior;
Both philosophers pivot on the notion of human beings’ autonomy in ethical decision-making, again in close relation with reason.
ARISTOTLE AND KANT: DIFFERENCES
Aristotle sees ethics as a practical science, whereas for Kant, ethics is a priori;
For Aristotle, ethics is about (training) virtue; for Kant, ethics is about (finding out and complying with what is your) duty.
CRITICISMS OF KANT’S VIEWS
Kant’s views on ethics are grounded on a highly idealized view of human nature and human reason. For instance:
- Do we all agree about what is right and what is wrong as much as Kant assumes?
- Do we really find moral requirements as binding as Kant assumes?
- Are we really as autonomous/rational as Kant assumes?
