kantain ethics

deontological ethics

doesnt depend of consquences, it is about the action

a sense of moral obligation and will

• discovering a rational basis for ones duty

• experience and reason

• our moral will can be uncovered using reason

• a pirori moral will = a sense of ought

the good will

• intristic good

• good will is at the centre of ethics

• good will + duty = a moral action

• opposes humes arguments

absolutist

• sense of ought means that there must be an absolute moral law which exist in the numunial world (how realtity really is rather then how things appear

• acess to absolute moral laws through the application of reason

hypothetical imperatives

• ‘if you want to do x then do y’

• intedned outcome and focus on emotions

• kant disagrees

• we cannot base moral descions on emotions as everyone would act differently

catagorical imperatives

• you should do x

• use the 3 maxims to deduce catagorical imperatives which alline with your duty

1st maxim

universalsation → for an act to be morally good it must be appiable everywhere at everytime

2nd maxim

treating people as ends themsevles → shouldnt treat people as an ends to a means but as individuals

3rd maxim

acting as if we are in the kingdom of ends → model behaviour that you aspect everyone in a perfect world to act

the butcher example

• two butchers

• one increases the quaility of goods and gives an excellent service to increase his trade (hypothetical)

• another does the same but his motive is pure, acting out of duty

the lying promise

• a man in debt asks to borrow money eventhough he cannot pay it back

• if this was universalised then society would fall apart

• usiing his friend as a means to an end

• duty- to tell the truth

axe murderer

• axe murder comes the door looking for your friend who is hiding

• your duty is to tell the truth as lying cannot be universalsied, you are treating the am as a means to an end and not acting as if you are in the kingdom of ends

• if your friend is murdered ansd you didnt lie then you have told the truth then you are not morally repsonsbile as you did the right thing

• but if your friend dies and you lied, you are morally responsible

• KANT acknowledges that this is an extreme example and if we were acting as if we were in the kingdom of ends then this wouldnt happen

duty for duties sake

• duty must be done for duties sake

• e.g giving to chairty must be for the sake of doing something good not to boast

rawls (supporting scholor)

• develops the kingdom of ends, ‘veil of ignorance’

• if we had a world where we banned rascim/sexim ect then no one would act that way

3 postulates

• if our actions are predeterimed, we cannot be desribed as free nor does morallity apply to us

• kant could not proove that were were free rather he presumes that since we could act morally then we must be free

• three postulates are , freedom, God and immorailty

• there must be an afterlife otherwise morality would make no sense → we dont see change in the world even if we follow our duty so the afterlife will reward those who lived a morally good life

summun bonmum

• higher good which is the end good for our dutiful good actions which doesnt happen in life

• therefore there must be an afterlife where virtue and happiness are united

overall strengths

• overcomes subjectivity

• aviods pitfalls of morailty being infulenced by emotions

• aviods dependence on a relgion (actually seems like a seculaised golden rule)

• non individualistic

overall weaknesses

• rigortist, keen to hold moral duty

• is it possible to act purely

• intetions from ends cant awlays be seperated

• only works if everyone has the same view/telos

satres critque of clashing duties

• example of a dying solider → stay at home and look after a sick realtive or go to war (both can be CI/3 maxims)

• katain ethics cannot provide the moral clairty needed by automnous indivuduals

• kants repsonse - we think there are clashing duties but we havent applied our reason proprely. perfect and imperfect duties

• further critque - must be some situations whereby only one duty can be fufilled

B.constant and consquentialsim

• fits with more peoples morals to use emotion (axe murder)

• kants repsonse → we cannot control the consqeucnes so we cannot be morally responsible for them

• however it seems that we can predict and control conquences to some degree

• singer suppiort B.C kant fails to target the consquentialsit actual postion

phillipa and the hypothetical imperative

• morality is a system of hypothetical rather than catagorical, it is irrational of kant to disobey them. its not irrational to break ettquite but it is irrational to break kants CI? only irrational human being act against their own end → so kant is without justification

• kant response → failure to understand reasoning also imcomparataible with ettquite

