Kantian Deontology

3 marks: What does it mean to say an ethical theory is deontological?

Not consequence based - often involve following rules.

3 marks: What does Kant mean by ‘good will’?

The good will is good in and of itself, it is the only thing which is good without qualification.  It can be understood as acting for the right reasons

3 marks: What does it mean to act in accordance with duty?

Where one might do something that appears to be a good deed, but the motivation is not the good dees, eg. Helping someone bc it will make you feel better

3 marks: What does it mean to act out of duty?

For an action to have moral worth, you must act out of duty – acting because of the good will. Someone who blatantly states they don’t want to help but are because it is their duty is acting out of duty.

3 marks: What is a categorical imperative?

a categorical imperative is a command you should follow at all times, regardless of your own desires or aims

3 marks: What is a hypothetical imperative?

A hypothetical imperative is a command you should follow assuming that it will help you achieve your desired aim

3 marks: What is the distinction between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative?

A hypothetical imperative is a command you should follow assuming that it will help you achieve your desired aim (or fulfil your will), whereas a categorical imperative is a command you should follow at all times, regardless of your own desires or aims.

3 marks: What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

The first formulation of the categorical imperative asks you to consider whether your maxim, i.e. personal principle, can be applied everywhere, by everyone in any situation without contradiction.

3 marks: What is a contradiction in conception?

For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception. A contradiction in conception is something that is self contradictory. If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a perfect duty not to follow that maxim. It is always wrong.

3 marks: What is a contradiction in will?

Assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, we must then ask whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will – i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not.

3 marks: What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative?

The second formulation asks us then to consider whether this maxim, 'never steal' for example, uses others as a means to an end. If it does not, then it is an example of a categorical imperative. Always steal', on the other hand, uses others to steal from without considering their need

3 marks: What is the distinction Kant makes between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty

A perfect duty is an action which we must always do (for example we have a perfect duty not to steal), and in imperfect duty is an action which is morally right to do, but does not have to be done in all circumstances (for example we have an imperfect duty to give to those in need).

5 marks: Explain Kant’s account of what is meant by a ‘good will’

The only thing that is good without qualification is that good will. Any other apparent goods (eg. Pleasure) could be good or bad. The good will is good in and of itself – it is not good for what it achieves, but simply trying to do the right thing for the right reasons is acting on the good will for Kant. The good will is also good regardless of concequences.

5 marks: Explain Kant’s distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty

In a case where one person acts in accordance with duty and one acts out of duty, both may be performing the same action, however the person acting out of duty carrying out that action purely because it is their duty, whereas the person acting in accordance with duty is motivated by some other reason (eg self interest, friendship etc).  The person acting out of duty is using good will, and is therefore morally right according to Kant, the person acting in accordance with duty does not have good will and their action therefore has no moral worth.

5 marks: Explain Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative

. The first formulation asks us to consider a maxim and to see whether this can be applied as a universal law without any contradiction. An example could be 'never steal', which can be applied universally without contradiction and is so far a good example of a categorical imperative. If the maxim 'always steal' was universalised, nobody would have any possessions, which presents a contradiction.

5 marks: Explain the distinction between a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in will

Both types of contradiction can arise from imagining an action as a universal law. a contradiction in conception leads to perfect duties. Eg. If one wanted to steal an object, one would imagine that "one should steal" was a universal law.  This would lead to a contradiction in conception, as by definition stealing is taking something that one doesn't have a right to take.  If it was the law that one could steal though, then there would be a right to take whatever one wanted.  This would make it impossible to steal, thus leading to a contradiction in the concept of stealing. A contradiction in will leads to imperfect duties. Eg. If one decided not to help someone in need, one would need to imagine that "don't help those in need" was a universal law.  Kant thinks this leads to  a contradiction in will, as we would be willing a world in which no one helps us when we are in need.

5 marks: Explain Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative?

The second formulation asks us then to consider whether this maxim, 'never steal' for example, uses others as a means to an end. If it does not, then it is an example of a categorical imperative. Always steal', on the other hand, uses others to steal from without considering their needs.

5 marks: Explain Kant’s distinction between treating humans as and end and as a mere means

To treat someone merely as a means is to use them to help you achieve some goal without their consent. For example a doctor taking organs from someone who hasn't consented.

 

humanity as an end: Kant believes humans have inherent value. Part of being human is being rational, so we should respect that others act with reasons in mind, and so we must allow them to rationally consent to any act which involves them.

