kantianism and the trolley problem

act-consequentialism AC

any action ϕ is morally right iff and because it brings out the highest total balance of good over bad, otherwise it is wrong

• act-util is a type of this

AC overview

• exclusively forward looking - what comes out of an action

• no fundamental notion of human rights

• no type of action is absolutely prohibited - whatever has the happiest outcome

core commitments of deontology

• minimal non-consequentialism

• deontology

minimal non-consequentialism

the moral status of an action does not entirely depend on the value of the state of affairs it produces

• if you think it may depend on other things, you are not a consequentialist

deontology - roughly

the morality of a action depends on the nature of the action itself, in particular whether that action is in accordance with with, or done from a sense of duty

deon meaning

greek for duty

2 varieties of deontology

absolutism

moderate deontology

absolutism

certain everyday types of action (eg killing) are ALWAYS wrong, in every possible circumstance

moderate deontology

certain everyday types of action are frequently wrong (contrary to duty) but are permissible in exceptional circumstances

Michael Walzer

“supreme emergency exception”

• Deliberate killing of innocents in war is wrong – unless it is the only way to prevent catastrophic defeat

motivating deontology

there are intuitive ‘side constraints’ (Nozick) on the legitimate pursuit of good - one isn’t permitted to do something to lead to good because of what leads to the good

• eg homeless doesn’t have to give away money

issues with consequentialism

doesn’t take distinction between persons seriously - significant pain go one person can always be compensated by the minor joy of very many others - each person is a means to an end (general good)

what does Kant aim to do in the “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”

• provide an account of the justification of acting morally (he thinks acting morally is acting rationally, based on reason)

• provide an account of the content of morality

he thinks the content of morality can be derived from the fact that the justification of morality is based on reason

the categorical imperative CI

the content of our duty - Kants standard of right and wrong action

(aka the moral law and supreme principle of morality)

3 formulations of CI

• formula of universal law UL

• formula of humanity HEI

• formula of the kingdom of ends KE

considers these to be equivalent - though controversial

formula of universal law UL

“act only in accordance to that maxim through which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”

UL summary

ϕ in situation C is wrong iff and because the maxim associated with ϕ in C cannot be universally willed

• eg cycling on busy roads - I jump red lights - this cannot be universalised because if we all did it, then it wouldn’t save time - have to make an exception of myself

what is a maxim

an underlying principle of action - as a rational being you can commit to it (or it might guide your actions unconsciously)

• I will do ϕ in C in order to achieve

• eg I will practise everyday in order to become a great pianist

universalizing maxims

“willing it” to become an “objective principle” or “a universal law of nature”

• ones own maxim in acting is transferred to other people so it functions as a maxim for everyone

• universalising a maxim doesn't mean everyone has to do the same action eg everyone wants a coffee but they can still do this via different coffee shops

2 types of failures of universalization

contradiction in conception

contradiction in willing

contradiction in conception

occurs when we cannot even conceive of a case in which the maxim is universalised

• eg maxim = if I need money I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, even though I know I will never pay it back (false promising)

• if this is universally accepted, it would be impossible to make a promise and impossible to borrow the money - for some maxims, the goal cannot occur if it is universalised

contradiction in willing

willing a maxim to be a universal law conflicts with a goal/purpose which any rational will must have

• eg maxim = when others need help and I am able to help, I will not provide assistance

• there is no contradiction in conception, but universalising this maxim will contradict with our will of wanting assistance from others when we need it

formula of humanity H

“so act as to use 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”

H summary

ϕ in C is wrong iff and because it fails to treat a relevant person as an end in themselves (eg it treats them as a mere means)

• eg copying someone in an exam uses them as a means to passing - only achieve goal by failing to respect their rationality, not engaging with their reason

treating someone as a means

interact with them with a view to getting something you want

• E.g. At the checkout.

treating someone as a mere means

interact with them with a view to getting something you want, and not recognising them as a rational agent who can make their own decisions, form their own intentions and plans, and consent

• E.g. mugging, lying.

treating someone as an end in themselves

respect their rationality/autonomy, and recognising they are deliberating beings just like you, able to determine their own goals and plans

applications of H

• false promises = making promises with no intention to keep them is using someone a a mere means

• not helping = someone else’s goals are also partly your goals. we are required to help others because doing so helps support their capacity to pursue ends for themselves (O’Neill) (although maybe it means just not deceiving them)

• does jumping red lights fail to treat others as ends in themselves even though its not using an rational agents as a mere means

intuitive motivations of deontology

• gets right result in most cases eg homeless, surgeon, and explains these verdicts (consequentialism doesn't )

• UL captures fairness - dont make an exception for yourself

• H captures respect - respect rational agency of other people

• unified with idea that acting morally requires acting consistently with the fact other people are rational beings like you too

Sayre-mccord

“in whatever you do, you should act for reasons that could serve as acceptable reasons for everyone”

problems

1. coldness

2. animals

3. indeterminacy

coldness

Kant says right actions aren’t just in accordance with duty, but from duty eg being nice to a cashier isn’t just being nice, its your duty

• driver claims this “degree of psychological hygiene” strikes us as cold and not the ideal

animals

• non-human animals are not rational beings according to Kant as they cannot set goals independently of desire - thus they are not ends in themselves and deserve no respect

• we should treat animals well because our treatment of animals spills over into a treatments of humanity (right answer wrong reason)

indeterminacy

• H tells us to treat people as ends in themselves, but what does this rule out? eg when do low wages become exploitative?

• H tells us to act on the basis of universalizable maxims, but what is the relevant maxim for evaluating cases? eg in cycling, general maxim is “When using busy roads, in order to save time, I will jump red lights” (not universalizable) vs very specific maxim is “Today, on the junction between the A50 and A503 in Clifton in order to save time, I will jump red lights.”(universalizable)

the problem of stringency (or absolutism/rigorism)

• H implies its always wrong to fail to treat people as an ends in themselves eg always wrong to lie

murderer example

what is a would-be murder asks you for the whereabouts of your friend? should you tell the truth?

• General Lying Maxim: “In order to get what I want, I will deceive others with a lie”. Cannot be universalised, because no one would be believed

• Specific Lying Maxim: “In order to save an innocent life, I will lie to any murderer at the door.” - universalizable

SO according to UL, it is NOT wrong to lie to the murder - contradiction between H and UL

kant quote

“To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is, therefore, a sacred and unconditional commanding law of reason and admits of no expediency whatsoever”.

– FromOn the Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns.

korsgaard diagnosis to save Kantian position

• H expresses an ideal which sets out our long term moral and political goals (create a society where everyone is treated as an ends in themselves). but in circumstances of evil we can depart from this ideal eg if living up to this ideal would make you a tool/weapon of evil, we can reject the ideal

• UL is for use in all circumstances, even evil ones