• kants mistake - accepting a false dichtomony

berand williams and role of emotion

• requires one thought too many

• it is unnautrual, a virtous person can cultivate their emotions realibly

• false dichtomony, as there are many ways in which you can act

• however may not be a large threat for kant as he is more concered with the exicplit action

weakness of universalsation

• not all universalsied morals are discitntly moral nor are universalsied morals that are immoral

• alasdair mclytre example of ‘only those who are born on the 29th of febuary can steal” → its only a minoirty of people

• however 2nd maxim of treating people as ends defends this

kantian ethics provides a helpful method of moral decision making

• rationalitly of his ethic → allows for autonomy and responsibility within our decision making, since if humanity can reason then we must be able to reach the right answers

• universal - not just one of his maxism, but rather applicable to many people of different cultures and religious beliefs, it is translatable into a secular society eventhough it is technically a religious ethic

• theory which values people

• consquences → cannot often be predicited, other ethical theories like utlitarianism and SE require us to make predicitions as a result of our actions when we cannot be held responsible for the things that our out of our control

• duty → better than simply just depending on our inclinations that our led by emotions and subject to change therefore less bias

kantian ethics does not provide a helpful method of moral decision making

• absoultist theory → no flexibilitly in situations, for example lying is wrong, but what about the axe murder situation where if you do not lie, then your friend will die. it thus fails, since it cannot be applicable in difficult situations

• clashing duties → kant gives no support as how to distingush between clashing duties, makes it difficult in moral decision making like in the axe murder example above

• theoretical → may only helpful theoretically, as in certian situations it is wholly impractical

• ignorning consquneces → outcomes are predictable, but if we do what we think is a moral action but can logical deduce it having a bad outcome, then should we then be morally accountable

• maxism of universalsation → non moral actions can be enabled, just because you can universalise something it doesnt mean that it is thus a moral action

kantian ethics is too reliant on reason

• freud → rationalitly is based on subconsiouness and created from our childhood experiences, thus reason may be more intrinsic than kant actually illudes to

• emotions can be useful → e.g adoption of sympathy and empathy into the theory may help for more guidence when we have conflicting duties joseph fletcher fully rejects absoultism and reason in SE since it puts the person at the front of the ethic

• limits on our human reason → our minds expeirnce the world through the catagorises that we impose

kantian ethics isn’t too reliant on reason

• reason → does not reject other factors, but rather there is a fixed human nature, which we need to relfect on using reason in order to deduce a catagorical imperative, rather than an emotional approach which will only create the hypothetical imperativive that is often wrong. it may just be better to have a set rigid way of doing something rather than a loose and confusing one

• autonomy → relying on reason enables the follower of kantian ethics to have personal choice and not impose abstract ethical ideas, essentially treating people as an ends in themselves

kantian ethics is too abstract

• inflexibilitly creates pratical issues when applied to moral desicion making

• morally wrong to lie and it is absoulists (does not fit with 3 maxism) but what if an axe murder came to your house asking for your friend. Whilst this may be a drastic example, it does highlight the issuses with the praticalness of kantian ethics

• no further help is given or clarification as to the best decision to make

• too instinictive, freud would highlight how we are ment to learn from the experiences and thus our subconsiousness

kantian ethics is not too abstract

• principles of duty and reason, deducing our duty is clear and a step by step process which is layed out by kant. it is something that everyone who has a rational mind is able of doing

• autonomny, does not apply complex ethical ideas with abstract views but rather leaves the individual to make up their minds about a situation

an ethical judgement can be made based off duty

• duty is rational, it is not subject to changing emotions as it is a catagorical imperative

• aviods depending on inclinations

• concept of duty involves giving person respect which helps us to judge Good bad right and wrong

an ethical judgement cannot be made based off duty

• issuses with applying an overally theoretical theory to pratical situations

• duty may not be applicale with every aspect of our lives, we may be able to appply it within things like employement and buisness ethics (e,g the butcher) but its inflexibilitly leads it to failing in being helpful in other important parts iof human lives

• danger of conflicting duties, even with the law and when kants theory requires total obidence

• duties conflict with one another there may be too good actions but we do not know which one will be the best course of action and our duty thus may not be best served (counter - deontological arguments)