5 marks:Explain the issue of clashing/competing duties facing Kantian deontological ethics.

Stare argues Kant's Deontology does not help us know which action is the right one, due to competing duties. Eg The family hiding Anne Frank has made her a promise to keep her safe (perfect duty to keep promises) but will need to lie to the Nazi's about her whereabouts (and there is a perfect duty not to lie). So which should they follow if the Nazi's knock and ask if they are hiding someone?

 

Responses:

a. Kant would likely say we shouldn't make promises which would lead to us breaking a perfect duty. This seems problematic though as it suggests the family were wrong to offer Anne Frank safety!

 

b. Maybe we could tweak the maxim eg "Never lie, except when someone's life is at stake, but this contradicts Kant's objective, non-hypothetical system.

 

scenario in which two imperfect duties seem to conflict: Say you were about to spend £10 on a textbook to help with your studies (following the imperfect duty to cultivate your talents), but there was a charity box at the till you could also put £10 in (following the imperfect duty to give to those in need) By their definition imperfect duties are not prescriptive, so we do seem to have some leeway in terms of what we choose to do, but we could criticise Kantian deontology as being too vague to help us when there are clashes of imperfect duties.

5 marks: Explain the issue for Kantian deontology that not all non-unversalisable maxims are immoral

“Always give money that you can afford to part with to the poor”. If this were a universal law that everyone followed then wealth would be shared and there would be no poor people. So it is a contradiction in conception as if universally followed, t would be impossible to follow. This suggests we have a perfect duty never to give to the poor, which doesn’t fit with our moral intuitions. So perhaps generating duties based on logical contradictions doesn’t actually work.

 

Response:

Kant has already identified helping those in need as an imperfect duty, and therefore we do not need to do it all the time but that leads to the issue - should we ignore? of what to do when duties clash - which ones should we follow and which to ignore?

5 marks: Explain the issue for Kantian deontology that not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral

We can ask whether there are exceptions to this link Kant makes between universalisable maxims and morality, for example A maxim like “always eat chocolate on a Monday” can be universalised without a contradiction in conception or will, but it is not a moral command. The categorical imperatives are supposed to tell us what we should do, but it seems that there is no moral imperative to do all things that can be universalised. We can universalise all sorts of things that have nothing o do with morality. This is an issue for kant as maybe it isn't the case that there is any kind of link at all between things that can be universalised and what is moral.

 

Response:

Maybe Kant would say what is more relevant is things we can't universalise (in the examples above our perfect and imperfect duties were always this seems to be quite a negative theory though, only saying what not to do. generated by attempting to universalise actions which lead to contradictions)

 

5 marks: Explain why Kantian deontology is susceptible to the issue that consequences of actions determine their moral value

Situation where a murder asks where your friend is so that they can kill them. The universal law formulation states that if universalised “you should lie” leads to a contradiction in conception. The humanity formulation would say that by lying directly I am treating the murderer as a mere means. Both lead to the conclusion that I have a perfect duty not to lie. However, this response seems to e unsatisfactory as It leads to a bad concequence, and it seems more important to avoid the concequence.

5 marks: Explain the issue that Kant ignores that value of certain motives (eg love, friendship, kindness)

According to Kantian deontology morally right actions must be motivated by the good will Any action which is not motivated by good will is called "acting in accordance with duty", and Kant says such actions have no moral worth. However we can come up with examples where someone motivated by something other than the good will does seem to have moral worth: Someone giving up time to work in a soup kitchen, who enjoys being kind and who feels good when they do so would be seen as without moral worth by Kant. This shows that we do value other motivations (such as love, friendship and kindness) and it seems to be a flaw in Kantian deontology to ascribe no moral worth to actions motivated by anything other than the good will.

5 marks: Explain Philippa Foot’s claim that morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives.

Kant claims that morality is always categorical, and that one is acting irrationally if the categorical imperative is not followed. Foot makes the following points: Foot says we only feel that moral commands are categorical because we are taught that they do.  In reality there is no special reason to obey moral imperatives at all cost, and so morality is not categorical. She also argues it is perfectly moral to act for reasons other than duty/good will.  Someone acting with a goal (ie hypothetically) can be perfectly moral.  For example someone who is just "because he loved truth and liberty" or someone who works for a charity with the goal of alleviating poverty seem to be moral acts, and are not less moral because they are hypothetical (ie have a goal attached). Foot also says that there are many categorical commands that are nothing to do with morality (for example club/school rules and etiquette).  This means that categorical imperatives are not uniquely moral, and so Kant is wrong to say that all categorical imperatives are moral commands.

