Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Chapter 5: What Matters is the Motive: Immanuel Kant 9781427208170 -…

- - - - studied at the University of Konigsberg at the age of 16
  - - - devastating critique of utilitarianism
        
        morality isn't about maximizing happiness; it's about respecting persons as ends in themselves
      - powerful basis for the rights of man and universal human rights
        
        "what is the supreme principle of morality?"
        
        "what is freedom?"
  - - - emphasis on human dignity
      - 3 approaches to justice
        
        the way to define justice and to determine the right thing is to ask what will maximize welfare or the collective happiness of society as a whole
        
        Kant rejects this approach; doesn't respect human freedom
        
        connects justice to freedom
        
        Kant accepts this approach
        
        puts forth a demanding idea of freedom
        
        justice means giving people what they morally deserve
        
        Kant rejects this approach; doesn't respect human freedom
      - rejects utilitarianism
        
        leaves rights vulnerable
        
        just because something gives many people pleasure doesn't make it right
        
        morality can't be based merely on empirical considerations
        
        these factors are variable and contingent
        
        every person is worthy of respect
        
        we are all rational beings; capable of reason
        
        capable of acting and choosing freely
- - - - For Kant there needs to be a difference between duty and inclination. to demonstrate this he uses the example of the calculating shopkeeper.
        
        A useful example is the one with a shopkeeper and a child customer. The shopkeeper can overcharge the child and they wouldn't know better. He chooses not to, but not for the sake of it being the right thing, rather because he doesn't want anyone to find out and soil his reputation.
    - - Moral actions are not always the most pleasing, easy, or convenient.
        
        Kant says that compassionate people often do good things because it makes them happy which makes the action devoid of moral worth.
        
        For Kant there is a distinction between motive of helping others and the motive of duty.
- - - - Autonomy vs. Heteronomy
        
        According to Kant "I am only free when my will is determined autonomously,governed by a law I give myself"
        
        Choosing something from duty should be done from a free choice to have moral value.
        
        If one cannot choose freely then pursuing their feelings and desires are also not free, therefore hold no value in the argument of morality.
        
        Everything in nature works with unspoken laws. I we can act in accordance with the law then we can also act against the law instead with the "law we give ourselves"
    - - Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperatives
        
        The Categorical Imperative is unconditional. It is when something is good solely as a means to another thing. The action itself is represented as good, there is no other choice.
        
        The Categorical Imperative is an action that is good and works regardless of any consequences. Kant says that to be free one has to act out of the categorical imperative and not the Hypothetical.
        
        Formulations of the categorical imperative
        
        Formula of universal law
        
        Universalize the "maxim"
        
        Act only on principles we can universalize without contradiction
        
        Formula of humanity as an end
        
        Man exists as an end in himself not merely as a means
        
        Persons are rational beings, they don't just have relative value, they have absolute value. Rational beings have dignity
        
        2 more items...
      - Hypothetical imperative is very common and works in the realm of "if I want X then I will do Y"
    - - Duty vs. Inclination
        
        Only the motive of a duty can determine the "moral worth of an action".
        
        Doing something for duty hold more value than because of a want or inclination