Kantian Deontological Ethics

What does ‘Deontological’ mean and what approach are they?

What does ‘Deontological’ mean and what approach are they?

‘Deon’- one must or duty.

It is non-consequentialist.

What does Kant believe good will is?

It is the only ‘pure’ and unconditional good that is good in its self, it’s the source of all moral value. Good will acts for the sake of duty, not motivation for an end goal.

1) Someone doing something has good will if they do that thing for the right reason. 2) The only right reason to do something is because it is your duty. 3) so, someone with good will does the right thing because it is there duty to do the right thing.

What does will mean and how is it different from a want?

A will is a want in action, it is the steps taken to bring about the want as well as the want. Wants are desires which aren’t acted upon.

What’s the difference between acting in accordance with moral duty and acting out of moral duty?

Acting out of moral duty is doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do/ your duty. These acts carry moral worth.

Acting in accordance with duty is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons/ not out of duty. These acts carry no moral worth.

shop keeper example- reputation vs duty for moral law.

Why does Kant reward an act out of duty more highly than one which acts out of love and kindness?

Ought implied can. Morality can’t require us to feel a certain way or to want a certain thing because morality can only ask of us things that are in our power. You can’t chose your wants but you can chose your will. Therefore morality can require that you have certain wills and so take certain means.

What’s a weakness to this and how does Kant respond?

Christianity argues that the Bible assigns us with moral duty’s to love God and the neighbour. Kant argues that this isn’t emotional but is instead practical.

What’s Kants Categorical imperative- first formula?

Act only on that maxim which you could at the same time will to be a universal law.

‘Act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction”

What’s a perfect duty?

What’s an example?

Perfect duty’s must always be followed. If you cannot conceive of a world with the maxim as a law, you have a perfect duty to not act on it. Acting on it is always blameworthy.

Example: False promise(money), this isn’t conceivable as a universal law as its a contradiction.

What’s an imperfect duty?

What’s an example?

Acting on the maxim is sometimes wrong and so is sometimes blameworthy.

Example: Helping other. Maxim- not to help those in need even if possible to due to selfishness. It is conceivable but cannot be rationally willed for, therefore its an imperfect duty to not follow this maxim.

What’s an imperative?

A command.

What’s a hypothetical imperative?

A conditional command, which is in the form ‘if…,then…’ The ought is conditional upon the desire, if the desire goes, so does the imperative.

E.g if you want a cup of tea, you should boil the kettle. Kant doesn’t focus on these are they lack the universality to be moral imperatives and they are not based on good will.

What are categorical imperatives?

What’s an example?

Categorical imperatives are unconditional and absolute moral command that apply universally, regardless of personal desires or goals. They tell us to act morally and out of a sense of duty.

For example, you ought to keep your promises.

How does Kantian Deontological ethics apply to the false promise?

1) Maxim- when in need make promises with no intention of keeping them

2) can a world with this maxim be conceived? No, it is a contradiction, if anyone could/did falsely promises, there would be no such thing/ belief in promises and so the man couldn’t make a false promise. Therefore, we have a perfect duty to not follow this maxim.

What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative/ the humanity formulation in Kants words?

‘Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

What does the second formulation/ humanity formulation mean?

It is always wrong to treat any person (including yourself) in a way that involves them in an action that they do not, in principle, have a chance to consent to.

You cannot reduce somebody to being a mean and use them as a tool to reach your goal without their consent as this undermines their autonomy/ rationality. Instead you need their consent, to treat them well and adopt their own ends as our own, as we have a duty to promote others happiness.

What’s are examples of 1) using someone but not as a mere means

2) using someone as a mere means

1) Teacher- has freely consented to teach and using the students as a means (employment)

2) Buying a good with fake money

How does the second/ humanity formula produce imperfect duties?

Does not breach the formulation but is not in harmony with it. Harmony requires us to develop autonomy/ rationality within ourselves and others.

E.g helping others.

How does Kantian ethics apply to stealing (first and second formulation)?

First formulation: maxim: ‘steal when you want/ need something that you can afford’. This maxim cannot be universalised as it produces a contradiction in conception- the concept of ownership would break down and so stealing wouldn’t exist. Therefore, we have a perfect duty not to steal.

Second formulation: Stealing is using someone as a means to your own end as you are ignoring and bypassing their autonomy. Therefore, we have a perfect duty not to steal.

Stealing will move us away from a civil society and towards a state of nature as stealing is breaking the law?

What challenges Kants approach to stealing?

The maxim could be changed to ‘steal in order to save a life’. In this instance, stealing can be universalised as it wouldn’t cause a break down in the concept of property.

Kant would disagree with this as it is still stealing and produces the same consequences and so produces a contradiction in conception. The duties of justice are more important than those of virtue. Furthermore, the second formulation would rule out this challenge.

This can be used to question Kants theory- a situation where a law in unjust (e.g the salt tax) or where stealing perhaps saves someone’s life and has few negative consequences.

What is Kants political theory?

