Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Kantian Ethics (deontelogical) - Coggle Diagram
Kantian Ethics
(deontelogical)
Introduction to Kantian Ethics & Duty
Kant's Deontological Theory on Duty
Immanuel Kant looked at moral statements and how we use them. His deontological theory looks at how an action brings about a duty as opposed to utilitarianism, which is consequence-focussed.
the importance of reason
-kant felt reason played a big part of how humans make moral decisions. so he centred his theory on the idea of reasoning from goodwill and duty
moral vs everyday statements
-kant thought moral statments were diffrent from everyday ststaments
moral statments are a priori synthetic as they can be understood without any experience, but followed up and evidenced with experience
everyday statements are most typically known through a persons experience and then verified by the experience of that person using this evidence to support the statement
kants theory on good will
-kant focused on the idea of goodwill and its relashionship with duty
-kant thought that an action would only be a good action if the person acted from good will
eg, an action would not be deemed good if it was done to make somebody feel or look good
kants definition of durty
-kants definition of duty is to act morally and follow the rules that have been set out for you
-when you combine good will and duty, you get a moral action
-kants former statements on reason come into play here. kant felt every decision should be made by reason; based on the good will and the duty you have
-a decision should not be based on feelings or personal opinions. it should simply be based upon reasoning comforming to goodwill and duty
Hypothetical & Categorical Imperative
Hypothetical Imperatives
Kant produced two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. An imperative is something you must do. Hypothetical imperatives are dependent on the aims of a person’s wants and needs.
goal centred and not moral
-hypothetical imperatives begin with 'if'
eg if you want to be healthier, you should exercise more and eat healthier food
-hypothetical imperitives are goal centred and are only used when someone is trying to reach a goal
-this means they are not moral imperatives as they are only dependant on a goal someone is seeking
-additionally, hypothetical imperatives only apply to those that want to achieve a goal and are seeking a reward as a consequence of their behaviour
selfish actions
-another eg: if you want to pass your exam you should revise and study for it
the reward here is to pass the exam and succeed. to succeed you must revise and work hard for it
-kant felt hypothetical imperitives were selfish actions and shouldnot be focused on. we should turn our thoughts to actions which promote goodwill and promote morality
rise of categorical imperatives
-this is when categorical imperitives come into play
-kants
deontelogical
theory began to focus heavily on the moral and human duty to only perform actions based on the reasoning of goodwill
Categorical Imperatives
Kant believed there was a principle of morality that could be used to identify what our moral duties, as individuals, are. This is the categorical imperative. In other words, something you must do regardless of circumstances.
instruct on right and wrong
-the categorica imperative is a moral imperative
-categorical imperatives are used alongside rules and laws and instruct people on what is right and what is wrong
-categorical imperatives can be applied to everybody and can be used to make decisions on what is morally correct
3 formulations
-kant devised three formulations to the categorical imperative to make it clear how it should be used and how somebody should apply it to makeing a decision
these are known as the three formulations of categorical imperative
first formulation
-the universal principle
you must perform actions that can be ade into a universal rule that can be applied to everyone (universalibility)
-eg you cannot lie. his is universalible as it is wrong to lie and it can cause many issues. it is also not actig out of goodwill
2nd formulatoon
-Kant said: “treat people as an end in themselves”. You should not treat somebody as a means to an end. You should treat them as an end, treat them as you want to be treated.
-Kant means that every person is good, intrinsically. He states that we should all treat each other as an end, never use someone to achieve something else. He felt it was never right to treat somebody as a means. We should be using good will to decide our actions and treat others with kindness.
Third formulation
-The principle of the kingdom of ends.
Our own actions should be judged based on the idea that everyone else in the world is acting morally and treating everybody fairly. Therefore, treating people as an end, not a means.
This formulation clearly rejects hypothetical imperatives and focuses on the idea that all humans have a moral duty and it is their role to perform it.
Using the three formulations
-These three formulations can be used like a checklist to decide whether an action is a categorical or hypothetical imperative.
-Kant said we should be striving for categorical imperatives at all times to focus on our moral duty. We should not be wasting time on selfish deeds or performing actions just to receive a reward.
True categorical imperatives
-Kant argued that a true categorical imperative is performed simply because it is the right thing to do. A bonus is that you might feel good after performing it.
-But a categorical imperative is not performed for the reward; it is simply a product of a moral duty.
summun Bonum & Three Postulates
The summum bonum is the end goal of Kant’s categorical imperative. To achieve the summum bonum, you not only have to follow the categorical imperative, but also the three postulates.
