Kant Ethics

Kant Ethics:

-Ethical Objectivism

-Moral Absolutism

-Rationalism

-Nonconsequentialism

-Deontology

-Creatures with reason are "ends in themselves" - not merely means to an end - and have intrinsic value/dignity

-Rationality allows for autonomy (or self-government): the ability to choose/govern one's actions in accordance with the moral law

Ethical Objectivism

There exist objective (fact) and universal (apply to everyone) moral laws

Moral Absolutism

There are exceptionless, unchanging, moral absolutes

Rationalism

Moral laws are discovered through Reason- not observation, measurement, emotion, culture or history, etc.

Nonconsequentialism

Consequences do not determine rightness/wrongness

Deontology

To be truly moral, actions must be motivated by obligation/duty

2 big problems for Utilitarianism that Kant avoids/solves:

1. It is impossible to predict consequences

(so we cannot know what is moral)

2. It is moral to use people as means to an end against their will

What is the moral value of the motive?

Utilitarianism vs Kant

Utilitarianism: Tests consequences, it is the result of an action which ` defines its morality (good/bad/right/wrong)

Kant: Tests Motives and Principles, WHY an action takes place

determines its morality

Case Thought Experiment:

Person sees a drowning boy, jumps in to save him

3 scenarios, 3 reasons to save the day

Person jumps in because:

1. she has a duty

2. results in a big reward

3. she'd feel guilty if she didnt

Motive/Principle Matters

because of what would happen in OTHER circumstances

Ex.) If one follows self interest, one only saves the rich child...

If an action takes place because it is one's duty/the right thing to do...

They will do the right thing REGARDLESS of the circumstances

Kant: Difference between acting AS duty requires and BECAUSE duty requires...

doing the right thing (behavior) vs. doing the right thing BECAUSE its the right thing (moral behavior)

For Kant, What makes an action good?

1. Action is motivated by the knowledge that your duty/obligation is to

perform this action

2. Doing the right thing BECAUSE it is the right thing

3. Doing the right thing because of knowledge that that action is your

objective duty

How do we KNOW what is right?

It is not enough to believe one is doing the right thing, but one must know what is the moral duty... which leads to the idea of a test...

-Morality doesnt depend on subjective goals

-Moral commands are not hypothetical (applicable w/ certain desire)

-Moral commands apply no matter what (you desire)

Hypothetical Imperitive

a command (imperative) you should follow IF (hyopthetically) you have a certain desire

Catagorical Imperative

Moral commands/imperatives apply catagorically

-the demands of morality apply regardless of circumstances

Kant: Catagorical Imperative

"there is only one catagorical imperative: act only according to that maxim which you can will not to be a universal law.

Maxim

-The motive/motivating principle of an action, stated as a general rule

-Principle you are following when you chose to perform a concrete action

-Whenever I am circumstance C, I will do X in order to achieve Y

ex) When I'm bored, I will go to the gym to get fit

Principle of Universalizability

An action-guiding principle (maxim/motive) is universalizable if:

1. it is not self-defeating

2. One could rationally wish that everyone would act on that maxim in those circumstances

Self-Defeating Rules:

Ex.) Never say "I love you", unless the other person says it first

3-step test to determine whether a maxim is universalizable (and thus, moral)

1. State maxim of the individual action

2. Rephrase maxim as a universal law

3. Can it be consistently and rationally willed that everyone follow this universal maxim?

Ex. Making promises you do not intend to keep

1. If I need to make a promise, I may do so even if I do not intend to keep it

2. If anyone needs to make a promise, they may do so even if they do not intend to keep it

3. If everyone did this, all promises are lies, and thus do not exist.

Maxims are universalizable (or not)...

-No matter who is calculating (impartial/regardless of circumstance)

-Acting on maxims which are not universalizable is irrational

-Does not follow the Universal Laws of Reason:

-Moral facts are known via Reason

-Avoids Utilitarian problem of not knowing consequences

Conditional Value

things are only valuable on the condition that they are valued (value measure by people)

Unconditional Value

Valuable regardless of circumstance

ex.)

-Material goods/things do not have unconditional value

Intrinsic Value

Property that something has if it is good/desirable in itself

Independently of everything else (ex. Happiness)

Instrumental Value

Value something has in virtue of being a useful instrument

-a good means to use for some further end/goal (ex. Money)

Kant: A good will has (?) value?

The intention to do the right thing has intrinsic value

"a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition- that is, it is good in itself"

of a good will- "like a jewel it would still shine by its own light, as a thing which has its whole value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither add to nor take away anything from its value."

Difference between a person and a thing/object:

Things only have instrumental value as a means to an end,

People have intrinsic value as ends in themselves

Kant:

"beings whose existence does not depend on our will but on nature, if they are not rational beings, have only a relative worth as means and are therefore called 'things'; on the other hand, rational beings are designated 'persons' because their nature indicates they are ends in themselves."

Relationship between People and Value:

-If conditional/ instrumental value exists, something must have ultimate/ intrinsic value

-As persons are sources of conditional value, they must have unconditional/ intrinsic value.

*Source of intrinsic value is the ability to reason

Kant: "every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will"

"rational nature exists as an end in itself"

Autonomy

auto-nomos: self-governing

Autonomous beings are, by definition, self governing

tools/instruments are not self-governing, they are other governing: they are used for others' purposes, not their own.

Rationality

-The ability to understand moral law

-Allows one to govern one's own actions (not just be used by something else), and to act for one's own goals, not another's.

Kant's other version of Categorical Imperative:

-Treat others as autonomous/self-governing, not as an instrument

-This is universalizing acting towards others as we'd want others to act towards us- as an ends in themselves

Testing (autonomic) Categorical Imperative

1. [state maxim] When I need something, I will treat people as things

2. [universalize] Whenever someone needs something, they can treat other people as things (as a means to an end)

3. [self-defeating] If everyone treats people as things, then there's no difference between people and things, thus no people.

Examples:

-Against Suicide: using oneself as a means to avoid pain

-Against Lying: Using another as a means to an end

-Against Slavery: Using someone as a tool

Utilitarianism vs. Kant (means to ends)

-Utilitarianism states its moral to use people as means to an end against their will, so that it provides more pleasure/less pain

-Kant states that everyone has intrinsic value, everyone has a right not to be used as a means, bc everyone is an end in themselves.