hce - immanuel kant

Deontology

The theory of duty or moral obligation.

Duty

moral obligations that an individual has

Obligation

requirement set on a person because of his/her identity.

- Role-related duty

- General duty

duty can be categorized into:

1) Personal autonomy

2) Respect

3) Duty

3 basic Kantian themes

Personal autonomy

kantian theme

The moral person is a rational self-leglislator.

Respect

kantian theme

Persons should always be treated as an end, not a means. 'No persons should be used.'

Duty

kantian theme

The moral action is one that we must do in accordance with a certain principle, not because of its good consequence.

Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals (1785);

Critique of Practical Reason (1788)

works ni Kant that asks:

What ought I do?

Critique of Pure Reason (1781)

works ni Kant that asks:

What can I know?

Critique of Judgment (1790);

Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793)

works ni Kant that asks:

What can I hope for?

Phenomena

things as they appear to us; empirical and therefore changeable

Noumena

things-in-themselves, which can't be known by the use of senses

noumena

Kant argues that if there is such a thing as moral reality, it must be founded on the ____________

1. It is possible that someone does something out of evil intention, but ends up bringing good consequences to society.

2. It is also possible that someone does something out of good intention, but ends up bringing about bad consequences.

3. The consequences of an action are not under our control.

4. We can only control our motives when acting as a moral person.

5. Therefore the moral worth of an action is given by our good will.

tl;dr

1) evil intention, good consequences

2) good intention, bad consequences

3) consequences dili macontrol

4) motives ra ang macontrol

5) moral worth is good will and not consequences

On Kant's view, the moral worth of an action is not determined by its consequences because: (5)

our good will

On Kant's view, the moral worth of an action is not determined by its consequences, but is given by ___________

- self-interest,

- sympathy (natural inclination), or

- a sense of duty (the voice of conscience).

The right motive can be a motive out of either:

Only the final motive will count on Kant's view.

Hypothetical imperative

Conditional statements that dictate actions based on desired outcomes

"What I ought to do if some conditions hold"

Categorical imperative

Unconditional moral obligations that apply universally

"What I ought to do unconditionally"

hypothetical = conditional

categorical = unconditional

Hypothetical Vs categorical imperatives

1. Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law.

2. Always treat humanity, whether your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.

Two formulations of the categorical imperative

'universality test' and the 'humanity test'

universality - applicapble/ allowed /mahimo sa all people always

humanity - treating people as ends-in-themselves, and not just as a mere means

Why lying is wrong:

The maxim that supports lying cannot pass the _________________ and the ____________________

contract

The law thus set up is a _________ between free and rational agents.

Answer: Because I want to be a wholly free (autonomous) person who acts on the principle that I find most reasonable.

Motivational problems (from handout):

Why should I obey to the moral law?

Answer: This is simply because rational persons are equal.

Motivational problems (from handout):

Why should I respect other persons?

Answer: In principle they do not conflict each other, because both are built up in the idea of reason.

Freedom or equality? (from handout):

u Is autonomy or equality the fundamental value in ethics? What if they conflict each other?

rational agents

The moral law is set up by __________ who mutually respect each other. Non-rational beings such as animals are not protected by that law because they don't have this sense of responsibility.

(accdg to chatgpt)

Yes (Support)

Kant values autonomy and moral agency, so systems that give people a voice align well with his ethics.

Participatory democracy treats individuals as ends in themselves and gives them a chance to exercise rational moral will.

So yes — Kant would probably be on board.

If I am a Kantian, should I support:

Participatory democracy?

(accdg to chatgpt)

(Depends)

Representative democracy can be fine if it respects individual autonomy and protects universal moral law.

But the "market" part — if it reduces people to consumers/voters based on self-interest — could conflict with Kantian ethics.

If people are treated as mere means to economic or political ends, then it's a no-go for Kant.

So: conditionally support, but be critical.

If I am a Kantian, should I support:

Representative (market) democracy?

(accdg to chatgpt)

(Cautiously skeptical)

If capitalism promotes individual freedom, that's good.

BUT — if it encourages treating people as tools for profit, or undermines equality, it's violating Kant's principle of human dignity.

Much of modern capitalism is grounded in self-interest, which Kant doesn't see as morally praiseworthy.

So: Kant might critique capitalism, especially in its raw, profit-driven form.

If I am a Kantian, should I support:

Capitalism?

(accdg to chatgpt)

No (Likely oppose)

While Kant would sympathize with justice and equality, he would likely oppose violent revolution and any system that denies individual autonomy.

Revolutionary Marxism can sometimes promote the idea of sacrificing the individual for the collective — that's a no for Kant, who believes each person has infinite worth.

If I am a Kantian, should I support:

Revolutionary Marxism?

(accdg to chatgpt)

(Interesting mix)

Both Kant and Confucianism value duty and moral self-cultivation, so there are overlaps.

But Confucianism focuses more on relationships and harmony, whereas Kant is more about universal principles and autonomy.

If Confucian ethics respects individual rational agency, Kant might say it's compatible. If it relies too heavily on hierarchy or social roles, he'd be skeptical.

So: Maybe, with qualifications.

If I am a Kantian, should I support:

Confucian ethics?

(accdg to chatgpt)

(Depends on the kind)

If anarchism = total absence of moral law or structure, then Kant would reject it. He believes in a moral law and lawful civil society.

But if anarchism = a society where all people freely and rationally agree to moral principles, he might see some appeal in the idealistic version.

So: Unlikely overall, but there's some nuance.

If I am a Kantian, should I support:

Anarchism?

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

The Nuremberg code

equal statuses;

- in a higher rank;

- have more power;

- have ends in the action plan that the inferior party cannot share.

Autonomy: A Kantian interpretation

By saying that we respect persons as autonomous agents, we imply that they are having ________ with us, that we cannot treat them as a means only.

Using somebody implies an imbalanced power structure, meaning that the users are: (3)

(accdg to chatgpt)

Summary:

Participants were instructed to deliver electric shocks to another person for wrong answers. Most obeyed authority, even when the "shocks" seemed to cause serious harm.

Kantian Ethics Connection:

Kant would say the participants acted immorally if they obeyed just because someone told them to. They used the victim as a means to an end (obedience or pleasing authority), violating Kant's rule to treat every person as an end in themselves.

Kant believes in autonomy — we are morally responsible for our choices, regardless of orders.

Stanley Milgram's experiment

(unsa, and iyang context w Kant)

(accdg to chatgpt)

Summary:

Volunteers played roles of guards and prisoners in a simulated prison. Guards quickly became abusive, and prisoners broke down emotionally. The study revealed how people conform to power roles.

Kantian Ethics Connection:

The guards acted immorally by treating the prisoners as objects, tools for roleplay or control.

Kant would say no situation justifies degrading another's dignity. Blindly adopting a role does not remove moral responsibility — every person must act according to universal moral law, not just social roles.

Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Study

(unsa, and iyang context w Kant)