Kant's Deontology

What did Kant believe you should act on?

Good will/ motive, the only thing that matters is your motive

Where does Kant place the worth of an action

Motivation and intention- not the consequences

How do we attain fereedom

When we use reason to determine our duty and act upon it

Hypothetical imperatives

Tells you what you should do if you want to reach a certain end

e.g you should eat well if you want to stay healthy- if it were the case that you did not want to stay healthy the imperative would not apply

Categorical imperatives

What to do in all situations regardless of what we want

e.g morality- it tells us our duty regardless of our interests or happiness

What does the example of the honest shopkeeper show

One shopkeeper keeps his prices fair as he does not want to damage his good reputation- this is not a moral act and he is acting in accordance with duty

Another shopkeeper is motivated by good will when keeping his prices fair- this is a moral act and he is acting out ofduty

Acting out of duty

Motivated by good will- morally good

Acting in accordance with duty

Motivated by your desires e.g to keep your customers-not morally good

The Categorical Imperative- first formulation

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law

Applying the first categorical imperative

Does it result in a contradiction in conception?

Meaning that it is self-contradictory to will that everyone performs the act

e.g f you stole something you could not afford then the concept of ‘ownership’ would disappear

BUT stealing requires the concept of ownership (you can’t steal what doesn’t belong to anyone)

So it is a logical contradiction to steal

Applying the first categorical imperative

Does it result in a contradiction in will?

For example a maxim may not be self-contradictory, but we cannot rationally will it

e.g the maxim ‘help those in need’

If nobody helped anyone else in need this is not self-contradictory but we would not rationally will it

The Categorical Imperative- second formulation

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

Perfect duties

Perfect duties hold in all situations, for all people, in their actions with all others

If the maxim is self-contradictory when willed for all, then the duty is perfect

Imperfect duties

Imperfect duties are selective and can’t be fulfilled all of the time

How does Kant define humans

Imperfect, rational beings

Issues with Kant’s Deontology

\-Clashing/ competing duties

\-Not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral

\-The view that consequences of actions determine their moral value

\-Kant ignores the value of certain motives

\-Morality as a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical imperatives

Clashing/ competing duties

Kant argues that moral duties are absolute , they are categorical and permit of no exceptions. It is our moral duty not to lie yet also to protect others.

If a German soldier knocks at the door demanding to know where a Jew is concealed- is it our duty to tell the truth or save a life?

Kant’s theory insists on the absoluteness of moral rules, and in such a case two absolutes conflict.

Clashing/ competing duties reply

Kant didn’t reply however…

Perhaps it is our duty never to lie unless you have to save a life

…Or most duties are not absolute e.g less important ones (lying) can give way to more important ones (saving a life)

Not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral

In Kantian ethics any action can be justified as long as we phrase the maxim cleverly.

e.g I could claim my maxims to steal gifts from large shops if there are seven letters in my name.

The case would apply so rarely that there would be no general breakdown in the concept of private property, so it would be perfectly possible for this law to apply to everyone

Not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral reply

Kant replies that his theory is concerned with an actual maxim, rather than a made-up one. It is not actually a part of my choice that my name has seven letters. If I am honest with myself I have to admit that it is a question of taking what I want when I cannot afford. For Kant’s test to work we must be honest with ourselves about what our maxims are

The view that consequences of actions determine their moral value

What makes a good will is that it wills good ends so surely assassinating a mass murderer is an act that is carried out for the right intention leading to a good consequence. The utilitarian would argue that a good will is good because it wills certain ends

The view that consequences of actions determine their moral value reply

Kant would reply that there are no ends that are good without qualification. Even the end of preventing death may not be good, if the motivation is not purely duty (e.g self-interest reasons).

Means-end reasoning is only appropriate for hypothetical imperatives and morality is not hypothetical. It is a categorical imperative to do our duty

Kant ignores the value of certain motives e.g love, friendship, kindness

Acting from ‘good will’ may not always be the only praiseworthy motive, sometimes we would rather someone acted from love rather than duty.

e.g if two parents spent time with their child- one out of duty and another out of love it takes away what makes us human, we begin to act like robots

Kant ignores the value of certain motives e.g love, friendship, kindness reply

Kant replies the only motive that has moral worth is one’s duty. If we act because we love someone, or made a commitment- this does not have moral worth.

Morality as a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical imperatives

Philippa Foot rejected Kant’s claim that morality is categorical. She saw no basis for the claim that we always have a reason to obey moral laws. Foot called Kant a psychological hedonist, someone who thinks we are naturally hardwired to seek pleasure, which caused him to see us as people who would put our own pleasure first and so need reason to give us categorical rules to override our desires