Kant's Deontology

What are the main characteristics of “right action”, from Kant’s perspective?

Right action conforms to moral law and is done out of duty. It requires the right action and the right motivation.

What is “good will”, from Kant’s perspective?

Good will means having the right intention. It means doing the right thing for its own sake, out of duty and respect for duty.

What is the difference between “acting in accordance with duty” and “acting from duty”? Use Kant’s shopkeeper example to explain the difference.

Acting in accordance with duty means doing the right action with the wrong motivation. Acting from duty means doing the right action for the right reason. Example: a shopkeeper who does not scam someone to protect his reputation acts in accordance with duty. A shopkeeper who does not scam someone because it is wrong acts from duty.

According to Kant, does acting from self-interest or natural benevolence inclination have moral worth? Why or why not? Explain your answer.

Acting from self-interest has no moral worth because it is not from duty. Acting from natural benevolence is acting from desire, not duty, so it only has moral worth if the person would still do the action because it is right.

Discuss the difference between the “factual account of moral worth” and “counter-factual account of moral worth”. Use an example to explain the difference.

Factual account: an action has moral worth when it goes against your natural desire. Example: you do not want to help, but help from duty. Counter-factual account: an action from benevolent inclination has moral worth if you would still do it without the desire. Example: you like helping people, but would still help even when you do not feel like it.

What is the difference between “hypothetical imperatives” and “categorical imperatives”? Use some examples to explain your answer.

Hypothetical imperatives depend on desires. Example: if you want to go to New York, you should go north, but if you lose the desire, the “should” disappears. Categorical imperatives do not depend on desire. Example: you must repay your debt regardless of whether you want to.

Are moral imperatives categorical or hypothetical? Why?

Moral imperatives are categorical because they tell you what you ought to do regardless of desires or feelings. Moral duty still applies even when you do not want to do it.

What is Kant’s first formula of the Categorical Imperative? The formula of Universal Law.

Kant’s first formula is the Formula of Universal Law: act only on a maxim that you can will to become a universal law. In simple terms, only act on rules you would be okay with everyone following.

What is “maxim” in Kant’s first formula?

A maxim is a personal rule or principle that guides your action. It is the rule behind what you choose to do.

What are the steps one needs to take following Kant’s first formula in order to determine whether one should act on her primary intention?

First, state your maxim. Second, universalize it by asking what would happen if everyone acted on it. Third, ask whether you could still act on that maxim if it became universal law. If no, do not act on it. If yes, you may act on it.

According to the formula of Universal Law, is it morally permissible for me to borrow money knowing that I cannot repay my debt, that is, to make a false promise? Explain what steps you take to determine what I ought to do.

No. Maxim: borrow money knowing you cannot repay it. Universalized: everyone borrows money knowing they cannot repay it. In that world, nobody would trust promises or lend money. Since the maxim defeats itself, you ought not borrow money through a false promise.

What is the difference between “Perfect Duty” and “Imperfect Duty”, according to Kant? How can one use Kant’s First Formula to distinguish between these two types of duties? Explain it.

Perfect duty involves a contradiction in concept, where the universalized maxim destroys the action itself. Example: false promises destroy promise-making. Imperfect duty involves a contradiction in will, where the maxim can be imagined but cannot be willed in a cooperative world. Example: refusing mutual aid conflicts with wanting help when in distress.

What is “standing intention”? Use an example to explain it.

A standing intention is a background intention that is not your primary intention. Example: you may not want to help people in distress, but you still have a standing intention to be helped when you are in distress.

Some argue that Kant’s first formula rules out too much. Use an example to explain their objection.

The objection says Kant’s test can make harmless actions seem immoral because they fail universalization. Example: skipping class when exhausted. If everyone did it, classes would not function, but skipping one class when exhausted does not seem deeply immoral.

Some argue that Kant’s first formula allows too much. Use an example to explain their objection.

The objection says someone can overspecify a maxim so it only applies to them or one specific case. Example: describing a person in extreme detail in a murder maxim. Since almost nobody else fits the maxim, it may avoid contradiction and wrongly seem permissible.

Some argue that Kant’s first formula is too demanding. Use an example to explain their objection.

The objection says Kant’s test can make morally neutral actions seem like duties. Example: tying your left shoelace first can be universalized, but that does not mean you are morally obligated to do it.

Can the Kantian test, the first formula, rule out murder? Explain your answer.

Yes, if the maxim is stated in good faith. A maxim to kill someone would contradict the standing intention to live in a functioning world. But the “allows too much” objection says someone could overspecify the maxim. Kant would say that is not a good-faith maxim.

What is the difference between Kant’s formula of Universal Law and Rule UT? Explain it.

Kant’s Formula of Universal Law is based on duty and moral law. It asks whether you can will a maxim as universal law. Rule UT is based on consequences and asks which rule generally maximizes total aggregate happiness.

Is suicide morally permissible, according to Kant? Why or why not?

Suicide is not morally permissible. Not committing suicide is a perfect duty to the self. Killing yourself means willing yourself not to will, which is paradoxical and contradictory. The maxim fails the Formula of Universal Law.