1/16
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
INTRO
Kantian Ethics is an agnostic, deontological, and an ethical theory.
It is elaborated upon a priori moral will. We have a sense of ought, must be absolute moral laws in the noumenal world which we can access by the application of reason.
Cannot be applied - too theoretical and not sufficiently based upon human experience.
P1 DUTY
Hypothetical Imperative is bad, act out of duty, not desires
Categorical imperatives ‘Duty for duties sake’ - acton of itself which is objectively necessary without any regard to an end
EG. Axe murderer
P1 DUTY STRENGTH + COUNTER-ARGUMENT
Duty is a good maxim as acting on emotions is too subjective and can cloud judgement in decision making
ie. a mother who protects her murderer son from the cops, and then he kills again.
Aristotle argues our fallible, emotional reasoning is vital
P1 DUTY WEAKNESS
Doesn’t give us any leverage in our moral compasses.
Doesn’t give us any leverage in situations of delineating duties - Sartre’s illusion of a soldier trying to go to war whilst taking care of sick parents
P1 DUTY EVALUATION
Even though a large proportion of the justice system is built upon Kantian Ethics,
Not every situation needs to adopt an absolutist theory - issues with delineating duties alongside precepts
W.D Ross finds a solution - ‘Prima face duties’ which outweighs every other duty
EG. Jewish in hiding lie about where my parents are to keep my promise to protect them
P2 CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
Formula of the law of nature - can it be universalised? Wouldn’t make sense to universalise stealing
Person as ends: how we treat people. Treat people as ends within themselves, deserve them with dignity and respect.
Kingdom of ends - Kant suggests that a categorical imperative that could be permitted in such a place
P2 CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE STRENGTHS
Universability seems like a sound motive- similarities with the principle of all other religious faiths (do unto others what you wish to have done to you)
BUT… special cases exist - what if a mother is expected to die following an abortion? Should not universalise abortion
P2 CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES WEAKNESSES
We cannot avoid treating others as a means to an end - buy from a shop = using the shopkeeper?
Philippa Foot challenges Kants categorical imperatives, we have a reason to act a certain way through desires ‘If you want an A you should study more often.’ Kant’s theory takes in no account for motives
P2 ALTERNATIVE - KANT VS CONSEQUENTIALISM
Strictly deontological ethical theory, meaning they must follow regulation and duty in respite of the consequences.
EG. Axe Murderer - giving away your friends location makes you not morally culpable as you were fulfilling your duty, lying will however make you morally culpable if they move to the location you lied about.
Moral value stems from the action itself
P2 ALTERNATIVE STRENGTH
Consequences are hard to predict - so long as you apply reason and good will, you can never be morally culpable for your actions.
there isn’t the issue of predicting when situations end.
Doing the right thing + acting within duty has its own moral worth
P2 ALTERNATIVE WEAKNESS
To some extent, we can predict/regulate situations: if we tell a murderer where someone is hiding, clear that they will die.
Hegel - we exist in complex web of social influences, we are closely connected by others - liable to each others actions
P2 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Although Kantian ethics avoids the issue of predicting situations and their outcomes,
Absolutist, deontological approach fails as it doesnt allow us any autonomy over potential consequences of our actions. If we decide that breaking the speeding is wrong and fail to rush a dying man to hospital, surely we could feel guilty - cannot dismiss consequences purely for one moral maxim
P3 KANT ETHICS & REASON
Kant believes there is one fixed human nature, this using reason - we should all come up with the same categorical imperatives like we all come to the same math conclusions PRIORI SYNTHETIC. To some extent, morality does come within a sphere of reason.
(Use 3 formulas to assist)
P3 KANT ETHICS & REASON STRENGTH (+COUNTER)
Treats people as rational beings means there’s no room for slavery/exploitation
Gives us clarity and coherence in moral decisions. Formulas helpful for the framework - ie. Jenny’s maxim of abortion - universalised only if the mother is at risk.
COUNTER: Stocker argues that nature of love wills morality, ie. visiting Grandma at the hospital out of love, not duty
P3 KANT & REASON WEAKNESSES
Freud - Reasoning is fallible, moral thinking is the product of subconscious drives by up-bringing, therefore meaning we all do not have the same, fixed human nature
P3 KANT & REASON EVALUATION
Thus, not useful for decision making. Even if the formulas seem fair and generally orientate towards the good, sometimes breaking the secondary formula of treating others as ends within themselves can be good
EG. case of Leah Betts whose parents used a video of her death from an overdose to warn other young people of the dangers
CONCLUSION
Fails in assisting making moral decisions - only be of assistance in situations of delineating duties with W.D Ross’ extension. Fails as the three formulas cannot always be applied - Karl Barth argues the human reasoning is fallible
Approach inflexibility of the ethical theory negates the fundamental drive for human connection -
focuses on an idealised utopia through Kingdom of ends - does not match what an ethical theory ought to be on - the real world. Ignorance of reality makes it impractical