How to achieve summum bonum
-if you act morally, you can achieve summun bonum- supreme good.
-Kant uses it throughout his deontelogical approach to mean the highest happiness
-the summun bonum is recieved after we die and is a reward for acting morally and following the duty you have been given through following the categirial imperative
it is therefore quite often compared to Heaven
must be acting for goodness
-to recieve the summon bonum, you need to follow the categorical imperative and follow your inate duty
-you must be acting for goodness, not for selfish reasons or to gain something else
-kant argued you cannot attain the summon bonum if you are simply acting morally reach it. you myst be acting out of good will, not just to attain a goal
the three postulates
-the three postulates can explain to an individual why they should act morally as being moral is rational. they are sometimes named the postulates of practical reason :
1️⃣
freedom
-you must act autonomously- of youw own accord
-therefore, an individual must be able to access freedom and have freedom of choice to act as they wish
-if they do not have this ability, they cannot achieve the summom bonum. this is bwcause somebody must be acting according to their own duty, using their own thoughts and actions
2️⃣
immortality
-to recieve the ultimate end goal, summum bonum, we must accept that there is an afterlife and that we have an immortal soul
-if we felt that we only existed in the life we have now , then the summom bonum would not be possible
-therefore, to use the categorical imperative correctly and achieve the summom bonum, we must accept the fact that the soul is immortal and that there is something for us after we die- the summom bonum- heaven
3️⃣
God
-kant argues that moral law is evidence to prove Gods existance.
-he goes on to say that there is only one being that could reward those that follow the categoral imperative - God
-this is because God is omniscient (all knowing), omnibenevolent (all loving) and omnipotent (all powerful)
-therefore, if you beleive in the first two postulates, then you must beleive in the fact that God exists
Discussion points
Is Kantian Ethics Useful for Making Moral Decisions?
Here are arguments for and against the idea that Kant’s deontology is useful for making moral decisions.
✅
arguments FOR
-it makes clear what being moral is and how we should make moral decisions
-the categorical imperatives uses three formulations which indicate what a person should check befire they make a decision
-kant emphasises autonomy and freedom in his deontology, which also promotes the value of others and respecting them for who they are
-additionally, kants theory promotes moral actions and rejects immoral actions, such as slavery and torture. the theory promotes equality and fair treatment
❌
arguments against
-while kants morality is based upon reason and seems straightforward, he doesnt give specific advise on indivisual situations which can make it difficult to apply
-additionally, it can be too prescriptive. while kant says he feels humans freedom and autonomy are important, he also states you must adhere to the categorical imperative to be a moral being. this can be quite confusing and contracdictory
Debates About Kantian Ethics
Can duty really be a measure of good or bad? Is Kant's deontology too abstract to apply to moral decision-making? Is Kantian ethics too reliant on reason and not reliant enough on sympathy, empathy etc?
can duty really measure bad/ good?
-Thomas Ngel says that Kants theory ignores the situation that the person is in when they are making this decision, so this ignores the circumstances that the moral action is being performed in
so one person may think that by following their duty, they are doing the morally right thing. but in the circumstances, this may not be the correct thing to do
-as kants theory ignores the particular situation, someone might do their duty and it be wrong; another person might do their duty and it be right
is kantian ethics too abstract?
-kants theory is quite abstract which makes it difficult to apply to certain situations
-it explains ow to reach a categorical imperative using three formulations and accepting three postulates- bt does not tell you which actions are morally appectable, which makes it difficult then to know what to do in situations
are duty and God too abstact?
-the focus on duty can make it difficult to apply to modern situations as we do not necessarily follow this idea of 'duty' in modern socity
-kants theory uses the idea of God as the reward of the summum bonum, which would make the theory absract and inaccesible to athiests
too reliant on reason?
-you could argue that the focus on reason and duty in Kants deontology removes any understanding towards other humans and makes the theory cold and inhumane in certain circumstances
-kant seems to reject personal relashionships and promotes following the categoracal imperative above anything else
theory lacks empathy
-that kant ignores the consequences of actions and focuses purely on duty and reason makes the theory lack empathy to a certain degree. it also makes it difficult to apply the theory in real life terms
-humans are very emotional and we cannot innately ignore other peoples feelings or ignore relashiontips that we have when making decisions. it goes against our nature
-so kants theory is too reliant on reason. this meas the theory is difficultto apply and use in modern day life