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