Kantian deontology

DEONTOLOGY

• approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to rules, described as duty/obligation

• it is the motive (agent-centred) not the consequence that is key in determining/assigning moral worth

• claims actions are right/wrong in themselves

A "GOOD WILL"

• represents the only pure good and is the source of all moral value, good "without qualification"

• we pursue other ends we think of as "good" (happiness) but Kant argues that it's possible to gain happiness from torture

• no "end" we pursue can be morally good in itself, happiness, intelligence, money, can only be considered good if they're accompanied by/result from a good will

• a "good will" is the source of good, one which acts for the sake of duty- to act in accordance with the moral law, it is not being motivated by a particular end/goal in willing the action

IS A GOOD WILL ALWAYS GOOD?

• if someone well meaning tries to help everyone but is very clumsy and keeps accidentally hurting people and braking things as he helps others cross the road/carries their bags, after a while we may begin to question whether their undeniably good will is actually a positive thing

HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE

tells you what you ought, rationally to do, assuming a certain desire/goal

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

tells you what you ought to do, irrespective of your desires

• for Kant, the moral law should apply to everyone, regardless of their particular motives

• Kant believes the imperatives that are central to morality are ones that are unconditional and absolute

CLASHING/CONFLICTING DUTIES

• duties contradict one another- axeman asking where your friend is so he can kill him- perfect duty to tell the truth and an imperfect duty to care for others

• perfect duties have no exceptions whereas imperfect can

• Kant's moral system involves not acting on rules that can't be consistently universalised/inconsistent rules give rise to duties, so two moral duties can't be rationally inconsistent

• FOR KANT duties can't clash, but we can be wrong about our grounds of obligation, if you make a promise to lie for a friend there's seemingly two conflicting duties, I should keep my promises and I should never lie, but there's no moral duty to keep a promise to lie, as we can't rationally will a maxim where we keep promises to lie

COMPETING IMPERFECT DUTIES

• less clear, imperfect duties to develop our talents/help others

• leaves a vague moral duty- doesn't have to be completed all the time

• no indication of when to perform/prioritise imperfect duties, we need to examine our reasons- our grounds for obligation and see which are stronger

• Kant doesn't offer much guidance and this approach is difficult to follow, but it could be argued that complexity is imply part of the world we live in

ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUTY/OUT OF DUTY

• accordance = doing what is right, whatever one's motive

• example of a shopkeeper who doesn't overcharge customers as he desires a good reputation- motive other than to act following a sense of duty for the moral law- no moral worth/value

• you can be motivated by a sense of duty and another goal (enjoyment) whereby duty and interest collide, but as long as you're motivated by a sense of duty, the act is good

IMPERATIVES AND REASON

• Kant believed as rational beings if we genuinely have the desire, and the imperative is a sound one, then we are rationally committed to follow it

• hypothetical imperative: "if you want to lose weight, you should exercise more"

• Kant believed if you genuinely want to lose weight, then your reason commits you to exercise more (overlooks weakness of the will)

• categorical imperatives: reason reveals that there are certain ways we should act and as rational beings we have a duty to act on these imperatives

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE- FIRST FORMULATION (UNIVERSAL LAW)

• moral imperatives = categorical ones

• stripped of desires and "ends" the categorical imperative can only be based on the idea of rationality

• it's the imperative that one should only act on principles that can be universalised

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

UNIVERSAL LAW FORMULATION P2

• FALSE PROMISES- PERFECT DUTY TO AVOID

contradiction in conception- the situation where a maxim cannot be consistently universalised, as a situation where everyone acted on it is impossible (concept of promises would cease to exist)

• HELPING OTHERS- IMPERFECT DUTY

  contradiction in will- undermines our own will, everyone has been in a situation where they were vulnerable and needed help from others, so we wouldn't want to will a world where this was denied to us. this maxim is conceivable as a universal law but cannot be consistently willed

LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSALISABLE/NON MAXIMS AND MORALITY IS UNCLEAR) NOT ALL NON-UNIVERSALISABLE MAXIMS ARE IMMORAL (AND NOT ALL UNIVERSALISABLE MAXIMS ARE MORAL)

• not all universalisable maxims are moral- many trivial acts (I will chew 23 times before eating to aid digestion) with no moral relevance can be universalised

• it's those actions we can't universalised that create moral duties according to Kant's ethics

• only tells us what we cannot do, but this allows people to pursue their own projects and ends

• cannot universalise maxims that include relative positions- when sitting an exam, I will come in the top 50%, but a world where this is a universal law is impossible to conceive (contradiction in conception), we cannot all be in the top 50%, defeats the concept and creates a perfect duty to not come in the top 50% (no moral relevance)

LINK BETWEEN UNIVERSALISABLE/NON MAXIMS AND MORALITY IS UNCLEAR) CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE LEADS TO COUNTER-INTUITIVE OUTCOMES

• categorical imperative appears to create trivial duties

• the rule: I will collect sweets on halloween, but not provide any to save money

• I can conceive of a world where this is a rule, but I cannot rationally will it, as following this would destroy the institution of trick or treat that the maxim relies on but this regards an issue of cultural practice, not morality

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE) HUMANITY FORMULATION

• Kant argued that the ability to create and follow your own rules gives humans rationality and autonomy

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

• requires us to respect others' ability to make rational choices, and to help them achieve their ends

• takes autonomy as it's central premise, and expresses the idea that it's always wrong to treat a person in a way that involves them in an action which they do not, in principle, have a chance to consent to (deceiving someone removes their autonomy)

HUMANITY FORMULATION P2

IMPERFECT DUTY- to help others (according to universal law formulation) refusing to help others doesn't breach the humanity formulation directly (doesn't override autonomy) but it isn't in harmony with the formulation, which requires us to help develop rationality and autonomy in ourselves and others

• places a great emphasis on respecting autonomy (key to human dignity) Kant's ethics were influential in developing the modern conception of human rights (cannot be treated as a means to an end without consent)

CONSEQUENTIALIST?

• Kantian ethics is sometimes criticised for having consequentialist tendencies

• to work out whether a maxim can be consistently willed relies on thinking through the consequences of having it as a moral law

• but the moral value actually lies in the consistency of the will, and not in whether the world would be good/bad if the maxim were universalised

MORAL VALUE OF CONSEQUENCES

• Kantian ethics places all moral worth of an action on its motives

• AXEMAN- for Kant, it would be wrong to lie as it cannot be universalised, but telling the truth will have bad consequences and this is what according to common sense makes it wrong

• on this occasion, the moral value of the act seems to reside in the consequence rather than motive

• Kant claims we all need to focus on our own sphere of control, and then we'd all have freedom and autonomy

• Kantian ethics seems to be more concerned with being rationally consistent in our actions than whether a friend is killed

FOOT- MORALITY IS A SYSTEM OF HYPOTHETICAL, NOT CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES

• moral systems cannot ignore desires- a desire to help others, as Kant's moral law doesn't provide sufficient reason to follow it

• only end-based, hypothetical imperatives give sufficient reason to act

• Kant says to be irrational = to be immoral, but Foot says to be irrational is only to do something which is self-defeating (may be irrational not to steal if you could save your family from starvation)

• Foot claims there are non-moral categorical imperatives (etiquette and rules of a gentleman's club aren't hypothetical) detached entirely from morality

FOOT- THERE'S NO SPECIAL STATUS THAT A MORAL IMPERATIVE HAS OVER OTHER COMMANDS

• CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES AREN'T UNIQUELY MORAL

• it only "feels" like moral commands are more important than other commands as we are raised/conditioned in a society which encourages moral behaviour and punishes immorality- we cannot escape morality