Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Kantian Ethics, image - Coggle Diagram
Kantian Ethics
Reason and Duty
Context
Kant was a man of the Enlightenment ('The Age of Reason') and was Professor of Logic at the University of Konigberg - certainly reflected in his ethics
Kant wanted to create a universal theory of ethics based on reason, much as Newton's laws had done in physics
Kant was a man of routine, and it was set that people could set their watches by his daily walks in Konigsberg
Reason
Kant believed that man's rational faculty set us apart from other creatures, giving us our intrinsic dignity
Kant believed right reason to be universal, so we would all give the same answers to a problem when applying reason (2 + 2 = 4)
If reason is universal then moral commands generated by reason are applicable to all, so we are all obligated to act morally and follow the moral law discoverable through pure reason (not sense experience)
What is 'good'
Kant believed that if the moral law was to be universal then it must contain the highest, intrinsic, universal good
He ruled out 'talents of mind,' 'qualities of character,' 'gifts of fortune' and happiness as they could make a situation morally worse
Kant therefore claimed that the highest good was good will as 'only good will is good without qualification'
Duty
Having the right intention is what makes the good will good and a good will's only motive is to act for the sake of duty
Kant believed you should always do your duty (what is right according to reason) without regard to consequences as these are often unknown
He claimed that a shopkeeper who gives the right change out of duty is moral; one who does so for their business is amoral (morally neutral)
Imperatives
Hypothetical Imperatives
These are 'if-then' statements, where if you want to do X then you need to do Y. These are justified by ends and are amoral
For example, if you want to do well at A-level then you need to revise
Categorical Imperatives
These command action regardless of the circumstances - you ought to do it as the act is right in itself
The first formulation is that you should act as if the maxim (principle) of your action would become universal law. Only if it is right for everyone is it right for me also
The second formulation is that we should treat others as ends in themselves, never as means. We should treat other humans as rational beings with autonomy that ought to be respected
The third formulation is to 'act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends' - a summary of the previous two essentially
The Axe Murderer
Kant's famous example is that if you saw a man run past you and hide and a man chasing him with an axe asks you where he went, you must tell him the truth as it is your duty, regardless of the consequences
This is because lying would be detrimental to society if universalised and does not give autonomy to others as we do not give them true information to act with free choice
If you lied and the axeman killed many more instead of his lost victim, then this is your fault as it comes from your action. By telling the truth, anything he does to the victim is his choice and fault - you are right in having done your duty
Z test
The Z test is a check on the categorical imperative to see if something could be accepted as a universal law by a rational being
1) Could a rational being conceive of the principle being a universal law? If yes, then it passes this test. If not (e.g. promising to pay someone back without means to do so) then it fails
2) Would it be the sort of law a rational being would want to live with? If a rich man were to not help those in poverty but would want help if he was in poverty, then the rule he would want is to help those in poverty, else it is a 'contradiction of will'
Three Postulates
Summum bonum
This is the best possible good comprising virtue and happiness. We are obligated to achieve what is best (real virtue) and this should be rewarded with happiness in the best possible world
Kant argued that 'ought implies can,' meaning there is only an obligation if the goal is achievable
Therefore, in order that virtue be rewarded so the summum bonum is achievable, then there is a need for God to ensure this happens
As this does not always happen in life, it is also reasonable to claim there is an afterlife where this occurs, so God's existence is to be demanded if the goal of morality is to be realised
-
Immortality - this is required so that get just rewards for virtue, to achieve the summum bonum
-
Key discussions
-
Whether a judgement of if something is good, bad, right or wrong can be based on duty
A person can know their duty but not the consequences of their actions, hence it seems fair to judge them on how they responded to their duty
Someone who chooses to do what they ought to do is surely acting more morally than someone who defies it
Duty is knowable through reason, anyone can use logic to see why the duty is justifiable/good/right
But the consequences of the action often indicate whether it was right or wrong, failure to apply reason to the circumstances fails to consider this
Someone who recognises the flaw in carrying out their duty in a situation is surely more morally praiseworthy than someone who acts with a lack of regard for this
Kant's logic may apply to a morally ideal scenario but perhaps does not contend fully with the complex situations where duties can conflict
-
Whether KE overrelies on reason that it rejects the importance of sympathy, empathy and love in moral decision-making
Feelings do not justify why something is good, reason does - this allows the moral law to be objective
Only doing your duty is moral and this is discoverable through reason - trying to act for the most loving outcome may prove disastrous
But can good will not be good because it acts out of love and compassion for others? Reason is perhaps not objective in that it is not accessible or those in other cultures may disagree
-