Kantian ethics

Who asserted Kantian Ethics? When did they do so and in what work?

Immanuel Kant in 18th century...'Critique of Practical Reason

Is the theory deontological or teleological?

Deontological as it is duty-based. Kant said "to do good to others, where one can, is a duty." Focused on rightness or wrongness of an action in itself

What does Kant think of the moral law?

It is objective, beyond personal opinion and is knowable through reason. Demands to be obeyed in own right - not because it will lead to happinesss, but because good in itlfe

What is good will? Give example.

Making decisions according to the moral law and out of it. A shop keeper who is honest to save his reputation acts in accordance with good will, but not out of it. If he did so without a hypothetical imperative, then his action would be of moral worth.

What is the Hypothetical Imperative?

An action focused on a person's own ends; if I want X i should do Y

What is the issue with the Hypothetical Imperative?

It can result in a good action (boy and the baker) but can never be morally good as it's done out of selfish desires

what was the concern of intellectuals like Kant during the European enlightenment period

• the problem of religious conflict.

• Kant thought the issue was basing morality on differing faiths which can’t come to agreement.

what was kants solution to the problem of religious conflict

• His solution was to base morality on reason, which allows the potential for agreement.

• This would create a harmonious society.

• Kant was impressed at the way scientists like Newton had revolutionised their field through grounding inquiry on reason. Kant wanted to achieve the same for morality.

• As the laws of maths and physics show, the laws discovered by reason are universal.

• So, morality based on reason will involve universal moral laws which are ‘categorical’, meaning apply in all cases.

what is the categorical imperative

• A categorical imperative states what we should do in all cases.

what is the hypotehtical imperative

• A hypothetical imperative states what we should do in order to achieve certain goals.  E.g., ‘you should do X if you want Y’. They are therefore dependent on our personal goals/desires/wants. 

-why does kant reject the hypothetical imperative

• Universal laws apply in all cases so much be categorical. They can’t be ‘hypothetical’, meaning conditional on our personal feelings, consequences or the particularities of a moral situation. So, Kant rejects hypothetical imperatives as not genuine morality.

• Only categorical imperatives are valid.  They are of the form ‘you should do X’. 

-why did kant think there was only 1 categorical imperative that had 3 formulations?

• Kant thought there was only one categorical imperative, but it comes in 3 formulations.

• A universal moral law would be something everyone could follow. So, a good test of whether an action accords with the moral law is to check whether everyone could do it. This is the first formulation of the CA – only do an action if it is universalizable – if it is possible for everyone to do it.

• E.g. It’s not actually possible for everyone to steal, since if everyone stole there’d be no property and then no one could steal.

• E.g. It’s not possible for everyone to lie, since if everyone lied there’s be no honesty/trust, and then no one could lie.

• If it’s not possible for everyone to do an action, then that action can’t be part of the universal moral law since that must apply to everyone in all situations. 

• The second formulation – always treat persons, never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end.

• Always treat people as if they have their own goals in life.

• The third formulation – just act as if you were part of a society where everyone was following Kant’s ethics.

-what is kants views about moral motovation?

• Kant has strict views about moral motivation. A “good will” is one which has the right moral motivation. We must do our duty out of a sense of duty – not because of our own personal feelings or desires. E.g. we should give to charity because it’s our duty – not because we feel sympathy.

what are the 3 postulates

• Kant thinks ethics can’t make sense without free will, because then there would be no such thing as moral responsibility. It is what separates us from animals and explains why humans can be morally bad, but animals cannot.

• Kant noted that in life, sometimes bad people go unpunished and good people go unrewarded. 

• He argued ethics cannot make sense unless we postulate the existence of an afterlife where virtuous people are rewarded and unvirtuous punished. Reward in the afterlife is the ‘summum bonum’.

• Our reason tells us there is an objective ethics which we must follow. Yet, for it to make sense, we must postulate:

• Free will. 

• Immortality of the soul (afterlife)

• God

• Kant didn’t think we could prove these things, but he said we have to assume they exist in order for the ethics we know to be valid to make sense. This is what is meant by a ‘postulate’.

• for us to be morally responsible and deserving of punishment/reward.

• criticisms of kantian ethics - its disconnected

• Sartre claimed duties can clash.

• A soldier could either go to war to defend their country, or they could stay home and look after their sick parent.

• Both actions are universalizable and neither treats persons as mere means, therefore both actions are their duty according to Kant’s ethics.

• Yet, they cannot do both.

• Prima facie duties clashing appears like a practicality issue, showing Kantian ethics to be overly abstract and disconnected from the reality of moral decision-making. Closer analysis shows it to present a deeper problem than that.

