Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PHI 208 Chapter 4 Deontology, 4 Examples This shows that morality, on…

- - - - Not only can moral duties conflict with these other kinds of duties (which raises challenging questions about what one should do), but they also have different grounds. LETTER MLK
        
        this is often because we recognize that there are higher duties than the ones prescribed by civil laws or military commanders, which is what we mean when we refer to moral duties or duties of justice.
      - noting certain characteristics of legal, social, or military duties can help us see what is distinctive about moral duties according to deontological ethics.
      - duties are independent of interests and desires; they are unconditional, and they are exceptionless.
      - The features of laws and duties—their independence from desires, their unconditionality, and their exceptionless character—are the same whether we are referring to the sphere of morality and justice or to the spheres of government, institutions, customs, and the like; however, their content (what they actually say) might be different, which is why it is important to avoid confusing these different spheres of duty.
      - there is some sort of authority that establishes these rules and sanctions them (i.e., gives people reason to respect them)
        
        in most cases, the laws and duties are understood as being limited to those within a certain scope, such as citizens of a country, members of a family, Major League Baseball players, or members of the U.S. Navy.
        
        The question then becomes whether there are universal laws and duties with characteristics identified earlier—independent of wants and desires, unconditional, and exceptionless.
        
        versions of universal law that are not dependent on religious assumptions, such as those expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
        
        Natural Law Theory
        
        Natural law theory received its strongest development and defense from the medieval philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, who was heavily influenced by both the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and the Judeo-Christian tradition of which he was a part.
        
        begins with the notion that humans have a specific nature, and there are certain goods that are part of realizing or fulfilling that nature.
        
        natural law theory -- The theory that objective moral standards and laws for governing human behavior can be derived from the nature of humans and the world.
        :check:
        
        Natural law theory RESPECT in 4.2
        
        Notice we just identified a moral demand or duty: One ought to respect others. But notice further where that demand comes from. It wasn’t imposed on me by God, society, parents, or other outside source. Who imposed it upon me? I did! I can’t reasonably demand that others respect me unless I recognize a corresponding duty for me to respect others. , the rationality of the expectation I place on others to respect me depends on some implicit idea that doing so is the right thing to do in general, but that means that it is not only right for them but also for me.
        
        This duty, we might say, is imposed by reason.
        
        This is the core of Immanuel Kant’s account of moral duty: Duties are demands, obligations, or laws that are ultimately grounded not in any external authority like God, nature, or society but simply in that key characteristic that all humans share—our capacity to think about the reasons we have for acting in a specific way and to act accordingly.
        
        we have a duty to respect this capacity for rational action by ensuring that all of our reasons for action are consistent with others acting in the same way and to always treat this capacity as having inherent value.
        
        He calls this duty the “supreme principle of morality” (Kant, 2008, p. 4) or, more specifically, the Categorical Imperative.
        
        Categorical imperative
        
        Categorical Imperative -- An action that is necessary in itself, independent of any ends or purposes.
        :check:
        
        Expressed in 2 ways
        
        The first is the duty to act consistently. In other words, we should only do an action if it is the sort of thing we could will anyone to do in similar circumstances.
        
        The second is the duty to treat everyone with respect. Specifically, our actions must respect the dignity each person has as someone capable of making his or her own choices.
        
        Categorical vs Hypothetical Imperatives
        
        An imperative is something that must be done;..............Categorical means that something is absolute and unconditional, independent of anything else (such as inclinations or purposes).,
        
        The opposite of this is the hypothetical imperative, means “if some other condition obtains” (like when we say, “Hypothetically speaking, if worse came to worst we would need a backup plan.”)....
        Likewise, the principle of utility is a hypothetical imperative.
        
        .
        
        Kant maintains that we can sum up all duties in terms of a single, overriding duty: the Categorical Imperative. Categorical means “applying no matter what”; imperative means “something that must be done.” So the Categorical Imperative is something that must be done, no matter what.
        
