Kantian Ethics - Strengths & Weaknesses

Not consequentialist

Kant easily shows the fatal flaw of Utilitarianism - a bad act can have good consequences

Kant’s theory doesn’t make this mistake

Universal

Kant’s theory provides moral laws that hold universally, regardless of culture or individual situations

Clear

Kant’s theory gives us a system that a child could understand

“Would you like it if someone did that to you? No? Then don’t do it to someone else”

Autonomy

Kant has the greatest respect for human dignity and autonomy

Rational

Kant is not swayed by emotion

His theory does not allow us to show favouritism for friends

Purely rational theory

Human Rights

Kant’s theory provides a basis for Human Rights: 1984 - UN Declaration of Human rights was agreed by 48 countries & is the world’s most translated document, protecting humans around the globe

Equality and justice

Kant’s theory provides the foundation for modern conceptions of equality and justice

International Law

Kant’s ethical theory underpins most UK and many international laws

When Jack Kevorkian tried to defend his killing of Thomas Youk, the judge limited the evidence he could introduce, saying it didn’t matter if he intended to help Mr Youk, or if Mr Youk wanted to die

What was important was the act itself

Objective

Kant’s theory gives objective standards, independent of our own interests, cultural bias etc

Duty

At first, it may seem better to act out of compassion

However, it is possible to make bad choices out of love

Acting out of duty is always right

Reliable

A system of rules work, and everyone knows what their obligations are

If you allowed people to break rules because of consequences, or out of love, the legal system would be a mess, and no-one would know what they ought to do

Authority

It doesn’t make sense to say we ought to break promises - if that was so, promises would mean nothing

This makes Kant's rules logical and reasonable, giving them a real authority

Ends in themselves

Kant’s respect for human life is being challenged by changes in medical ethics, but many hold this as the most important aspect of this theory

Consequences

There are some occasions when consequences are so severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful things to happen

Inflexiable

You should be able to break an unhelpful rule if the individual circumstances warrant it

Lack of motivation

Realising that something is irrational (like illegally downloading music, for example) doesn’t give any motivation to do the right thing

Conflicting duty

Sartre described a pupil torn between looking after his mother in France or going to England to fight with the Free French Forces

“I find myself drawn into a vicious circle”

Which duty do I follow?

Absolute duty

Ross thinks we have an absolute duty when all things have been considered, but individual duties cannot be absolute - sometimes we have a duty to break a promise

Moral Law

Some philosophers question the existence of the moral law

Why should we believe that there is objective morality?

Anthropocentric

According to Kant, non-human animals (and certainly any non-rational creatures) have no intrinsic value

Many environmentalists see this as dangerous or wrong

Too vague

It is not clear how broad our application of the Cl should be

For example, my council wants to collect rubbish every 2 weeks

I think this is contrary to the will, as no rational person would want to have smelly rubbish sitting around for so long - Is this really morally wrong?

Difficulty forming maxisms

SS asks if you have Jews hiding in your attic

Which maxims are you universalising?

“Do not tell lies” or “Do not expose others to violence”? - Conflicting duties

A priori

Some have criticised the claim that we work out our duty a priori

Surely we need to refer to experience to work out what is right, particularly in modern medical ethics

Unrealistic

Kant asks us to follow maxims as if they were universal rules, but just because we act this way, it doesn’t mean others will

For example, pacifism makes sense as a law of nature, but if we chose to be pacifist, we would be a sitting duck for any non-Kantians

Unforgiving

Kant believed in retributive justice ‘an eye for an eye’

It doesn’t allow for mercy

Bentham believed punishment should be rehabilitative - that it should make things better rather than just getting revenge

Every situation is unique

Universal rules aren’t helpful in the real world where every situation is different

If no two situations are the same, morality should be relativists not absolutist