Kantian Ethics
Kant and duty
good will
for kant the only truly good thing is a good will- having good intentions
'good will shines like a precious jewel'
all other things such as courage or wealth may or may not be good dependant on the situation
kant argues that it doesnt matter if we are prevented from carrying out our intentions - what matters is that we aim to do the right thing
this good will is the desire to do 'duty for dutys sake'
duty
if we have a good will we will preform the right action for the right reason
for kant the motive and the outward action must correspond
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 - a shopkeeper who charges customers fairly just because he figure it is good for business is not doing his duty
- doing the right thing out of inclination is not duty - we may feel moved to give to charity one day but not the next so inclination is a poor guide of what we should or shouldnt do
- duty is that which we rationally work out that we ought to do
- our emotions and possible consequences are irrelevant
- one way to understand this is to think of a profession where there are duties
- kant believes that all human beings have moral duties that they must act upon just because they are human beings
hypothetical and categorical imperatives
kant believes that there are absolute moral duties but how do we work out what they are?
a key factor to note in kantian ethics is the principle of autonomy
he believes that human beings have rationality and we are able to work out what these rules are
they are not imposed by god or a similar authority
kant argues that whenever we carry out an action we are acting upon a maxim
this doesnt necessarily tell us whether the rules in our head are good rules or not - in order to decide this we need to rationally consider whether the rules we are following are categorical imperatives or merely hypothetical imperatives
hypothetical
a command that we would follow in order to achieve an end result
do x to achieve y
kant argues that if the command only applies in certain cases or is dependant on the outcome then this is not moral duty
categorical
a command which logically has to be followed - it doesnt depend upon the end results
do x because x is good
there is something unconditional about the command
kant offers three tests or formulations as to how we can decide whether a maxim is hypothetical or categorical
they are universal law, persons as ends and kingdom of ends
kants three formulations
universal law
kant suggests that the action we propose should be able to be made a universal law
we have to consider whether this is something that all people could logically do if not we shouldnt put ourselves above the law by being an exception
e.g. if everyone were to steal this would be chaotic and illogical - so stealing doesnt make sense and thus shouldnt be an expection
persons as ends
kant believes that human beings are rational and autonomous
this means that we have a duty to treat each other as persons and not as we would treat an object
we can use objects but we ought not to use people
e.g. using a partner to make an ex jealous - in doing so you are treating them as a means to en end
kingdom of ends
kant asks us to imagine that we are part of the law making council in a hypothetical perfect kingdom of ends
if we were to live in this place where everyone always treated others as ends would our maxim or proposed action be something that could be permitted?
kants kingdom of ends asks you to act based on how society ought to be rather than how it is hence it is difficult to see how hitting back someone who hit you would be treating them as an end
examples
it is wrong to make a lying promise
it is wrong to commit suicide
it is wrong to neglect ones talent
it is wrong to refrain from helping others
applying kantian ethics
lying to murderers
the hypothetical case of a murderer asking if his next victim is hiding in a certain house
according to kants maxim of universalisation we are morally required to tell the truth
kant argues that we will have done our duty in doing so it is the murderer not us that is behaving immorally
my sisters keeper
in the film my sisters keeper anna is born by ivf in order to be a genetic match for her terminally ill sister kate
one of her kidneys is to be used for transplant as her sisters kidney is failing
this would be problematic for kantian ethics as this involves using anna as a means to an end
kantian ethics values persons - they are not just a commodity that can be used
charity
much of our moral decision making is based on how we feel
as we watch tv or scroll through our news feed we may on two different ways see almost identical charity appeals
on one occasion we may give as we are moved by the suffering yet on another day we may feel indifferent
for kant this makes no sense either it is 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 is clear moral duties
assessing the idea of duty
- duty is a useful concept as our inclinations and desires about what we want are subject to change - the concept of duty demands that we put our feelings aside in order to do the right thing