 

Strengths of deontology

Objective and Universal: Kant's theory does not take into account opinion, self interest etc. It helps us understand what right and wrong is without any bias, and doesn't rely on feelings which can be changeable and fickle. In theory everyone should agree what is right and wrong, if they are motivated by good will.

 

Reasoned and rational: It doesn't require experience we can in theory figure out what to do just be using our reasoning. It doesn't involve any kind of guesswork or predictions about the future. We simply rely on our ability to act according to rational principles

12 marks: Outline a Kantian deontologist view on stealing

Stealing Would be wrong according to the first formulation of the categorical imperative, as If we were to will a universal law that "one ought to steal" then property ownership wouldn't exist (as everyone would by law be able to take what they want) and therefore stealing would be impossible. This is a contradiction in conception. Therefore we have a perfect duty not to steal.

It would also be wrong according to the second formulation of the categorical imperative? Stealing from someone would mean we were treating their humanity as a mere means and not as an end. A distinctive feature of humanity is the ability to be rational, and the victim of stealing has not consented to being stolen from. Therefore we should never steal.

 

Does this apply to all stealing? Eg. Robin Hood: Kant does say we have an imperfect duty to help the poor but, as we have shown above, not stealing is a perfect duty. Kant does not think we should break perfect duties in order to pursue an imperfect duty. Robin Hood should stop stealing from the rich, and find a way to redistribute wealth that does not break his perfect duty not to steal.

12 marks: Outline a Kantian deontologist view on eating meat.

Kant was an exceptionalist with regards to humans. He thought that our ability to be rational made us morally significant in a way animals aren't. The second formulation of the C.. says we cannot treat humanity as a mere means, but animals do not have humanity so they can be treated as a mere means, we have no special duty towards them. Kant believes that in being cruel to animals we would be damaging our own humanity - we would be stifling human qualities such as kindness and compassion. In this sense we would not be treating our humanity as an end and would therefore be contravening the second formulation. So in harming an animal we would be failing in our duty to ourselves, but not the animal. This may call some cruel farming methods into question but the moral one is only on the farmer. IF we are picking food from a menu we are far enough removed - we are not responsible for any one else's action, the moral responsibility is solely on the person involved in killing the animal.

 

We can criticise Kant's moral approach here, as It seems counter-intuitive to say we shouldn't mistreat animals because of harm to ourselves. Many people would say animal lives have value and it is wrong to harm them regardless. Many would also argue we have a special duty to those less capable, but Kant in ascribing moral significance to being rational suggests people who lack the capacity to be rational could be treated as a mere means.

12 marks: Outline a Kantian deontologist view on simulated killing

First form of CE. To universalise the maxim engage in simulated killing for entertainment seems to bring about no contradiction in conception or will. Kant says we have an imperfect duty to develop our talents, so maybe the talented artists, actors etc are doing good by producing these forms of entertainment?

 

second formulation of the categorical imperative: In watching a performance or killing a friend's avatar in a video game we are treating the participants as a means to our entertainment. But as they willingly participate we are not treating them as mere means. As long as their humanity (ie rationality is respected it seems fine to engage here.

 

Kant thinks we have a duty to ourselves to cultivate our own humanity, and if we were to be influenced by simulated killing to the point we become more violent, less compassionate, or addicted to the game/binge watching then he may say we are failing in our duty to treat our own humanity as an end.

12 marks: Outline the Kantian deontologist’s position when it comes to telling lies.

first formulation of the categorical imperative: "Tell lies" cannot be willed as a universal law. Lies only work when the person being lied to does not know it is a lie, but if lying was universal then no one would believe any lie. This is a contradiction in conception, and so not lying is a perfect duty.

 

second formulation of the categorical imperative: to lie to someone is to prevent them from being able to make fully informed, rational decisions and so is treating their humanity as a mere means, so it is wrong.

 

Benjamin Constant challenged Kant on lying, he said: if there was an example of a murderer asking where your friend was, To tell the truth then is a duty, but only towards him who has a right to the truth. But no man has a right to a truth that injures others. Kant responded to him directly: He says if we tell the truth then no matter what happens next we cannot, be blamed as we have followed our perfect duty. But if you lie and as a result something bad happens, then you are at fault as you made the decision to mislead.