KANTIAN ETHICS

Kant And Duty

Good Will

The only true good thing is good will

having good intentions

All other things (like courage) may or may not be good dependents on the situation

He argues that it doesn't matter if we are prevented from carrying out our intentions

it should be what we aim to do should be the right thing

The Good Will is the desire to do 'duty for duties sake'.

Duty

If we have good will then we will perform the right action for the right reason.

the motive and the outward action must correspond.

In order to see what duty is, it is worth looking at two things that Kant says Duty is not:

  1. Doing the right thing out of self interest or because of possible consequences is not Duty.
  1. Doing things out of inclination is not Duty.

The shopkeeper who charges customers fairly just because he figures it is good for buisness

we may feel moved to give money to charity one day but not the next. So inclination is a poor guide to what we should and shouldn't do.

Our duty is where we rationally work out what we ought to do.

our emotions and possible consequences are irrelevant.

Policewoman's duties are to intervene when she sees a crime being committed, regardless of whether she thinks she will succeed in catching the criminal or whether she feels like it.

Kant believes all human beings have moral duties that they must act upon just because they are human beings

Kant's Three Formulations

UNIVERSAL LAW

action we propose should be a universal law

is it something everybody could logically do? even yourself?

eg. stealing your work, if everyone was stealing then would anyone actually own anything they had? if not you can't steal what doesn't belong to anyone

PERSON AS ENDS

human beings are rational and autonomous

this means we have a duty to treat each other as persons

and NOT JUST AS AN OBJECT

We can use objects but not people

eg, partner breaks up with you, you don't want them back. You start dating someone else to make them jealous. in doing this you are using the other person as an object

KINGDOM OF ENDS

seen as a combination of the 2 ⬆

imagine a world where you make the laws

if we were to live there where everyone was not treated like objects, would your proposed maxim be logically possible?

eg. singing instead of talking. It is logically possible for everyone to sing instead of talking all the time and everyone is treated as an end, even if it was a bit annoying.

Applying Kantian Ethics

LYING TO MURDERERS

mad axeman asks you whether his next victim is in your house, they happen to be. What does Kant think you should do?

according to Kant's theory of universalism, we are morally required to tell the truth

we will have done our duty in doing so, therefore it is not us being immoral but it is the axeman

argues that we cannot control the outcome

his ethics are completely deontological, focusing on the action itself not the outcome

MY SISTERS KEEPER

little sister is born from IVF to be a match to her sick older sister who needs a kidney transplant. What does Kant think?

MASSIVE issue for Kant, they are treating the little sister as a means to an end ( AN OBJECT!!)

Kantian ethics values people, not just how they can be used

CHARITY

it is a moral decision based on how we feel

two different days you see the same charity advert, one day you see it and are moved and feel compelled to give to the charity. on another day you aren't bothered by that.

To kant this makes no sense, is is either our duty to help others where we can or it is not

Kantian ethics is entirely rational and seeks to make decisions based on logic and not emotions. our emotions are too inconsistent to give us clear moral values

BUISNESS ETHICS

A ruthless business owner could make more money by paying the employers the bare minimum without regular breaks

Kant's ethics prevent this with its focus on treating others with respect. In his own examples, the shopkeeper should not just treat his customers well because it is good for business, but he should do it because it is morally sound

Kant And Imperatives

we need to rationally consider if the rules in which we follow are categorical or hypothetical imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives

It actually says do your homework (X) if you want to pass the course (Y)

if a teacher gives you the instruction to "do your homework", it may sound like an unconditional command but it is not.

Is a command we would follow in order to achieve an end result

Kant argues that if the command only applies in certain cases or is dependent on the outcome then it is not a moral duty

Categorical imperatives

a command that has to be logically followed

does not depend on end results

logical for is simply Do X Or Don't Do X

for example you decide to act upon the rule 'do not kill' it is not because you have an outcome in mind

There is something unconditional about the command

Kant offers three tests so we can decide whether a maxim is categorical or hypothetic

UNIVERSAL LAW

PERSON AS ENDS

KINGDOM OF ENDS

MAXIMS

This doesn't really tell us what are rules are as anyone could make whatever they wanted up and they could be bad rules.

