RP: religion and Ethics : Kantian Ethics

What was Kant’s project?

• in his view the main aim of moral philosophy is to determine a foundational principle of morality

• he thought there was a system of a priori moral principle which applies to all rational agents in all times and cultures

• he tries to come up with a precise statement of the principle on which all our ordinary moral judgements are based, one which all rational persons would accept on proper reflection

Kant’s example of two men under hanging

• someone has a ‘lustful appetite’ for something which if presented with they could not resist, however say the person is then presented with the idea that if they do/use this thing they will be hung right after they have gained the satisfaction. This desire would then become much less and the desire to live would take over and the person would not choose the desire

• however say someone was told that they had to bare false witness to someone and if they didn’t they would face hanging it would not be unreasonable to suggest the person may choose death

• Kant is suggesting that for moral decisions one may choose death over doing a moral wrong

• For Kant this demonstrates that our moral awareness is independent of and not subservient to sensory pleasures and their gratification of satisfaction

What are Kant’s views on morality (comparison with Utilitarianism)

• he argues that when it comes to morality it is possible to choose something that is not pleasurable

• kant argues that morality being based on happiness results in conflict as we all have conflicting happiness/pleasure and it would be impossible to account for them all

• Kant suggests happiness is an appendage of morality:

• by acting morally ———> one deserves happiness

Precondition of moral awareness

• one must suppose that each person is free

• only in this case is one able to say what someone should have done

• e.g if they could have done nothing else then they cannot be classed as morally wrong in this scenario as they must have the choice of something else

the world operates mechanistically ?

• every event seems to be the inevitable result of previous causes

• this is known as causal determinism

why is causal determinism a problem for Kant?

• freedom is the ability to have done otherwise, if you had no other option then you were not free

• if causal determinism is true then everything that happens is a result of a pre-existing series of cause and effect

• we are also part of this world and thus we are also subject to the chain of cause and effect, so we wouldn’t have free will

transcendental idealism

• Kant argues that there is a physical reality outside our mind mind however a large part of reality exists solely in the mind

• indirect realism argues the senses are mind dependent - Kant argues space and time are also function of the human mind

Kants views on space and time ?

• argues they are intuitions of the human mind, a medium through which we perceive the world

• argues space and time are a lenses through which we regulate and order raw information coming from objects

• space and time are synthetic a priori intuitions

• space and time are concepts that exist in us prior to our experience of the world

Kants world of appearances

• Kant believes what we perceive about the external world are not things that actually exist

• but only their appearances created in our minds through the five senses

• he calls this the phenomenal world

• there world of the appearance has the appearance of cause and effect, this is not the way the external reality actually is

• its only our minds filtering the external reality

how does Kant’s transcendental idealism solve the issue causal determinism

• the noumenal world isn’t operating in lines with the cause and effect, we also fit into this world (noumenal self)

• so we are free to make decisions and so can act morally

the nominal world

• there is an external reality that is feeding you the information that we’re perceiving

• these objects do physically exist but our intuitions are ordering + filtering them so we understand , even though we can’t perceive them directly they do exist

• Kant calls this world of things as they are in themselves the noumenal world

What is Kant’s view on human nature?

• our moral awareness demonstrates to us that we are not entirely subject to our desires instincts and appetites which come from the phenomenal world

• what our ability to be moral shows is that we are dignified beyond the world of appearances and desires

• morality is found in the noumenal self, charecterised by reason and freedom

• In Kant’s view we are fundamentally rational and autonomous beings, thus allowing us to act morally

Kants concept of duty

• as humans when we are doing the right things we are able to withstand the most sever pressures such as bribes or physical threats, due to this our reason commands respect in its power to resist our worldly desires

Acting morally for Kant

• To Kant, to act morally is to act exclusively out of a feeling of respect for our better, intelligible, rational and autonomous self

• Acting in this way Kant refers to duty, as acting from a sense of duty means acting from a feeling of respect for our better halves, what we truly are: rational and autonomous beings

Kants view on the goodwill

• everything (e.g happiness, courage, wealth, intelligence, power and health) is only good if its put to good use, they are not good without certain qualifications

• everything can be bad in the wrong hands

• Kant refers to our ability to make choices as the will, our wills are rational this separates us from animals who only act on their desires and instincts

• For Kant the only thing unconditionally good in and of itself is good will (solely motivated by duty)

• the only actions that have moral worth are those carried out for the sake of duty

Kants shopkeeper example?