- a key issue however is the problem of conflicting duties - in our example of the murderer asking for the whereabouts of his next victim we have a duty to tell the truth yet we also have a duty to save life - kantian ethics does not give us a clear way of deciding which duty we should follow when duties confict
- the concept of duty can also be abused - one way is when it becomes conflated with the idea of obedience to authority - the nazis who were put on trial at nuremberg argued that they were doing their duty - a kantian however might point out that the problem is in the misunderstanding not in the actual theory itself - no one who understands kantians ethics and its respect for persons could allow the atrocities of the nazi regime to take place
duty and god - the three postulates
a final issue with kants reliance on duty is the link to god - a key feature on kantian ethics is doing duty for dutys sake regardless of any reward - yet as we will see below there is in fact a reward for duty
for kant there are three postulate that have to be in place for morality to funtion:
- that we have free will
if we are not genuinely free to do either the good thing or the evil thing then there can be no moral responsibility - that there is an afterlife we are immortal
kant argues that morality requires the summum bonum (highest good) to be achieved - this is where perfect virtue is rewarded by perfect happiness - this does not happen in this life but to say it ought to be achieved must mean that it can so the summum bonum must occur in the next life - that god exists
in order that the sunnum bonum actually occurs and goodness is rewarded by happiness there must be a god who ensures the justice of the univese
kant doesnt think that these three things are proved merely that they must be assumed practically in order for morality to exist
discussing kantian ethics
strengths
weaknesses
- the principle of universal law seems to provide a useful principle in making moral decisions - it bears some similarities to the golden rule of religion to treat others how you wish to be treated - it treats each person equally and stops us making ourselves a special case
- following on from this the appeal to concepts such as reason and duty make kantian ethics impartial and less prone to personal bias
- kantian ethics respects the intrinsic value of persons - this enables a concept of rights to be used - this is a favourable contrast with theories like utilitarianism where persons are only instrumentally valuable and the idea of rights is 'nonsense on stilts' (Bentham)
- intuitively it seems that outcome does matter - although we may have told the truth to the murderer seeking the whereabouts of his victims we would feel guilty if our honesty led to their death - this suggests that kant is wrong to ignore outcome
- kantian ethics is too abstract and theoretical - it offers perfect solutions based on a hypothetical kingdom of ends yet it cannot cope with a real world where people may act in an immoral way and we have to respond - likewise it doesnt fare too well in dilemmas where we are obliged to consider which is the lesser of two evils e.g. which of two dying people to save
- kantian ethics is better at showing things we ought not to do rather than showing what we should do - there are a number of strange maxims that could be universalised and do not treat persons as a means to an end - there is no logical contradiction about 'standing on one leg every Wednesday' yet this is not really a moral duty
developed arguments
- as with other absolutist theories it offers clear and fixed guidelines - we are clear on how kants ethics apply
- BUT this also presents a difficulty in that there is an inflexibility in kants thinking - while we may accept that stealing is generally wrong an extreme situation where someone is starving may require a different response
- kantian ethics is a secular theory - unlike a theory such as natural law there is no requirement to believe in god as the imperatives are worked out rationally rather than being given as commands by god
- BUT critics have suggested that kant doesnt totally manage to escape the idea of god - his summum bonum is based on the idea that god exists to reward those who do their moral duty - in kants defence he would ague this is the consequence of doing good rather than a motivation or means of making the decision
- kantian ethics is rational and as such is not based on the changeable nature of our emotions hence we get sound and well reasoned moral decisions
- BUT there are two potential issues with this - first it makes an assumption about our capacity to reason - thinkers such as augustine and barth might challenge this on the grounds of our fallen human nature - second some emotions such as compassion can be very powerful - it is strange to argue that an act of giving to charity is somehow more virtuous because the person in question did not feel like it
John Rawls and the veil of ignorance
influenced by kantian ethics in his writings on justice
he argued that justice is whatever we would agree to from behind the veil of ignorance - this is a hypothetical idea where we would have to agree the moral and political laws we would wish to live by before knowing what our position in life would be
e.g. we would ban racism and homophobia is we did not know whether we were to be born black or white or gay or straight