Kantian Ethics

Kantian Ethics

Deontological and absolutist
Theory where moral decisions are made from absolute duties

Immanuel Kant

1700s
Wrote critique of pure reason and grownwork of the metaphysics of morals
During European enlightenment when people started using more of their rationality

Duty

REASON governs morality. Only one right answer to what's right/wrong in a given situation
Doing right thing is our DUTY as rational beings
If wrong thing is done, not just immoral but also irrational

not because of feelings, like donating to charity out of care

Rationalism and Empiricism

17th + 18th century largely shaped debate between rationalist + empiricist
Kant overall position was complex but was dinstictly rationalist with ethics
Morality as something we can derive purely through reason

Natural Law

Similar to Aquinas, Kant believe human captivity is a natural faculty allow for moral laws
But differed from Aquinas in viewing certain duties (precepts) as being religious rather than moral like worship god

Imperatives

Commands, instructions which tell us what to do
Because of duty, Kant creates the hypothetical and categorical imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives

E.g. 'you ought to do x if you want to get y'
Conditional commands where we are commanded to do something if we want something else
Hypothetical used to refer to situation that could happen, usually if situations are met

Categorical imperatives

E.g. 'you ought to do x'
'I'll give you £3 if you throw in another CD'
Hypothetical version 'you ought to give me another CD if you want to get £3
Unconditional commands and are absolute

Universal laws can't be hypothetical

that would mean conditional on our personal feelings, consequences or particularities of the situation

Kant rejects as not genuine morality
only categorical imperatives valid

Importance of categorical & hypothetical imperative

Kant believes one can only do smth good if done unconditionally (selflessness)
Even if u don't want to, you must do it

3 formulations if the categorical imperative

1. The law of nature

2. The end in itself

3. The kingdom of ends

First formulation: the law of nature

only do action if universalizable
e.g. not possible for everyone to steal as there'd be no property & then no one can steal

universal laws must be able to applied to everyone in all situations

Second formulation: the end in itself

always treat persons, never merely as a means but always same time as an end (prioritise people)

treat people as if they have their own goals in life
e.g. never sacrifice someone in order to save others

3rd formulation: the kingdom of ends

Act as if you were part of a society where everyone was following Kant's ethics

Laws hypothetical members of the kingdom would devise are based on 'universal laws of nature' & 'humanity formulas'
Any rules made use be universalisable without contradiction

The 3 postulates

In order for theory to work, must make assumption about nature of reality. Assumptions = postulates
Not something proven but just assumed in order for reasoning to make sense
Freedom/autonomy
Immortality
God

persuaded to act morally & deserving of punishment/reward (motivating power)
Kant doesn't acc prove the existence of these

freedom/autonomy

ethics can't make sense without free will
free will allows moral responsibility as people must use reason when it comes to moral decisions

diff from animals as we have free will

immortality (of the soul)

in life, some good people go unrewarded and some bad go unpunished
so must postulate the existence of an afterlife

Reward in the afterlife

God

as the ruler of afterlife

Clashing duties

Sarte claimed duties clash
e.g. soldier can go wawr to defend war or stay at home to look after sick parent
Both actions = universalisable and duty but can not do both

clashing duties make kant's ethics impractical

prima farce (until proven otherwise). duties clash show impracticality

• overly abstract & disconnected from reality

• must be capable of doing an action for it to be our duty

• if maxims clash and can't followed, can't be our duty

if those duties are obtained through kant's formula of categorical, can't tell us our duty so fails as normative theory

Counter to clashing duties being impractical

some duties are perfect: only one way of fulfilling
e.g. telling truth

so soldier can stay at home and make bombs and care for mum

evaluation of clashing duties

some situations that can't be fulfilled both
e.g. may not need anymore to make bombs

Kant ignores moral value of emotions

Michael Stocker says imagine friend visiting hospital saying only came as it's their duty

B.Williams argues it's unnatural & requires 'one thought too many'
when doing good, just doing good simply out of habit

• no need to think about all these formulations wtv

Stocker argues if we act out of duty, not possible to act out of virtuous habits like friendliness or love

Counter to emotions

emotions are transient & annoying/complicated

• therefore unreliable

• reason produces respect for universalisable moral law is more stable

acting on emotion isn't morally wrong, just not morally good

• actions depend on how we feel

• helping others cos we feel like it or not when we don't

Scholar counter to emotions

Barbara Herman interprets that emotions can lead to right action by luck
Not actually acting morally unless act out of duty

Evaluation of emotions

emotions can be unreliable
Aristotle argues we can develop good emotional & behavioural habits (cultivating virtues)
Can rationally control emotions, then can be reliable for moral motivation
e.g. visiting friend in hospital out of love & cultivating virtue of friendliness

Kant vs consequentialism

• violates moral intuition

• there are consequences to telling the truth in some situations

Benjamin's constant's murderer at door scenario
If murderer asked us where their target was, Constant says to lie
telling truth as situational, not as duty

• Nazi trying to find Jews
  lying as only hope, deontological approach fails

Counter to Kant vs consequentialism

can't calculate consequences
if lied where victim was & victim had moed there in time we'd be responsible for their death
can't be responsible for consequences

evaluation to Kant vs consequentialism

we can control consequences to some degree

• thus, can be responsible to some degree

• have 'reasonable expectation' (Singer) about the consequences & so is reasonable to act w/ them in mind and lie