• Q: should a shopkeeper keep short change or give it back to the costumer

• SK A: honest and gives the costumer the correct change as its good for business and worries that if they give the wrong change they might loose costumers or impact reputation (in accordance with duty)

• SK B: honest + gives correct change because they have a moral obligation to (for the sake of duty)

• Kant argues that B is the only one committing a morally correct action

• though shopkeeper A is not doing a wrong action is has no moral worth

• Kant argues its our duty often in opposition to our desires which gives actions moral worth

Reason vs desire

• Kant views humans as imperfect beings

• our reason reveals the dictate of moral law but this is challenged by our desires and appetites which can lead to us not acting in the morally correct way —> we are still ultimately animals driven by our instincts and desires, but our ability to reason uniquely give human autonomy

• If we were perfectly rational we would always do the right thing, if we always acted on our desires we would often to the wrong thing

• Kant argues that this tensions between reason and desire which makes us ‘imperfectly moral’

Kants view on the role of reason

• for Kant the role of reason is as a systemiser, it organises the sense-received empirical information in a way that we can understand

• we use a priori principles and concepts to make information intelligible to us

reason as the source of law

• the nature of reason is itself universal, demonstrated through logic, maths and science

• systems such as numbers and causality require fixed rules or principles which gives them their structure, they work according to universal laws

• For Kant laws don’t exist in the world itself, rather as a product of our reason

• we are the law makers, our mind and reason give our experience of the world its structure

moral law

• moral law is, like any other law, a system of universal principles in this case what makes something right

• For Kant the source of this law is not God, civil laws or shaped by society —> instead the source is us, our human nature, our capacity to be moral allows us to follow these universal laws

• to obey moral law is nothing other than to act on our reason, that which makes us free and autonomous beings (so our human nature)

practical reason

• Kant regards ‘speculative’ or ‘pure’ reason is inherently limited, as we can’t gain knowledge of anything beyond the senses

• however, due to reasons creative, organisational power we can use it in a different manner: to determine a system of universal moral principles i.e ‘if I am acting according to reason, what ought I to do?’ (practical reason)

• he offers a principle/ test we can use to decide whether an action is rational or not called the categorical imperative

a categorical imperative

• imperative is a command and categorical means obligatory/necessary/mandatory

• a command that must be followed

• Kant considers the moral law to be a system of categorical imperative, ones that a rational person must follow

a hypothetical imperative?

• conditional command that you must follow to achieve a certain goal

• goal driven and depend on individual desires; thus for Kant not moral imperatives

maxin

• Kants term for a subjective moral principle that guides an individual’s actions, such as ‘I will lie when I need to get out of a difficult situation’

formulation of the categorical imperative: 1. the universal laws formulation

• “ act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law”

• only do it if your happy that every single person ever could do it

formulation of the categorical imperative: 2. the humanity formulation

• “ act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means”

• out of respect for others humanity, not just use people for own gain

formulation of the categorical imperative: 3. the kingdom of ends formulation

• “act as if you were, through your maxims, a law making member of a kingdom of ends”

• you should think of your action as a rule for everyone, actions of other rational people should be treated as rules of my own

contradiction in conception

we cannot logically conceive of a world in which it was a law

contradiction in will

we can logically conceive of such a world, but would not rationally will such a world

• when a maxim fails when a rational agent could not consistently will it without contradicting their own goals

Failing of universal law formulation: process of contradiction in conception

• e.g “I will lie to avoid detention”

• lying is the underlying maxim

• universalise this maxim: everyone should always lie

• lying= not telling the truth

• if everyone is lying then we have no truth, concept of lying breaks down (logical contradiction)

• determine the duty: we have a perfect duty not to do this maxim (always wrong)

Failing of universal law formulation: process of contradiction in will

• e.g wealthy man not helping those in need even though he could

• underlying maxim: not helping others in need

• universalise the maxim: no one should help others in need, this doesn’t produce a logical contradiction so doesn’t fail under contradiction in conception

• however, a rational agent would not want this because one must rely on help from others at some point

• so to will you will never receive help contradicts your own needs

• thus you have an imperfect duty to help others

what are perfect duties?

• strict and specific moral commands that one must follow at all times

• often negative, e.g I must not lie

• if we universalise this then lying becomes self defeating

• every rational being is obligated to fulfil these duties

what are imperfect duties?

• obligations but allows for freedom in how we fulfil them

• Kant specific two imperfect duties: duty to self improvement + duty to aid others

• these reflect the nature of human existence itself

• we all have and will need help at some point so should help others

• self improvement arises from the need for experts to help others

The humanity formulation examples

scenario 1: go to a shop and are served by a cashier

• you are using the cashier to buy your item

• cashier is using you to do their job and earn a salary

• you are acknowledging each others ends through this interaction

• while you are using each other as means you are not using each other as only means, treating each other as autonomous goal driven beings

scenario 2:

• Onara O’Neills example: giving a promise that you know you are going to break

• breaking the promise doesn’t respect the other persons end, using them only as a means

• arguably for Kant even having the intention not to keep the promise is bad, whether or not you actually break it, this is something that a utilitarian would struggle to deal with as they argue that intentions have no matter but this feels intrinsically wrong

the kingdom of ends formulation explanation

• everyone treats everyone else as an ends

• ‘hypothetical’ state where everyone is acting on universalised maxims

• treating everyone with dignity + respect as rational and autonomous beings

• Kant argues we should act as if this community did exist, serves as a moral framework for judgment

• while other people and events means our actions don’t always have good results, our reason and morality means we are still required to act as if we are legislators of this ideal community

• although we don’t live in this world we must act like we do