Assess the view that Kantian ethics does not help with moral decision making

INTRO

Groundworks of the metaphysics of morals provide a deontological, absolutist approach on moral decisions using reason. Good will is the only intrinsic good, combined with our reason creates our duty.
Categorical Imperative - good regardless of consequence, use the 3 postulations in decision-making

• Universalisation - maxim can be applied to the whole world

• Ends within themselves - treat people with intrinsic worth

• Kingdom of ends - society of rationale with everyone respecting eachothers dignity

EVALUATE - Kantian ethics restricts moral thinking in its absolutist approach - and by excluding emotional thinking, outlies and becomes too dependant upon reasoning

Duty and the Good will

Good will is the only intrinsic good (intention), reason + good will → action
Hypothetical imperative bad - if then relies on an emotional gain + advantage, “Action of itself objectively necessary, without any regard to an end.”
ie. butcher who lowers price for fairness VS butcher who lowers price for greed
Have to EARN happiness

STRENGTHS of Duty and the Good will

Duty is a good maxim as acting on emotions is too subjective / may cloud judgement
ie. a mother who protects her murderer’s son from the cops and then he kills again
Barbara Herman - emotions only lead to a right action via luck

WEAKNESS of Duty and the Good will

Aristotle argues fallible reasoning (emotions) are vital to our moral compass and moral decision making
Sartre’s illustration of a soldier trying to go to war/take care of sick parents
Duty when there’s delineating duties - no guidance.
Kant tries to argue you can help war at home ie. making bombs, but not flexible/applicable to all cases of delineating duties

Kant vs consequentialism

Kant implies we must do things in respite of consequences
Axe murderer example - aren’t morally culpable, but if we lie about location and they are subsequently found because of that then we are, value of the action comes from the action itself

STRENGTHS OF Kant vs consequentialism

Consequences hard to predict - apply reason and good will you can never be morally culpable for your actions. Doesn’t run the risk of calculating when situations end, avoids dilemma:
Say you gave someone pain-relief, which temporarily stops their pain and suffering, but subsequently they end up having a stroke because of this medication

WEAKNESS of Kant vs consequentialism

To some degree, we can predict and regulate situations - if we tell a murderer where someone is hiding, its clear that they will de
HEGEL → we exist in a complex web of social influence, mean we are closely connected to others and are liable to eachothers actions
EG. you would feel guilt if you didnt speed whilst driving an ambulance and the person subsequently dies

Reliance on reason

Kant believes that there is one fixed human nature, thus using reason we all end up at the categorical imperatives and can also be devise with the three formulas

STRENGTHS OF Reliance on reason

Gives clarity and coherence in moral decisions, formulas helpful for the framework ie. Jenny’s maxim of abortion - universalised, meaning abortions only if the mother is at risk because you cannot universalise dying in childbirth

WEAKNESS of Reliance on reason

Stocker argues that nature of love wills morality, ie. visiting grandma in hospital out of love
Freud - reason is fallible because our moral thinking is a product of subconscious drives by our own upbringing