• We must be capable of doing an action for it to be our duty. Kant himself said ‘ought implies can’.

• If maxims clash and one cannot be followed, then it can’t be our duty. 

• So, if those duties were obtained through Kant’s formula of the categorical imperative, then Kant’s ethical theory cannot tell us our duty.

• This suggests Kantian ethics fails in its aim as a normative theory, to identify what is morally right and guide action accordingly.

counter criticism to kants duties being ‘disconnected’

• Kant responds that some duties are ‘perfect’, where there is only one means of fulfilling it, e.g. always telling the truth.

• Cases like the soldier that appear to clash involve ‘imperfect duties’, where there are multiple ways to fulfil them.

• E.g. the soldier could help his country by staying home and making bombs

• Or, they could pay someone else to look after their sick parent.

• So Kant’s response is that imperfect duties don’t clash because you can find a way to fulfil both.

evaluation to to kants duties being ‘disconnected’

• However, Kant’s defence fails because there are situations where we can’t fulfil both imperfect duties. 

• E.g. What if the soldier had no way to get anyone else to look after their sick parent – and what if their country didn’t need anyone else to stay home to make bombs..? Then the duties do clash.

• So, Kantian ethics cannot tell us our duty and thus fails in its primary objective.

criticism - kant ignores the moral value of emotions

• Michael Stocker asks us to imagine a friend visiting you while you are in hospital saying they only came because it was their duty.

• B. Williams argues such cases show how Kantian morality is unnatural and requires “one thought too many”. When doing good, a virtuous person need not be thinking about moral laws. They simply do good out of habit.

• Stocker argues that if we act out of duty, it’s not possible to also act out of virtuous habits like friendliness or love. These are vital to our humanity and the means by which we ethically relate to others, yet Kant excludes them.

counter criticism to kant ignores the moral value of emotions

• A strength of Kant’s approach is that emotions are transient and fickle. Kant uses this to argue emotions are too unreliable for ethical motivation. Reason’s ability to produce respect for the moral law is more stable.

• For Kant, acting on emotion isn’t morally wrong, it just can’t be morally good. His argument is that when we act on emotion, our action depends on the way we feel. If we help others because we feel like it, then we aren’t helping others because it is good. 

• Barbara Herman interprets Kant’s issue as that emotions can only lead to a right action by luck.

• Kant concludes we aren’t really acting morally unless we act out of duty.

evaluation to kant ignores the moral value of emotions

• However, Kant’s defence is unsuccessful.

• Emotions can be unreliable, but Aristotle argued we can develop good emotional & behavioural habits. Aristotle called this cultivating virtue. We can rationally control of our emotions, and then they can be relied on to motivate us in moral situations.

• E.g., cultivating the virtue of friendliness and acting out of love when visiting a friend in hospital. Emotion can be the reliable result of the rational cultivation of virtue and thus have moral value. So, Kant’s views on emotion & moral motivation are unconvincing.

criticism - kantian ethics violates our moral instiutions

• Kantian ethics violates our moral intuitions because of the terrible consequences to telling the truth in some situations.

• Benjamin Constant created the murderer at the door scenario. If a murderer asked us where their victim was, and we knew, Constant argued we should lie. Telling the truth seems situational, not an absolute duty.

• To use a more modern example, if a Nazi asked whether we were hiding Jews and we were, it seems Kant is committed to the view that it’s wrong to lie. In that situation even if we said nothing we would reveal the truth, lying is the only hope.

• If successful, this issue would show that Kant’s deontological approach fails and consequentialism seems stronger. Morality can’t reduce to acting on a universal duty regardless of the situation. 

• So, if Kant is indeed wrong to leave out consequences, that would show that Kantian ethics is false.

counter criticism - kantian ethics violates our moral instiutions

• Kant defends himself by presenting the issue of calculation as a strength of his deontological approach. 

• Kant illustrates that if we lied about where the victim was, yet unknown to us the victim had actually moved there, then we would be responsible for their death.

• We cannot control consequences, so we cannot be responsible for them. So, they cannot be relevant to our moral decision-making.

evaluation to kantian ethics violates our moral instiutions

• However, Kant’s logic is flawed. He claims we cannot completely control consequences and thus cannot be responsible for them. 

• The truth seems to be, however, that we can control consequences to some degree. It seems to follow that we are responsible for them to that degree.

• Consequentialism doesn’t claim we can completely control the consequences, just that we should consider them when acting.

• So, although we can’t perfectly predict or control what the murderer will do, we have what Singer calls a ‘reasonable expectation’ about the consequences and so it is reasonable to act with them in mind and lie.

• Kant’s argument against consequentialism fails to address this.