criticisms of kantian ethics

kants first criticism

clashing duties

what kind of duty is telling the truth

a perfect duty

criticism 1 :

kant argues we have to do our duties with no exception, sometimes we have competing or clashing duties ie in the axe man case - duty to tell the truth clashes with the duty to save lives - some situations we cannot always carry out our duties

kants response to criticism 1

duties do not clash - always one perfect duty we must follow and if we thin duties clash we haven't used our reason correctly to figure it out

kants second criticism

not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral

criticism 2:

just because you can universalise something, that does not make it moral - there are some very moral things that you cannot universalise

example of something that can be universalised yet are not moral laws

eat fruit on a wednesday

give an example of something that can't be universalised, but is moral

allowing the hungry to eat your food

Give an example of a maxim we cannot universalize (poor example)

'i'll always help the poor when i can afford to' - cannot be universalised - if everyone did this there would not be poverty, a contradiction in conception, yet according to kant this means we have a duty not to help the poor which seems immoral

kants response to criticism 2

kant argues we are being mischievous and deliberately picking examples that aren't really a case of ethics - he may also point out that he has a second test based on treatment of persons

kant's criticism 3

moral value of consequences

criticism 3:

kant places all moral worth upon the motive of an action - like utilitarianism is criticised for putting worth on consequences

axe-man example in terms of criticism 3

for kant it would be wrong to lie as it can't be universalised, however the requirement to lie seems very counterintuitive as the fundamental point seems to be that lying will lead to bad consequences however Kant claims he doesn't not focus on consequence but duty/ motive- Kantian ethics is more concerned with logical consequence than a life

train problem in terms of criticism 3

is it right to change the path of a train, killing one person instead of 5?- Kant would argue no- we have a moral duty to 'tell the truth'

kants response to criticism 3

kant argues that consequences are not in our control - ie our aim is to divert murderer but unwillingly assist him by lying - it would be us doing the right thing by telling the truth the axe man is wrong

kants fourth criticism

the value of certain motives- love, friendship and kindness

criticism 4:

kant argues our duty is key to ethics - arguably cold and logical - neglects others that motivate us as humans ie love, friendship and kindness - do we regard emotion as having moral value

example of criticism 4

parent a enjoys reading and spending time with their children, parent b does not enjoy these things but does them out of duty - kant would argue parent b is better as their actions have moral worth as they are carried out of duty - counterintuitive

bernard williams' argument regarding criticism 4

argues that impartial positioning that Kant wishes upon us to adopt may be possible for factual considerations, but not for practical, moral deliberations

Kant's response to criticism 4

Kant doesn't necessarily believe love or desire to to good is bad but it shouldn't be the thing that motivates us - could be argued that he has a point about emotions as overly focusing on emotion may lead to moral inconsistencies

Kant's fifth criticism

Morality is a system of hypothetical, not categorical imperatives

criticism 5:

we need a reason to behave - motives such as desire and friendship give us reason to act morally

Who suggests Kant does not understand human motivation in terms of criticism 5

philippa foot

philippa foot's arguments - imperatives

problem with categorical imperatives is we are not bound to them- there is no reason to follow them necessarily yet we choose too- these choices are based upon our goals and desires in life- making morality hypothetical not categorical

What does Foot argue we should reject and why

theory of psychological hedonism- claims we should always act out of self interest as some people genuinely want to help others not for their own benefit- moral thoughts are not categorical yet hypothetical

Kant's response to criticism 5:

moral oughts are not universal but contingent on you believing the specific moral ends are worth pursuing- Surely morality applies to all of us and you cannot escape the duty of morality by claiming to not have moral ends/desires