Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Kantian Deontology - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Good Will
        
        Only thing which is unconditionally good.
        
        Utilitarianism's claim the thing which is unconditionally good = pleasure, however pleasure can lead to pain. Someone may take pleasure in hurting others
        
        the good will aims at the right thing to do. This is Duty, the good will is motivated to do the right thing out of duty.
  - - - E.g. to get a good education you will get up on time every day, pay attention in class, be a good student. These are all different actions guided by the one maxim 'I want to get a good education' - this maxim determines your actions.
      - Subjective principle of action - they change depending on the action you need to produce to follow your maxim.
  - - - In accordance with duty: Shop keeper doesn't 'rip off' customers because 'its good for buisiness' and if you rip them off you'll get a bad reputation
        
        Not a bad thing to do but what their doing has no moral worth
      - Acting out of duty: Doesn't rip off customers because that's a bad thing to do, and honesty is something he 'ought to do'
        
        Has moral worth
  - - - Your maxims/principles are framed as imperatives "be a good friend" "get an education"
        
        You follow some imperatives in your head = hypothetical Imperaties
        
        "if I want to ---- then I should ----"
        
        To achieve a certain end you want to follow a certain means. 'If command'
        
        Categorical imperatives are objective commands
        
        They are not 'if commands' they are universally binding
        
        You are expected to follow them e.g. if you say 'do not murder' but a killer claims 'no, I really enjoy this' they will be looked upon as irrational and not of a sound mind.
- - - - You cannot lie as this would break your duty to tell the truth.
      - You cannot, not lie, as this would violate your duty to protect your loved ones
      - Kant would claim you should tell the truth as there are many unforeseen circumstances, your friend may escape in time, or you could lie and they could end up dead anyway by murderer finding them.
        
        You cannot make exceptions to "do not lie" rule as it is a categorical rule - it is universally applicable. - It would go against the spirit of the moral LAW
  - - - Not a contradiction in conception/will - it is universalisable - so you can do it - but stealing clearly isn't moral
        
        Kant claims this sin't your real maxim, your actual motive is "I want to steal" which is not universalisable
    - - "I want to watch TV shows but never act" thisis perfectly usual in society yet it is a contradiction in conception - how could you watch shows if no one acted. - But this is a perfectly neutral action not immoral
  - - - This is limiting because you could do something out of love which "isn't morally good" but this goes against our intuition
        
        E.G. if you visit someone in hospital because you "wanted to cheer them up" this seems genuinely lovely and a morally right thing - it is praise worthy.
        If you visit someone out of duty and tell them "It was something I ought to do" this could be understandably upsetting for the person, and would not be an action people would be inclined to praise - doesn't seem as genuine
        
        Kant - People can ALSO do things out of love or emotion, however, their main motivation should be out of duty
        
        This doesn't capture what's going on intuitively in our mind - it seems kind of robotic. You wouldn't choose to save your dog when your house is burning down because "its your duty" this seems like a cold answer - you do it out of love
        
        Its an impersonal theory - determines how all rational being should act - but most people have partial relationships - this is a moral thing - you should have loving relationships
        
        Kants theory does not work cohesively with the fact people have partial relationships.
  - - - So in Kants CI - it is categorical IF your pursing a good, flourishing moral life. If you don't want this you don't have to follow the CI - your not bound to it as a rational agent
        
        It doesn't make you irrational to not follow the CI "do not steal" it just makes you immoral - your a bad person.
        
        Kat's moral imperatives are non-hypothetical -the have an aim built into them - if you want to be moral then 'Do not lie"
- - - - "Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time will it should become a universal law"
        
        You should only act on a maxim (a motive) which all other people can also act on - it shouldn't be an acceptation to you - Then you know its a moral maxim
        
        If any rational being could behave according to that maxim (without contradiction) then you know its coming from your reason and not only your desires.
      - Kant believed that there has to be a moral principle underpinning all our moral actions. THE categorical imperiactive (the ultimate command). They apply to all rational being ( a being who can think "I ought not" that is our reason
      - Ways a maxim can fail FUL
        
        Contradiction in conception
        
        We know contradictory sentences cannot be true. E.G. "a square has 3 sides" it doesn't work
        But there is also practical contradictions
        
        If your maxim is "I will steal whenever I want want" and it is universalised the changes to the world would be ENOURMOUS.
        
        The conception of private property disappears - then there would be no stuff to steal - CONTRADICTION
        
        It is impossible for everyone to steal - the world would be inconceivable - A contradiction inc conception
        
        Contradiction in the will
        
        Where we universalise a maxim but that universalised maxim cannot be willed by a reasonable being.
        
        There something about willing that particular end which will which would undermine your means to get it.
        
        E.G. if you will "I will live a life where I help no one and no one helps me" that is perfectly conceivable
        
        However, how could you reasonably do this? A house may require people to fix things in it, you have to use someone else to learn, you are always reliant on there people.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Perfect (highly specified) duty = 'Do not steal' never steal - always follow this duty - you can always practice not stealing
        Imperfect (general duty, how you specify that duty is up to you) duty = 'Always help people' you should help other people but you don't need to ALWAYS help other people - you can't practice this 24 hrs a day because you have other commitments to yourself.
        
        You should have your one commitments as according to Kant you have as much duty to yourself as you have duty towards others (morality for modern age 'self care')
  - - - "Act in such a way as you always treat humanity, either in yourself or another, never simply as a means but at the same time and end in itself"
      - Humanity = Rational Will
      - Our rational will = our good will is intrinsically good so we should respect it - therefore, we should always respect our own or others rationality or will. (Don't use people for your own gain - they have autonomy)
        Never undermine someones own will
      - E.G. do not lie to someone because this undermines their own will. You are taking away their ability to make a free choice.
        
        Respect their DIGNITY - comes from having a rational will.