t what extent cqn Kantian deontologicql ethicsbe defended?

Statement of intent: Kantian ethics can be successfully defended for the following reasons

1. Deontological nature

2. Human dignity

3. Prioritising duty as motivation

Problem 1- because Kant is a deontological ethical theory, they are only concerned with inte lions and acting in accordance with duty. This means that because duty cannot change, the theory seems very (2)

-strict/rigid

-does not address consequences

What does the deontological nature of Kantian ethics allow agents to aviod

It allows agents to avoid problems associated with consequentialist theories

Give an example of a consequentialist approcah

Utilitarianism.

What problems arise from consequetialist approaches that KDE avoids

Our inability to predict and guarantee outcomes.

How does utilitarianism judge actions

based on their outcomes

Therefore a utilitarian knows what is right or wrongs

To know what is right you must estimate whether an action will maximise pleasure without pain (happiness)

Give an example to show how this becomes a problem

A doctor has five patients who need organ transplants, and one healthy person comes for a check-up. A strict act utilitarian might argue that killing the healthy person and using their organs saves five lives, producing greater overall happiness than allowing five to die.

What are the two ways in which kant explores this issue

this feels deeply unjust because it uses an innocent person merely as a means (under the Formula of Humanity)

And

A maxim such as ‘kill one innocent person to save more people’ couldn’t be rationally universalised (under the Formula of Universal Law)

Explain why it would be avoided under the Humanity formula

feels deeply unjust because it uses an innocent person merely as a means.

the healthy person is treated merely as a tool for others’ benefit, violating their intrinsic worth as a rational being.

What does it avoid that utilitarianism doesnt

It avoids tyranny of the majority

So how does it responds to the lack of consequentialist thinking objection

Kant deliberately limits the role of consequences because outcomes are uncertain, manipulable, and can justify atrocities. Ignoring consequences to some extent may preserve justice.

How is it more successfuly defended against utilitarian excess

Without constraints, consequentialism can permit oppression, or sacrificing innocents if enough people gain (tyranny of the majority)

Not relying on consequences preseves human rights and justice

How does this example respond to the objection that KDE is too ridgid

The strictness ensures moral boundaries cannot be crossed for convenience. Some actions, such as murder, coercion, or deception, remain wrong even when socially beneficial.

In Kantian ethics, some actions are intrinsically wrong because they violate rational agency, autonomy, or human dignity. Why is this appealing (4)

First, it protects individual rights. If there are no firm moral boundaries, then innocent people could be harmed whenever it benefits enough others.

Second, it gives morality stability and consistency. If right and wrong change whenever circumstances change, moral rules become unpredictable and risk being meaningless. Kant offers clear principles grounded in reason rather than fluctuating preferences or calculations.

Kant offers clear principles grounded in reason rather than fluctuating preferences or calculations.

Fourth, it prevents rationalisation. Humans are very good at excusing harmful acts by claiming they serve a greater good. Strict boundaries make it harder to justify oppression, corruption, lying, or abuse under noble slogans.

How critics argue that if boundaries are too absolute, morality can become

insensitive to tragic circumstances, such as lying to save a life.

So where does this the appeal lie on whether or not this can be defended

Thus the appeal of strictness depends on whether one prioritises rights or outcomes.