For example, if i steal a chip without your permission, my maxim might be "take other people's food without permission if you want it"

which is basically a rule in mind that we are acting upon

Whenever we carry out an action we are acting upon a maxim

there are absolute moral duties

he believes that all human beings have rationality and we are able to work out what these rules are

Key factor is autonomy

there are two types of imperatives

HYPOTHETICAL

CATAGORICAL

Assessing The Idea Of Duty

the idea that ethical issues should be resolved entirely by the idea of duty raises a number of ISSUES

THE THREE POSTULATES (assumptions)

  1. duty is a useful concept

as our inclinations and desires about what we want to do are subject to change

the concept of duty demands that we put our feelings aside in order to do the right thing

  1. The problem of conflicting duties

The example of the murderer

we have a duty to tell the truth but also the duty to save a life

KE does not give us a clear way

  1. Concept of duty can be abused!

when it becomes conflated with the idea of obedience to authority.

eg. the nazis who were put on trial argued that they were doing their duty

however Kantian might point out that the problem is in the misunderstanding not in the actual theory itself

no one who gets KE and its respect for persons could allow the atrocities of the nazi regime

A Final issue with Kant's reliance on duty is the link to God. It comes across as doing it for no reward, but actually it does do things for a reward

  1. THAT WE HAVE A FREE WILL:
  1. THAT THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE, WE ARE IMMORTAL:

this doesn't happen in this life but to say it should be achieved means it must be at some point

morality requires summum bonum (the highest good) to be achieved. this is where perfect virtue (good deeds) is rewarded by perfect happiness.

if we are not genuinely free to do either the good thing or the evil thing then there can be NO moral responsibility!

so summum bonum must occur in the next life

  1. THAT GOD EXISTS

In order that summum bonum actually occurs and goodness is rewarded by happiness, there must be a god who ensures the justice of the universe

Kant does not think that these 3 things are proved; merely that they must be assumed practically in order for morality to exist

Strengths And Weaknesses

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

Principle of universal law provides a useful principle in making moral decisions, it bears some similarities to "treat others how you want to be treated". So it treats people equally and allows no exceptions to the rules

concepts such as reason and duty make Kantian ethics impartial and less prone to personal bias

There is respect for the intrinsic value of persons in Kantian Ethics, this enables a concept of rights to be used. This is a contrast from Utilitarianism, where persons are only instrumentally valuable.

The outcome does matter, we may have to tell the truth to the murderer but we will ultimately feel bad if it leads to his death

The issue of not using out emotions, Aristotle and the Hierarchy of Being, it strips us from our human ability and what makes us different from everything else, in order for us to reason fully we need to use emotions and logic

Good theory however too abstract, can we ignore human nature? it also offers perfect solutions based on a hypothetical kingdom of ends, yet it cannot cope with in real world dilemmas where we are obligated to consider the lesser of two evils

The theory is better at showing us the things that we ought to not do rather than showing us what we should do, number of strange maxims that could be universalised that have no connection to persons as ends. No logical contradictions about standing on one leg every Wednesday yet this is not a moral duty

DEVELOPING POINTS

✅ Secular theory! No requirement to believe in God as the imperatives are worked out rationally. ❌ doesn't manage to escape God completely, summum bonnum is based in the idea of god rewarding those who do their moral duty ❎ in defence Kant argues that it is a consequence of doing good rather than a motivation to do good.

✅Offers clear fixed guidelines, we always know how to react. ❌ this can be a downfall as there is an inflexibility in
Kant's thinking, we may accept stealing to be wrong but what about in extreme situations when people are starving?

✅It is rational and is not based on the changeable nature of our emotions so we can get well rounded reasoned moral decisions ❌ 2 issues: 1. make assumptions about our capacity to reason, Augustine and the fall! 2. some emotions like compassion are powerful, strange to argue that the person who does not feel like giving to charity but does anyway is somehow more virtuous.