Philosophy — Kantianism

Deontological

A moral theory derived from duty, independent from the consequences of moral decisions

Synthetic a priori

Truth that is independent of experience but still expand our understanding of the world

Strengths of a deontological approach

• Consistent

• No need to predict consequences

• Clear guidance

Kantian definition of an action

A choice based on reason and intention (not necessarily our physical behaviours in the world)

Kantian definition of morality

A set of principles that are the same for everyone and that apply to everyone

Maxim

A personal principle that guides decisions

The Will

The driving force; our ability to make choices and decisions

Duty

Doing what is morally right because it is morally right

The Categorical Imperative

A moral law that is unconditional/absolute for all agents

The Good Will

‘Good without qualification’; acting for the sake of duty as the only motivation/intention

Acting from duty

Doing what duty tells you to do because it’s your duty (Kant says ✅)

Acting in accordance with duty

Doing what duty tells you to do, but for an alternative reason (Kant says ❌)

Does Kant demonstrate that the good will is good (table)

Yes	No
Fits with the intuition that intentions matter Highlighted other approaches/motivations leading to bad ends Consistent behaviour	Good will is the will that acts from duty Duty is identified by the good will - law the that the autonomous good will would choose to follow Therefore circular Doesn’t consider negative outcomes, only intentions

A Categorical Imperative

An unconditional and absolute moral duty / moral ‘ought’; not a means to some further end

A Hypothetical Imperative

A conditional moral duty / moral ‘should’ dependent on desired outcomes; if you will the end you must will the means

Heteronomous

A will acting on desire based on hypothetical imperatives, law given by culture/religion

Autonomous

A will acting on free and rational will, law given by rational agent, can’t opt out

The Universal Law Formulation

Contradiction in conception

A maxim is wrong if the situation in which everyone acted on that maxim is somehow self-contradictory (ie if everyone did it, it would be impossible)

Contradiction in will

A maxim is wrong when we can’t will it; ‘a will wills its ends’ (ie cannot will anything that makes its ends unobtainable)

Perfect Duty

Strict or rigorous duties that one must follow whenever the opportunity arises, without exception (often prohibitions, ie do not)

Imperfect duty

‘Laxer’ duties that one must follow but admit multiple means of fulfilment, ie a choice on how to fulfil them

The Humanity Formulation

‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end’

Don’t treat people as a mere means, rather, treat them as an end in themselves

• Objection: Not all universalisable maxims are moral

• E.g ‘I will chew food 32 times before swallowing, to aid digestion’

• How can this be ‘moral’?

• Silly argument, universal maxims identity what is morally permissible, not what is morally required

Objection: Not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral

• E.g ‘I will always help the poor when I can afford to in order to ease their plight

• Non-universalisable as it generates contradiction in conception; if everyone does this, then there won’t be any poor

• Therefore, there is a perfect duty not to follow this maxim

• Therefore, there is a perfect duty not to help the poor

• Strong objection, undermines the ULF

Objection: Kant ignores the moral value of consequences

• E.g ‘I will lie in order to save a life’

• Generates contradiction in conception; if everyone did this, no murderer would believe the lie

• Therefore, the maxim can’t be universalised

• Therefore, the moral action is to let the person die

• A Kantian would argue that this is ok; duty > all else

• However, lack of regard for blatantly foul consequences feels intuitively wrong

• Strong objection

Objection: Kant is secretly a consequentialist

• The ULF seemingly operates on a consequentialist basis as it is concerned with the consequences of a maxim

• Very unconvincing argument;

• Kant is clearly solely motivated by the good will; ULF operates on whether a maxim is in line with the categorical imperative and duty, not the consequences