Ethics Exam 3: Kant and Deontology

explain the general difference between deontological ethical theories and utilitarianism. Why is the main difference?

-deontological ethical theories and utilitarianism is that deontology says that the ends do not justify the means of an action. Utilitarianism says that the ends justifies the means

-deontologists believe that consequences matter, but they are not all that matters

explain the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative. Are ethical rules hypothetical or categorical imperatives, according to Kant?

-hypothetical imperative: a command or rule that you should follow depending on your goals “If you want y, then do x”

-categorical imperative: unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person’s inclination or purpose. Ex: “Do y”

moral duties or ethical rules are categorical imperatives

Kant thinks that there is one fundamental moral principle. What is it? What are the two formulations of this principle

-The categorical imperative

-Two formulations of this idea: The Principle of Universalizability and The Principle of Humanity

what was the relationship between the Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity

the principle of humanity demands respect and dignity that one treats others as ends and not means and the principle of universalizability focuses on the importance of fairness

What is Kant’s Principle of Universalizability

Kant’s thesis that an act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable. Ex: is it ok for everyone else to do what you have chosen to do

Kant thinks that the Principle of Universalizability can be used to test whether an action is morally permissible/acceptable. Explain how the test works. (In answering this question, make sure you explain what a maxim is.)

a maxim is a general rule or principle that guides one’s actions

-to test the thesis, you can do the following: formulate your maxim (what you intend to do and why), imagine a world where everyone supports it and acts on your maxim in cases where it appears to them

True or false: Whether an action is permissible when we apply Kant’s universalization test (i.e., we apply the Principle of Universalizability) may depend on how you formulate its maxim.

True, the outcome of Kant’s universalization test can depend on how maxim is, formulated because different formulations may emphasize different aspects of the action, leading to varying results when tested for universalizability

How does the answer to question 8 present a problem for Kant’s idea that the Principle of Universalizability can be used to test whether an action is morally permissible?

Multiple possible maxims posses a problem for the Principle of Universalizability theory because not all maxims are universalizable and it depends on which individual picks

“Kant thinks moral rules are absolute.” What sorts of rules does this statement refer to? Provide a few examples. How are these rules related to the Principle of Humanity and the Principle of Universalizability?

These rules relate back to his formulations because they are “universalizable and treating humans as ends”

Examples of moral rules: lying, stealing, facilitating death of the innocent, breaking promises

Related to the previous question: Does Kant think that it is ever okay to tell a lie? Explain your answer and in doing so, be sure to mention the Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity

Kant says you should not lie under any circumstance. He says this because you can never be sure that breaking a rule, like lying, will end up in a good outcome

Why does Kant’s commitment to absolute moral rules cause difficulties?

1.) it is implausible: in certain situations, it may be necessary to break moral rules for the greater good

2.)conflicting rules: rules often conflict themselves and in that case, you shouldn’t break either rule, which may be impossible

How does Kant view the relationship between morality and rationality? Can a rational act be immoral? Explain.

Kant argued that whether we have a certain moral obligation has nothing to do with what we desire all rational beings are bound by moral law. An immoral conduct is irrational

What is Kant’s Principle of Humanity? To whom does it apply?

always treat humanity (including oneself) as an end, and never as a mere means

-treating that person in a way that respects their dignity. it respects value as a rational, autonomous being

What does it mean to treat someone as a mere means? What does it mean to treat someone as “an end in themselves”?

respects value as a rational, autonomous being

-treating someone as a mere means is to use them as a tool, instrument, or mere things. treating as a means to achieving your goal without respecting their value as a rational, autonomous being

What is paternalism? Why does the Principle of Humanity entail that paternalism is wrong?

paternalism is overriding an individual’s autonomy in the name of that person’s own good.

-paternalism is problematic because it constitutes a failure to respect an individual’s autonomy

Compare Kant and utilitarianism with respect to the moral status of non-human animals. In doing this, indicate whether non-human animals count as rational and autonomous according to Kant. Does the Principle of Humanity apply to them? Explain.

according to Kant, we have no direct reason to treat animals with respect because they arent rational or autonomous

utilitarians: reject animals exploitation and reduce animal suffering.

Does Kant think we have any direct duties towards animals? Explain your answer

On Kant’s view we have no direct reason to treat animals with respect. they lack dignity and are not ends in themselves, but mere means. they have price, not intrinsic value.

-While Kant says we do not have any direct duties to animals, he does think that we have indirect duties to them

What is moral luck? Give an example of a case where moral luck bears on how we might judge someone’s action

moral luck is when the morality of an action depends on factors outside the agent’s control

Does Kant believe in moral luck? Do utilitarians believe in moral luck? Explain.

Kant: believed we have control over whether out actions are morally right or wrong therefore there’s no moral luck

Utilitarians: consequences are taken into account when determining morality therefore, there could be moral luck

Does Kant think that the consequences of an action bear on its moral status? Explain.

Kant does not believe that the consequences of an action don’t bear on its moral rightness or wrongness

Kant thinks an action is morally right only if a person acts from a good will. Explain what this means.

The reason behind why you do something determines if its morally right or wrong. A shopkeeper passes up the opportunity to shortchange a customer because he thinks his customers might find out (right action, wrong reason)

If one performs an act only because they enjoy helping people, is that person’s action morally right, according to Kant?

if one performs an act only because they enjoy helping people, then that action is not morally right. they did it for their own desires

Who was Elizabeth Anscombe? Why is she mentioned in connection with Kant? Was she a utilitarian? Explain your answer.

well-known neo-Kantian philosopher. Believed that there are some things that cannot be undone no matter what moral rules are absolute.

The Principle of Universalizability is a bit abstract, but it is based on two commonsense moral values. What are these?

consistency and fairness