Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
KANTIAN ETHICS (Applying Kantian Ethics (LYING TO MURDERERS (mad axeman…
KANTIAN ETHICS
Kant And Duty
-
Duty
-
-
In order to see what duty is, it is worth looking at two things that Kant says Duty is not:
- Doing the right thing out of self interest or because of possible consequences is not Duty.
- Doing things out of inclination is not Duty.
-
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.
-
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
if a teacher gives you the instruction to "do your homework", it may sound like an unconditional command but it is not.
-
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
-
-
-
for example you decide to act upon the rule 'do not kill' it is not because you have an outcome in mind
-
-
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"
-
-
-
-
-
Strengths And Weaknesses
STRENGTHS
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
-
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.
WEAKNESSES
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
:check: Secular theory! No requirement to believe in God as the imperatives are worked out rationally. :red_cross: doesn't manage to escape God completely, summum bonnum is based in the idea of god rewarding those who do their moral duty :green_cross: in defence Kant argues that it is a consequence of doing good rather than a motivation to do good.
:check:Offers clear fixed guidelines, we always know how to react. :red_cross: 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?
:check:It is rational and is not based on the changeable nature of our emotions so we can get well rounded reasoned moral decisions :red_cross: 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.