Kantian ethics.

What problem did Kant address and what was his solution?

-Kant was concerned with religious conflict during the European enlightenment period.

-He thought the issue was basing morality on differing faiths which can’t agree.

-His solution: base morality on reason, allowing potential for agreement and a harmonious society.

-Impressed by scientists like Newton, Kant wanted morality grounded in reason like science.

-Laws discovered by reason are universal, so morality based on reason has universal moral laws that are ‘categorical’ (apply in all cases).

What are categorical and hypothetical imperatives, and what are Kant’s formulations?

-An ‘imperative’ is a moral statement with ‘should’.

-Categorical imperative: what we should do in all cases.

-Hypothetical imperative: what we should do to achieve goals (conditional on personal desires).

-Universal moral laws must be categorical, so Kant rejects hypothetical imperatives as not genuine morality.

-Kant believed there is one categorical imperative with 3 formulations:

-Universalizability – only do actions everyone could do (e.g., stealing/lying fail this test).

-Treat persons always as ends, never merely as means.

-Act as if part of a society where everyone follows Kant’s ethics.

What does Kant say about moral motivation and necessary assumptions?

-A “good will” has the right moral motivation: we must do duty out of duty, not personal feelings (e.g., give to charity because it’s duty, not sympathy).

-Kant’s three postulates necessary for ethics to make sense:

-Free will (separates humans from animals, basis of moral responsibility)

-Immortality of the soul (afterlife)

-God.

-Kant argued we must postulate these, not prove them, to make ethics valid.

-He noted life’s injustices require belief in afterlife rewards/punishments (summum bonum).

What problem did Sartre highlight about Kantian duties?

-Sartre claimed duties can clash.

-Example: A soldier must either go to war to defend their country or stay home to care for a sick parent.

-Both actions are universalizable and don’t treat persons as mere means, so both are duties per Kant.

-But they cannot do both.

-Prima facie clashing duties show Kantian ethics is overly abstract and disconnected from real moral decisions.

-Deeper problem: ‘ought implies can’—if duties clash and can’t both be followed, then they can’t both be duties.

-If duties come from categorical imperative, Kantian ethics can’t tell us our duty.

-This suggests Kantian ethics fails as a normative theory to guide action.

How did Kant respond to the problem of clashing duties?

-Kant said some duties are ‘perfect’ with one way to fulfill (e.g., always tell the truth).

-Clashing cases involve ‘imperfect duties’ with multiple ways to fulfill.

-E.g., the soldier could help the country by staying home and making bombs or pay someone else to care for the sick parent.

-Kant claims imperfect duties don’t clash because both can be fulfilled through different means.

Why does Kant’s defence fail according to critics?

-There are situations where imperfect duties truly clash.

-E.g., if the soldier can’t find anyone else to care for the parent and the country doesn’t need anyone to stay home to make bombs, then duties clash.

-Therefore, Kantian ethics cannot tell us our duty and fails its primary objective.

What critique do Michael Stocker and B. Williams make about Kantian ethics and emotions?

-Stocker asks us to imagine a friend visiting you in hospital who only came out of duty.

-Williams argues Kantian morality is unnatural and “requires one thought too many.”

-Virtuous people do good out of habit, not constant moral calculation.

-Stocker says acting out of duty excludes acting from virtuous habits like friendliness or love, which are vital to humanity and ethical relationships.

How does Kant defend his position on emotions in ethics?

-Emotions are transient and fickle, making them unreliable for ethical motivation.

-Reason produces stable respect for moral law.

-Acting on emotion isn’t morally wrong but can’t be morally good, because it depends on feelings, not on the good itself.

-Barbara Herman says emotions can only lead to right action by luck.

-Kant concludes real morality requires acting out of duty, not emotion.

Why is Kant’s defence of excluding emotions from moral motivation unsuccessful?

-Aristotle argued emotions can be developed into good habits (virtues) through rational cultivation.

-We can control emotions rationally so they reliably motivate moral actions.

-E.g., cultivating friendliness and acting out of love visiting a friend in hospital.

-Thus, emotions can have genuine moral value.

-Kant’s views on emotions and moral motivation are unconvincing.

What is the key moral intuition problem Kantian ethics faces regarding telling the truth?

-Kantian ethics demands truth-telling even in terrible situations.

-Benjamin Constant’s "murderer at the door" scenario: If a murderer asks where their victim is, Constant argues we should lie.

-Telling the truth seems situational, not an absolute duty.

-Modern example: if a Nazi asks if we hide Jews, Kant says lying is wrong, but lying is the only hope to save lives

-If this is right, Kant’s deontology fails and consequentialism, which considers outcomes, seems stronger.

How does Kant defend his rejection of considering consequences in moral decision-making?

-Kant says calculation of consequences is a problem for ethics, not a strength.

-If we lied but the victim had already moved, we’d be responsible for their death.

-We cannot control consequences fully, so we cannot be morally responsible for them.

-Therefore, consequences cannot be relevant to moral decisions.

Why is Kant’s defence against consequentialism flawed?

-Kant claims lack of full control over consequences means no responsibility for them.

-But we can control consequences to some degree and should be responsible accordingly.

-Consequentialism only requires considering likely consequences, not perfect control.

-Singer calls this a ‘reasonable expectation’ of outcomes, justifying lying to prevent harm.

-Kant’s argument doesn’t address this reasonable expectation, so his rejection of consequentialism fails.