Kant's Deontological Ethics

What is deontology?

An action is right or wrong based on whether it follows certain rules or duties not based on the outcome.

What is good will according to Kant?

The only thing that is good without any qualifications. It means acting for the sake of duty. A good will is not good because of what it achieves but is good in itself. It is a will that acts purely out of duty from respect for the moral law.

Give an example of an action with no moral worth according to Kant.

Saving someone's life because you expect to be financially rewarded. This has no moral worth as you're acting for selfish reasons not for the sake of duty.

Give an example of an action with moral worth according to Kant.

If you recognise your duty to save someone's life and act because of this duty then that choice has moral worth regardless of whether it achieves the desired outcome.

What does Kant say about talents and wealth?

Possessing talents/courage/wealth can be good but only if guided by a good will. Otherwise they can be used for bad purposes. Happiness is also not unconditionally good; it can be undeserved.

What is a hypothetical imperative?

A command that applies conditionally depending on your desires or goals. It takes the form "If you want X do Y." E.g. "If you want to pass your exam study hard." These are not moral commands.

What is a categorical imperative?

A command that applies unconditionally regardless of your desires or goals. It is a universal moral law that applies to all rational beings simply because they are rational. It takes the form "Do Y." E.g. "Do not lie." Moral duties are categorical imperatives.

What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

What is a maxim?

A subjective principle of volition (your intention or rule for acting in a specific situation). Basically acts as rules of law.

How do you test if a maxim is moral?

Ask if it can be universalised. Could everyone act on this maxim all the time? If universalising the maxim leads to a contradiction then acting on that maxim is immoral.

What is a contradiction in conception?

The maxim when universalised becomes self

What is Kant's example of a contradiction in conception?

The maxim "it's okay to steal." If stealing was always okay you could take whatever you wanted. But then ownership wouldn't exist because everyone would have as much right to an object as the owner. But if ownership doesn't exist stealing wouldn't be possible. So if it's always okay to steal then it isn't even possible to steal.

What is a contradiction in will?

The maxim when universalised is not something a rational agent could will to happen even if it's conceivable. This indicates an imperfect duty (a duty you must sometimes follow but there is latitude in how or when).

What is Kant's example of a contradiction in will?

The maxim "don't help others in need." You could conceive of a world where no one helps but you couldn't rationally will this because you might need help yourself one day. We can't rationally will our goals without also willing the means to achieve that goal and help from others may be the only possible means.

What is a perfect duty?

A duty you must always follow with no exceptions. Results from a contradiction in conception.

What is an imperfect duty?

A duty you must sometimes follow but there is some latitude in how or when. Results from a contradiction in will.

What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative (humanity formula)?

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end."

What does treating someone as a means to an end mean?

Using them. E.g. if you pretend to love someone and marry them to take their money you are treating them as a means to make money which is wrong.

What does treating someone as an end in themselves mean?

Respecting their rationality and autonomy and allowing them to make their own choices. Rational beings have intrinsic worth (dignity) because they are autonomous and capable of moral reasoning.

Can you ever treat someone as a means according to Kant?

Yes it's permissible to treat someone as a means (e.g. a shopkeeper is a means to getting groceries) but not merely as a means. You must also respect them as an end in themselves (e.g. paying the shopkeeper not stealing).

What is the clashing and competing duties objection?

Kant argues it's never acceptable to violate duties but this raises the question of what to do in conflict of duties. E.g. duty to never lie vs duty to keep a promise when the only way to keep the promise is by lying. Or duty to protect your country vs duty to care for sick mother.

What is Kant's response to clashing duties?

A true conflict of duties is impossible. Moral duties are objective and rational so it is inconceivable they could conflict. If there appears to be a conflict we made a mistake in formulating them. You can't rationally will a maxim to become universal law if it conflicts with another law you rationally will because that would be contradictory.

What is Kant's response to the promise vs lying conflict?

If someone makes a promise they create an obligation for themselves. But the grounding of an obligation someone creates is weaker than the grounding of moral duty which is categorical. So the moral duty never to lie overrules the obligation to keep a promise.

What is the "not all universalisable maxims are moral" objection?

Some maxims that pass the universalisation test don't seem morally required (e.g. "I will always eat toast for breakfast"). Some maxims that seem intuitively permissible might fail the test depending on how they are formulated. The specific wording of the maxim is crucial and can be manipulated.

Give an example of a permissible maxim that might fail universalisation.

"I will only borrow money when I am certain I can repay it." If universalised perhaps no one would lend money making the maxim self

What is the "consequences matter" objection?

This is a direct conflict with consequentialist theories like Utilitarianism. Critics argue that consequences do matter morally and a theory that ignores them entirely is incomplete or flawed (e.g. the clashing duties problem highlights this).

What is the "ignores value of certain motives" objection?

Kant argues acting for the sake of duty is the only thing with moral value. But if you visit an ill friend because you genuinely care this has no moral value (only motivation by duty has value). If you had no concern but went purely from duty this would have moral value. This seems backwards as it's better to care genuinely.

What is the Father A vs Father B example?

Father A doesn't love his children but recognises duty to spend time with them and acts on that duty. Father B loves his children and enjoys spending time with them regardless of duty. According to Kant Father A is morally noble but Father B is not.

What is Kant's response to the "ignores motives" objection?

Make a distinction between acting out of duty and acting in accordance with duty. There is nothing wrong with being motivated by love but we shouldn't choose how to act because of them. We should always act out of duty but sometimes what we want to do anyway is in accordance with our duty.

What is acting in accordance with duty?

Doing the right thing but for a motive other than duty (e.g. self

What is acting out of duty?

Doing the right thing because it is your duty from respect for the moral law. Only actions done out of duty have true moral worth for Kant.

What is the shopkeeper example of acting in/out of duty?

If the shopkeeper doesn't overcharge because it's good for business (self

What is Philippa Foot's objection about hypothetical imperatives?

Foot argues moral 'oughts' are not fundamentally different from other 'oughts' that depend on our desires or goals (hypothetical imperatives). Moral rules gain authority from social conventions or our own commitments rather than being universally binding commands of reason independent of our ends.

How does Foot compare moral rules?

She compares moral rules to rules of etiquette or club rules. They apply to you if you are part of that social practice or have that goal but not unconditionally.