As rational beings, we have a duty to seek to live in a rightful condition (civil society) which follows laws which allow us to co-exist and settle disputes rationally and without violence. Due to this, we have a duty to move away from a ‘a state of nature’ (a lawless and wild state in which we lack freedoms and have no rational means of settling disputes).

How does Kantian deontological ethics apply to simulated killing?

First formulation: maxim: ‘Engage with simulated killing when I want to be entertained’. The is conceivable as a universal law so is not a perfect duty to not do. However, Kant argued that we have an imperfect duty to cultivate compassion within us and sympathies with others suffering. Simulated killing may reduce our compassion (although there is no evidence of a direct link), in Kants time, butchers and doctors couldn’t be juries and their jobs were seen to have hardened them and worn down their compassion. If this is the case, we have an imperfect duty to not play these games. Video games invoking rape and peadophillia are bad, showing that simulations are not morally neutral due to the fact that they’re simulations.

Humanity formulation: You are not directly overriding anyone’s autonomy or using them as a means to your own end, however perhaps playing these games will reduce our compassion, causing us to indirectly treat others worse than if not. If so, it is an imperfect duty to not participate in simulated killing

In what ways does Kant believe animals and humans differ?

Humans can reason, allowing us to work out what is prudent and what we morally ought to do, this gives humans autonomy. Animals cannot reason and so cannot work out what they should do, instead of being driven by will (like humans), they are driven by instincts, due to this, animals don not have autonomy. Due to, animals not pursing ends, we don’t have to treat them as beings with ends.

What does Kant believe in relation to eating animal?

First formulation: cruel farming of animals can be universalised, however not rationally willed as we have a duty to perfect our own moral nature, including an imperfect duty to cultivate compassion within ourselves, and so sympathise with the suffering of other creatures. It is immoral for the farmer to use cruel farming methods but isn’t immoral for consumers to consume the meat.

Second formulation: morally permissible as animals aren’t being with ends.

What are criticisms to Kant’s response to eating animals?

No casual link between cruelty towards animals increasing cruelty to humans, therefore may not be an imperfect duty for the farmer to not treat animals cruelty.

Disregards animals suffering.

People with severe mental illnesses many be unable ‘to will’ to rationally pursue sends, does this mean that they lack moral value?

How do Kantian Ethics apply to telling lies?

First formulation: the maxim cannot be universalised as it produces and contradiction in conception as universalising a maxim to lie means there would be no lies as everything deceives. This is because lying relies on truth telling, if everyone lied lies would not deceive as nobody believes it to be the truth.

Second formulation: perfect duty not to lie, lying undermines the autonomy of the listener which doesn’t treat them as a being with ends.

What’s a criticism to Kant application of lying?

Axe man scenario- Kant would tell us to tell the truth if we were forced to speak.

Lying does occur while truth telling also exists, universalising the maxim that lying sometimes occurs in certain situations is conceivable e.g to save a life as this is a rare occurrence and this could be consistently willed, truth would still usually exist. Furthermore, we have an imperfect duty to help others, so sometimes lying may be the right thing to do. Kant argues that maxims need to be as general as possible.

Second formulation- axe man is undermining someone’s autonomy and is moving us away from the rightful conditions, therefore he should not be treated as a being with ends, therefore we can lie to him.

What’s the issue with Kantian Deontological ethics regarding clashing and competing duties? What are clashing and competing duties?

Perfect duties outweigh imperfect duties (axe man and lying)

Clashing duties: perfect duty vs perfect duty (promise to tell a lie), this is inconceivable and we need to revisit our grounds of obligation as we have made a mistake in our grounds of thinking. (You cannot universalise a maxim in which you promise lie so you cannot keep the promise).

Competing imperfect duties: imperfect duty vs imperfect duty (e.g Nazi occupation). Kant argues that this is due to the complexity of the world that we live in.

What’s an is issue regarding universaling maxims and morality?

Not all universalisable maxims are moral (e.g chewing food 32 times before swallowing) According to Kant universalisable actions are morally permissible, not a duty. Instead, the formulation only tells use what we cannot do.

Kants formulation would tell us that all non-universalisable maxims are immoral (e.g get into the top 50% when taking an exam)/ that include relative positions however, this doesn’t seem to be immoral. Instead, we should make maxims that compare us to others. Not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral.

The maxim ‘I will help the poor when I can afford it’ is arguable not universalisable as it would leave no poor people, however, it is not immoral to help the poor.

The categorical imperative seems to create trivial duties,

What’s an issue regarding the moral value of consequences?

Our intuition tells us to account for both motives and consequences. E.g axeman scenario, the consequences of telling the truth seem to outweigh those of breaking a perfect duty. However Kant only focuses on intentions.

According to Kant, we all need to focus on our own spheres of control, if everyone did this we would end up in a civil society. However, we do not live in this world, the world is non-ideal so perhaps in some cases we need to look at the consequences. Further, it seems to value being rationally consistent over a friends life.

Kantian Deontology could be interpreted as consequentialist.

What’s an issue regarding the value of other motives?

An act is only moral if it is done out of duty, regardless of emotion e.g two fathers, this goes against our intuition of certain emotions carrying morality.

What’s an issue regarding the value of care?

Carol Gilgan