        The Categorical Imperative can be put into words in two different ways.
        In one formulation, it says, “I ought only to act on those maxims that I could will to be universal law.” This is the formula of universal law.
        In another formulation, it says, “So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” This is the formula of humanity.
- - - - Core of Each:
      - “Supreme Principle of Morality,”..........The formula of universal law
        
        the Categorical Imperative says that we should only act on those maxims that we can will to be universal law.
        
        A maxim is basically the policy or principle that you follow when you make a conscious, deliberate choice.
        
        Maxim -- The policy or principle that a rational person follows when he or she makes a conscious, deliberate choice.
        :check:
        
        It describes what you take yourself to be doing and why you are doing it.
        
        “I ought never to act in such a way that I couldn’t also will that the maxim on which I act should be a universal law” (Kant, 1785/2008, p. 11).
      - 2. formula of humanity
        
        Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means” (p. 29).
        
        What does it mean to “treat humanity . . . as an end”?
        
        Humanity -- In Kant’s use of the term, humanity is the capacity to freely and rationally set one’s own ends and pursue them. :check:
        
        End-in-itself -- Someone or something that has value beyond what its uses or purposes may be. Respect for this value should always be part of the end or purpose of one’s choices. This is opposed to having value merely in terms of usefulness for attaining some other end. :check:
        
        in Greek, auto indicates “self,” and nomos is the word for “law.”
        
        Autonomy -- The capacity to freely determine one’s own action by following a principle that one’s own reason has determined. :check:
        
        So autonomous means that one’s own self is the source of the law that governs one’s actions; one is self-legislating.
        
        In Kant’s system, our humanity is our capacity to rationally and autonomously set and pursue our own ends.
        
        However, if something is an end-in-itself, that means it has value beyond whatever uses or purposes it may have—it is worthy of respect.
        
        According to Kant, humanity, in the sense we defined it, is an end-in-itself and should be treated as such. Why is this?
        
        First, humanity, as we just saw, is the capacity to deliberately and rationally set and pursue one’s own ends, as opposed to hammer whose use is determined by the person using it, or a plant or animal whose behavior is determined by nature.
        
        The capacity to act freely is what makes us more than mere instruments or slaves to desire (our own or anyone else’s). It is what gives human life its special dignity.
        
        This capacity to rationally and deliberately set and pursue ends is what we defined as humanity.
        
        when we reflect on how we expect others to treat us, we seem committed to the view that humanity itself is valuable and worthy of respect, regardless of whether it serves someone else’s purposes. It is an end-in-itself.
        
        Reflecting on how others should treat us leads to a principle about how people should treat each other in general.
        
        Therefore, we have a duty to always respect this humanity in ourselves and in others, no matter what.
        
        humanity and end (or as it is sometimes expressed, end-in-itself).
    - - Misconception 1: We Must Always Accept People’s Choices
        
        Does treating people as ends-in-themselves mean we have to accept whatever people choose or that we can’t challenge their beliefs (and vice versa)?
        
        Not at all, for two reason
        
        First, we are obligated to respect people’s humanity, which in this case is their capacity to rationally and deliberately set and pursue their own ends.
        
        When someone is acting in ways that seem to be irrational, immoral, or driven by desire or impulse, it is not clear that we have an obligation to respect their choices.
        
        Second, respecting another’s reasoned, deliberate choice doesn’t mean one has to simply accept what they have chosen.
        
        “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Tallentyre, 1906, p. 199).
        
        to respect someone does not mean we have to agree with them or approve of what they say or do. By the same token, another’s disagreement or disapproval of our decisions does not necessarily indicate disrespect.
      - Misconception 2: We Can Never Use Others
        
