Kantian ethics

Duty

Acting morally according to good regardless of the consequences

Maxim

The rule that we are following when we preform an action

Hypothetical imperative

A command that is followed to achieve a desired result

Categorical imperative

A command that is good in itself regardless of consequences

Immanuel Kant

• 1724-1804

• Born in Kaliningrad in the eat of Prussia

• Key work was his book, ground work of the metaphysics of morals

• Rogued that our mind organises our experience so that there is a phenomena (how the world appears) and noumena (how the world really is)

• Kant uses this to argue that it is impossible to prove gods existence, but the moral truths a re somehow built into thr world

Good will and duty

• Kant argues that the only thing that’s good at all times is our good will

• This means having a good intention - an intention to do our duty

• We should not worry about the consequences as these are beyond our control

• Decisions should not be based on our inclinations as our emotions change

• All that matters is that we do our duty - the ting we can logically work out is the right thing to do

• We should do our duty just because it is our duty not for any reward

Categorical and hypothetical imperatives

• We can carry out an action, Kant believes we have a Maxim (rule) in mind

• Hypothetical imperatives are ‘if…’ commands

• Categorical imperatives are absolute commands

• Our duty is to act on anything that is a categorical imperative

Finding the categorical imperative

#1 - formula of the law of nature:

• Our moral rules must be capable of being universal

• There should be rules that apply to everyone at all times and in all cultures

• We should not make rules where we expect to be allowed to break them when it suits us

• Kant examples - stealing, lying, laziness, charity, cruelty to animals

#2 - person as ends:

• People should not use others as solely a means to an end

• They should treat people, not as tools to get what they want

#3 - the kingdom of ends:

• People should act as if their behaviour is setting the laws in an ideal kingdom

• Imagine we live in an ideal society of rational people. Which laws would he have to govern behaviour?

• Always behave as if you are following those rules

Objections to categorical impurities

1. Does being willing to generalise that everyone should do something make it moral?

2. Aquinas objection: everyone knows it is best to act in a right and good way according to reason, but not everyone always follows this and therefore enforcement could be harmful

3. Can we avoid using people as a means to an end?

Phillipa Foot

• 1920 - 2010

• Main objection to Kant came in her 1995 essay ‘morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives’

• Argues that what is missing from Kant philosophy is an adequate explanation of our motives and desires

• Hypothetical imperatives at least give us a reason to a act

Good will

• Kant argues that the only thing that is truly and intrinsically good is a “good will”

• Good is good purely because of the intention and desire to dot he right thing

• Intentions and actions matter more than consequences

Catagorical imperative

• It is wrong to carry out an action that we couldn’t logically desire all people to do

• We are required to consider persons as we act. This includes valuing and respecting ourselves jus as we should others

Kantian ethics is helpful regarding our duty to ourselves as well as to others

1. Duty is better than relying on our emotions to make decisions. Less bias if duty is our key principle

2. Rational - humans have responsibility/autonomy to work out things to reach the right answers

3. Consequences can’t be predicted. SE requires us to predict what might happen as a result of our actions which is never certain

4. secularist - can be easily applied by all people of all faiths at all times

5. Universal - easy to follow and accessible to all

6. Emotion free so more objective

7. Intention matters within the ethic

Kantian ethics is not helpful regarding our duty to us as well as to others

1. Like any absolutist system, there is no flexibility depending on the situation. What happens when the consequences are clearly not good?

2. What happens when duties clash? How do we make a choice?

3. Religious believers might argue that Kant gives human reason more prominence in morality than he gives god

4. Principle of human law does not necessarily tell us wha our moral duties are/should be

Examples of duties

• Recognising the right to property

• Doing good to others

• Avoiding drunkenness

• Not making false promises/being faithful

• Pursuing the greater good

• Not destroying ourselves

• Not destroying or limiting human beings

Perfect duty

Where our maxim cannot be universalised because a logic contradiction would occur if we were to do so

Imperfect duties

Where no logical contradictions are created but they do present us with a situation that no rational person could desire or will

Right and wrong does depend on duty

• Duty is rational and as such is not subject to our changing emotions or circumstances

• The concept of society rightly involves giving to each person the things that we owe them in terms of how we treat them. Therefore, it allows us to respect persons

Right and wrong doe snot depend on duty

• The concept of duties is useful in public sector employment but does not seem to apply to every area of life

• There is a danger of conflating duty with obedience to authority

• There are often issues with conflicting duties, where we cannot fulfil both of the good actions that seem to be required

Enlightenment

• The intellectual and philosophical movement that valued reason as the course of human knowledge

• Emphasis on scientific method and reason as the source of knowledge, as well as the ideas of liberty and tolerance

• Led to a rejection of monarchs and the church

• Sowed the seeds of the political revolutions of the 19th century

Sapere aude

Dare to know

Kant on reason and human nature

• Kant believes it is in the power of human beings to reason accurate and to reach answers without the need for external authorities

• For Kant, normal law is the product of reason, we can rationally understand the categorical imperative

• We are autonomous beings; in choosing to follow the moral law or not we are making our own free decisions

Aristotles response to Kant

• Stressed both rational and irrational parts of the soul

• Irrational aspect (emotions/appetites), seems to be a key aspect of our nature and has featured minor heavily in recent physiognomy and philosophy e.g., work on emotional intelligence

• Emotional aspects of human nature needed to be equally embraced, not repressed

3 postulates

• things that must be assumed for morality to work

1. Freedoms

2. Immortality

3. God

Freedom

• Essential that human beings have free will

• ‘Out to imply cam’ - when we talk in terms of moral duties - ought’s and should - we have to assume the person we refer to is genuinely able to do the duty in question

• If we were to have no control over our actions, we could not be held accountable for carrying out of duties

Immortality

• We must assume the existence of an afterlife

• We are required to seek the highest food (summum Bonum)

• Summon bonum = perfect virtue + perfect happiness

• In this life we can see that it owes not always happen that food people are rewarded with happiness

• Therefore, we must assume there is an afterlife in which justice is done in the end

Problem with 3 postulates

God is the main issue, Kant says that ‘he appears to claim that his ethical system is independent of religion and that moral duties can be rationally deduced by anyone regardless of religious belief’

Arguments that Kant is not reliant on God

• Kant is not interested in what motivates us to preform our duty

• What motivates us is because we have worked out through reason what duties are

• The reward is merely a benefit/consequence of acting morality, it is not in itself the reason we do it