philosophy term 2 flashcards

Kant - Motives, Duty, and Moral Worth

• only actions done from duty have moral worth

• from duty:

  • action is done because it is morally required

  • motive = respect for the moral law

• in conformity with duty:

  • action is right, but motive is non-moral

  • motives: fear, self-interest, praise, profit, inclination

• doing the right thing for the wrong reason = not morally praiseworthy

• outcomes don’t matter for moral worth

• acting for expected effects removes moral worth

• ideal moral agent: does the right thing even when they don’t want to

Kant - Two Ways to Act Merely in Conformity with Duty

1. from interest (profit/reputation)

• shopkeeper gives correct change to keep customers

• morally right but not praiseworthy

2. from immediate inclination (sympathy/compassion)

• you help because you feel like it

• morally unreliable (art thief example)

both:

• can produce right actions

• do not guarantee moral worth

Barbara Herman - Defence of Kant

• goal: explain why motives matter without denying common moral intuitions

• profit motive problem:

  • leads to right action only when beneficial

  • morally unreliable

• inclination problem:

  • act from sympathy can lead to helping the wrong thing

  • art thief example: helping someone steal because you’re “helpful”

• key claim:

  • a moral motive must involve an interest in the action being morally right

  • only acting from duty guarantees this

  • “sympathy can give an interest in an action that is right, but not in its being right”

Critiques of Kant on Motives

• Hume - Natural Virtues

  • many virtues come from natural human instincts

  • these instincts are fairly constant (ex: caring for children)

  • failure to act well suggests something psychologically/morally wrong

  • acting from inclination can still be morally good

• Williams - “One Thought Too Many”

  • some actions should be immediate (ex: helping someone you see drowning)

  • pausing to think “morality requires this” can be morally suspicious

  • natural, unreflective action can be admirable

  • pushes back against duty as the only morally worthy motive

Kant - The Categorical Imperative (CI)

• morality is governed by a categorical (unconditional) imperative

• unlike hypothetic imperatives (if you want X, do Y)

• applies to everyone, always

• Formula of Universal Law (FUL):

  • “Act only according to that maxim which you can will to be a universal law”

• key ideas:

  • maxim: the rule or policy behind your action

  • test: can everyone act on this maxim without contradiction? (promise breaking example)

  • making an exception for yourself = morally wrong

  • morality is about law-likeness not outcomes

Kant - False Promise Example

• maxim: “When I need money, I’ll make promises I don’t intend to keep”

• if universalized: institution of promising collapses

• contradiction in conception, therefore immoral

• key point: wrongness isn’t about bad consequences, it’s about whether the practice could still exist

Kant - Humanity as an End-in-Itself

• Formula of Humanity:

  • “So act that you treat humanity, in yourself and others, always as an end, never merely as a means”

• key ideas:

  • humans have intrinsic value

  • using people merely as means (lying, deceiving, manipulating) is wrong

  • false promises deny others the ability to consent

  • different CI formulations express the same moral law

  • core principles: universality, equality, respect for persons

Bentham - Principle of Utility

• humans are governed by pain and pleasure

• moral standard = principle of utility (actions are right if they promote maximum happiness - pleasure and wrong if they produce unhappiness - pain)

• happiness = pleasure, benefit, advantage, good

• community = sum of individual interests

• consequentialist: rightness depends entirely on outcomes

• allows (or requires) sacrifice if it increases total happiness

• does not prioritize individual rights or intentions

Mill - Utilitarianism and Motives

• accepts principle of utility

• emphasizes impartiality:

  • everyone’s happiness counts equally

  • moral agent as a disinterested spectator

• society should:

  • align individual happiness with general good

  • use education and social norms

• key distinction:

  • standard of morality ≠ motive (the standard for morality is the actual consequence and the motive is merely the desire behind it, a bad person can do a good thing and a good person can do a bad thing)

  • you don’t need to act for utility (the motive of an action has nothing to do with its moral rightness, if it produces good consequences it is right, even if the motive is selfish or indifferent)

  • motives matter only instrumentally

• contrast with Kant

  • Kant: motives determine moral worth

  • Mill: consequences determine rightness

Singer - Famine, Affluence, and Moral Obligation

• assumption: suffering and death from lack of basic needs are bad

• Singer’s principle:

  • if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it

  • weaker version of principle: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it

  • distance doesn’t matter (both physical and emotional/psychological)

  • what others do doesn’t matter

• implication:

  • duty vs charity distinction collapses

  • helping famine victims is a moral duty, not optional

  • failing to help is morally wrong

  • requires giving up luxury or non-essential resources

Broome - Climate Change and Justice

• climate change is an issue of justice, not just economics

• emitting greenhouse gases is unjust unless we compensate those harmed

• compensation argument:

  • claim: future people benefit from technology and progress

  • Broome’s reply:

    • benefits are unequally distributed

    • benefit ≠ compensation (fence analogy)

    • some harms violate basic rights even if they compensate for other things (ex: the right to breathe clean air)

• nonidentity argument:

  • claim: future people can’t be harmed because different actions create different people

  • Broome’s reply:

    • people exist in both worlds regardless

    • argument leads to absurd conclusions (slavery analogy)

  • conclusion: current generations still act unjustly toward future people