Kantian ethics

Phenomenal world

World as we experience it

Noumenal world

World as it is in itself

Rationalism

Knowledge of moral principles implanted into us by God or other means discoverable by reason

Empiricism

Morality is a human creation and is fundamentally based on desire, allowing us to live harmoniously and is discoverable through experience

Deontology

Actions are right or wrong in themselves, not depending on their consequences. We have moral duties to do things which it is right to do and moral duties not to o things which it is wrong to do.

Good will

The intention to do the right action for its own sake without any other motivation. It’s the only thing that is morally good without qualification

Duties

Obligations we have towards someone or something

General duty

Duty towards anyone

Specific duty

Duty du to a particular relationship

Acting out of duty

Doing the right action with a good will because it is your duty

Acting in accordance with duty

Doing the right action for some other reason

Issue 1 with Kantian duties (Axe murderer)

E.g : axe murder case (murderer comes to your house asking if your best friend is there, she is), do you lie?

Kant’s demands for absolute and universal duties can go against our natural intuitions, common sense morality and moral psychology.

Issue 2 with Kantian duties (Axe murderer)

E.g : axe murder case (murderer comes to your house asking if your best friend is there, she is, but you originally promised her to keep her safe), do you lie?

Having absolute duties which apply in all circumstances can lead to conflicting duties.

Counter to issue 2 of Kantian ethics

Kant would say this isn’t significant because there’s ways to avoid this situation by reasoning with the axe murderer, giving an unclear response or not making a promise which you dont know you can keep

Imperative

A command or order

Hypothetical imperative

A statement about what you ought to do, on the condition of some desire or goal.

You must x if y → you must drink water if you want to live

Limitation of hypothetical imperatives

They’re not a rational basis for morality. Morality should be logical and consistent. Kant believes moral rules must apply to everyone all the time and so they cant by hypothetical they must be universal.

Categorical imperative

Absolute commands we are obliged to follow in all circumstances are categorical and only these imperatives are moral. As rational agents we can workout the categorical imperative by asking whether the maxim that lies behind our action is universalisable.

1st categorical formulation

“I ought never to act except in such a way that i could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.”

Simple 1st categorical formulation

Only act if it makes sense for you to will everyone to act this way

2nd categorical formulation

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or the person of another, always as an end, and never simply as a means”

Simple 2nd categorical formulation

Respect others’ own ends and autonomy

Maxim

Underlying principle of an action, there is a rule

Contradiction in conception

A maxim is Wong if willing everyone to act on it would be somehow self-contradictory

How does the universal maxim ‘its okay to steal’ lead to contradiction in conception

If universalised then everyone takes everyone else’s property so nobody owns any personal property. Concept of personal property os destroyed so it’s impossible to steal

How does the universal maxim ‘its okay to lie’ lead to contradiction in conception

If universalised then everyone would lie. Concept of truth is destroyed so its impossible to lie as there is no truth

If a maxim is found to be a conception then…

It’s negative (i.e do not) becomes a perfect duty (absolute ugh done by everyone all the time)

Contradiction in will

Willing a certain maxim would be logically possible but does not make sense for a rational being to will this maxim

How does universal maxim ‘not to help others in need’ lead to contradiction in will

If we ourselves need help then we could not receive this. So its logically impossible to will this.

Perfect duties

Duty we must always do

Imperfect duty

Duty which one must not ignore but has multiple means of fulfilment

Issue 1 with kantian ethics

Clashing/competing duties

Explain the issue of clashing/competing duties

From categorical imperatives there are perfect duties which an absolutist must follow. However, with conflicting duties there is a contradiction with the absolutist nature of the categorical imperative.

Response to issue of clashing/competing duties

If you always acted rationally you wouldn’t have competing duties because you wouldn’t accept a situation where you don’t know you can carry out this duty. If theres a conflict you haven’t used reason.

Issue 2 with kantian ethics

Not all universalisable maxims are moral

Explain the issue of not all universalisbale maxims are distinctly moral

Kant says something can be universalised if it’s moral. But any maxim can be universalised if it’s specific enough and doesn’t lead to a contradiction in conception. By modifying maxims to avoid contradiction it’s rarely applicable ‘steal from people with 9 letters in their name’ → still doesn’t make it right

Response to the issue of not all universalisable maxims are moral

Modifying maxims isn’t accepted Neale the extra conditions are irrelevant. Categorical imperative is concerned with the maxim you act on not the arbitrary one.

Issue 3 with kantian ethics

Ignores all other valuable motivations

Explain the issue that Kantian ethics ignores valuable motivations

Kant says being motivated by duty is the only motivation with moral worth. Kant is telling us to be inhuman and ignore being guided by our feelings.

Response to ignoring valuable motivations

We can be motivated by feelings but not choose how to act based on them. To be morally good you must refuse to do so if it involves moral wrongness.

Issue 4 with kantian ethics

Ignores consequences

Explain the issue that Kantian ethics ignores consequences

Kant claims we shouldn’t ignores rules due to consequences. We have intuition that consequences are importantly when it comes to making moral decisions. Is it right to kill 1 person to save 5? Kant says no.

Response to ignoring consequences

There are no ends that are good without qualification apart from good will. Nothing is unconditionally good as it eats out of control. Intelligence is good until its used to enable someone to do bad things.

Issue 5 with kantian ethics

Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives

Explain issue 5 that morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives

Kant claims hypothetical imperatives have a unique status and categorical imperatives always have moral worth.

For says categorical imperatives can have moral worth but this doesn’t mean that they’re moral. Moral judgments are non-hypothetical imperatives. People are motivated by goals and desires but categorical needs reason / motivation to follow them.

Response to morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives

Acting out of duty isn’t accounted for - if moral judgments aren’t categorical it seems that doing what is right because its right no longer give us reason to act. Morality is undermined.