        The second common misconception follows from the claim that we should never treat a person as a mere means, as if he or she was just a tool or instrument.
- - - - it is goodness and purity of one's will that we value most, not actual results.
      - morality involves choosing the right action, and “choosing” is a matter of will. .........if determine what person with truly good will would do, then can determine which actions are right/wrong...............Since goodness of the will doesn’t lie in outcomes, must lie in motive.......person who displays good will is making a choice that would consistently make in any similar circumstance.
      - person who acts out of good will not simply seeking to gain something/avoid punishment, but merely doing what been told, or following impulses. ..............the reasons that motivate good will are independent of contingent factors.
      - making choice consistent with what believe anyone in similar circumstances should make, regardless of who they are/what they could gain/lose; .....essentially saying, “This be right thing for me to do, and would be right for everyone to do in similar circumstances.”
- - - - associating respect and dignity so closely with autonomy would mean that beings who lack full autonomy aren’t given the proper respect and value that they deserve.
      - second set of concerns questions whether humans even have autonomy to the extent that Kant supposed, and to the extent that we do, whether this autonomy alone is the fundamental good.
      - Kant’s defense of the moral law depends on the assumption that we can make choices on the basis of good reasons, meaning that we are not determined by outside forces or inner forces such as feelings, desires, and impulses.
      - Is this a legitimate assumption to make?
      - His basic claim is there is limit to what we can say about whole of reality using empirical methods of sciences (sense perception, measurements). This leaves open possibility there are deeper layers to reality than what sciences can tell us, and even though might seem universe is determined, at deeper level may be possible for there to be rational wills that determine themselves.
      - A second problem arises when consider ways own beliefs, choices, values, and modes of thinking affected by various social, psychological, and physiological factors, many if not most which hidden to us.
      - Can we adopt a standpoint completely independent of the influences of history and upbringing, social and cultural environment, desires, feelings, impulses, and other factors that can influence us?
      - For Kant, all of these factors are contrary to the autonomy of the will.
      - pressing question becomes: What becomes of Kant’s theory if these kinds of factors are ultimately inescapable, given the centrality that autonomy has to his account of human dignity as well as the moral law?
      - Kant aware of problem, notion we always formed and influenced by factors to some degree (even if not exactly determined by them) goes back to earliest days of philosophy, especially Aristotle. Kant (1785/2008) concedes that even strictest examination can never lead entirely behind secret action-drivers— behind the pretended action-driver to where the real one secretly lurks—because when moral worth in question it not matter of visible actions but of their invisible inner sources. (p. 14)
        In other words, if we remember that primary factor for determining moral worth isn’t outward action but motives and intentions, Kant acknowledges no matter how pure one’s motives might seem, there always possibility that there are “covert incentives” and other factors at play that detract from moral worth of one’s actions.
        
        If we use this idea of a pure, autonomous will as the basis for an account of the moral law and for assessing the moral value of actions, it doesn’t matter if no one ever truly escapes these other influences when making choices. We can still establish what a person would choose if reason was the only determining factor.
- - - - Earthquake.....half paycheck......should everyone do same? Not neccessarily......consider whether we can will maxim to be universal law not mean we think evryone must as well.....morally permissible action one does not violate any duties and person may perform action....but permissible not necc duty
      - To show action moral duty need to focus on opp maxim if person not do action to consider it could be universalized....particlr action not seem to be duty........Kant argues we not be able to will this on world....be problem if people didn't help each other at all...and this shows have duty to help others in need......left to our judgment when/how
      - morally permissible
      - morally permissible -- An act that is not contrary to duty and thus may be performed but is not required. :check: ......A morally permissible action is one that does not violate any duties, and thus we may perform that action.
      - In sum, Kant’s principle that “I ought never to act in such a way that I couldn’t also will that the maxim on which I act should be a universal law” has us ask of ourselves, “am I acting consistently with how I would want others to act, or am I making myself an exception to the rule?”
      - centers around the notion that our moral duty is to only engage in actions that we could will everyone to do
- - - - When considering whether an action is a negative duty (something one must not do), we apply the Categorical Imperative test to the maxim of the action, and if it fails the test, the action is morally prohibited.
    - - When considering whether an action is a positive duty (something one must do), we consider a maxim in which one does not do it and see if that passes the test. If it does not, then we know the action is morally required.
      - To demonstrate that we have a duty to act benevolently, Kant considers a maxim in which one does not do so and shows that it cannot be consistently universalized. ......................Thus, it would be morally wrong not to act benevolently, which is to say that we have a duty to help others in need.