Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Issues for Kantian Deontological Ethics (Conflicts between duties (Kant…
Issues for Kantian Deontological Ethics
Universalisability and Morality
Word the maxim cleverly
Rarely happens
No breakdown of concept
Response
Concerned with the actual maxim
We must be honest with ourselves about what our maxim is
Specific maxim
People would no longer believe promises
Conning people
Do not intend to keep a promise
Desperate circumstances
The maxim is wrong and universalisable
Fails to give us the right answer
Response
Lying is always wrong
Maxims can be morally right, but not universalised
Shopkeeper winning the lottery
Conflicts between duties
Kant
Moral duties are absolute
A duty is absolute if it permits no exceptions
Nothing can override a moral duty
All other ends have their worth in relation to the good will
Good will is motivated by duty
Should I break a promise or tell a lie?
Should I betray a friend to save a life?
Kant's theory implies that whatever I do must be wrong
Response
A real conflict can never occur
We have misunderstood what at least one duty requires of us
'Don't lie unless you have to lie to save a life'
Object to response
It is more realistic to say that most duties are not absolute
In a conflict one will give way and no longer be a duty
Consequences of actions determine their moral value
Confused about moral value
Should we kill in order to save lives?
What makes good will is that it makes good ends
Response
There are no ends which are good without qualification
This is not the right analysis of good will
Further disagreement
Utilitarians argue it is just obvious that if something is good, more of it is better and we ought to do that
Kant argues and offers an alternative of practical reasoning. Means - end reasoning is appropriate for hypothetical's
It is irrational to act in a way not everyone could
If rationality were only about means - end reasoning, we could not say that any ends are obligatory
You only ought to do your duty if you want to be morally good
Mill's Response
Happiness is the only desirable end
Kant's Response
Happiness is not always good
Morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives
Is Kant's view of practical reasoning correct?
Foot
We commonly contrast moral judgements with hypothetical imperatives
Two uses of should and ought
First
People should not act on the imperative if they don't want what the imperative assumes
You should take the third exit if you want to go to the restaurant
Mostly about language and isn't enough to show that Kant is right
Smoking room
We don't withdraw the 'should' depending on what someone wants
Non - hypothetical imperatives
Not unconditional or inescapable
Kant assumes that acting immorally involves disregarding a rule that you have accepted or again that it is inconsistent to want other people to act in a way you don't intend to
The binding force of morality is simply the feeling that moral judgements are inescapable
Our feelings are the result of how moral rules are taught
Morality > etiquette
Two objections from Foot
What does 'acting out of duty' amount to?
If categorical, then 'because it is right' is no longer a good reason for us to act
Response
Kant is mistaken with thinking that the motive of a duty is the only morally good motive
We care about others' good quite apart from thoughts of duty
Wanting to help needn't be a passing desire
A virtuous person is one who is dedicated to moral ends, not because they feel inclined
Undermine morality?
Amoralists?
Response
Amoralists could accept that the moral 'ought' is non - hypothetical
Moral 'ought' has no magical force to give everyone a reason to be moral, irrespective of what they want in life