Emmanuel Kant Deontological/absolutist theory Based on human ability to reason Allows us to find out “our duty” and pursue good will Categorical/ hypothetical imperatives 3 formulations: 1) universal law 2) ends in themselves 3) kingdom of ends NOT HELPFUL- abstract, relies on reason and
New cards
2
PARAGRAPH 1:
Point: incorrectly relies on reason Agree: HUME- moral judgments being motivating involve desire which is an emotion. Reason doesn’t provide sufficient grounding for moral decision making. If something isn’t motivating we wouldn’t care about doing and clearly not doing it for right reason. Kants ideal for good will is impossibility to achieve Disagree: moral judgements are therefore not based on how we feel that day, moral actions are more consistent. Kant supports Plato’s idea of separation between emotion and reason Believes as rational entities we have the ability to separate emotion and reason. Agree: HUME- “reason is and ought to be the slave of passion” if we are critiqued for something we care deeply about and have nothing to say- rely on anger and emotion
New cards
3
PARAGRAPH 2:
Point- Theory is too abstract too apply and cannot be put into practical use Agree: categorical imperative hard to achieve and unrealistic Deontological nature- straight forward and rigid system Relies on a priori concept not empirical data Disagree- clear right/wrong principles- maxim and duty easy to grasp Agree: unrealistic- shop keeper, use everyone as means to and end Disagree- don’t “soley” use people as means to an end
New cards
4
PARAGRAPH 3:
Point: leads to conflicting duties (murderer at door problem) Agree: Maxims aren’t specific enough to relevant situations Universal laws=unhelpful and unspecific don’t factor in context of why people do things Reason= flawed and unreliable Conflicting duties
Studied by 38 people
