Kantian ethics

Kant’s moral philosophy is duty or outcome/Telos based?

Kant's moral philosophy is deontological (duty), law based, but to be understood and applied through reason

What does he reject?

Kant rejects happiness, pleasure or revelation as basis to moral theory

what did he think about reason?

Reason is the only source of moral understanding - use rational thought to deduce ethical decisions

Kant’s absolutism and universalism -

• Kant considered moral rules to apply universally and absolutely (with no exception)

Kant’s view about how we know things - epistemology of morality

• Kant believed in reason and 'a priori' knowledge considering morality to be discoverable through reason not a posteriori ---> outcome

• Kant argues that looking at someone's action does not tell us whether it is right or wrong

• Therefore, moral propositions (moral code) must be derived through reason  

• Our duty to do good

• Reason reveals duty - because it is fixed and cannot change

• The consequences may change when looking at the outcomes of an action, it is hard to form one code

quick summary of the hypothetical imperative

• Hypothetical imperative - something is good/bad depending on its outcome

The hypothetical imperative

• Hypothetical knowledge 'if' statements are conditional e.g. if it's raining then you may get wet

• Moral statements are often based on a hypothetical imperative e.g. do behaviour X for end Y

• The end being maximum love or best consequences perhaps

Kant’s argument against the hypothetical imperative

• Kant disagrees with this and argues we should focus on moral law as an unconditional bind rather than hypothetical - absolute rules and they are fixed

• Otherwise, X being right/good is only based on the hypothetical outcome - the moral weighting of the action depends on the outcome

The categorical imperative

• The categorical imperative dictates one must do X irrespective of the consequences

• Because moral law is categorical in its commanding nature

• Kant's moral law is based on a view that moral truths are universal and absolute

Kant’s Three Rules

1. Our actions must be universalisable

2. Never treat anyone as a means to an end

3. Act as if we live in ‘the kingdom of ends’

1. Our actions must be universalisable

• There must be no relativism applied to our moral decision making

  • Absolutist - duty

• Any ethical theory must be able to be applied universally

• Any decision must be capable of universalisation

• e.g. Kant's universalizability rule would forbid lying - you would not be happy with everyone lying, it would not be right, and so you lying on a one-off basis would be wrong

2. Never treat anyone as a means to an end -  don't look at the consequences of your actions, never treat anyone as a method of achieving something

• Human beings have their own free will and agency - by exploiting people it undermines a person's free will and agency

• They cannot be used as a means to an end

• Each person must be treated as an end in their own right

• The intrinsic quality of each human must be respected without fail

3. Act as if we live in ‘the kingdom of ends’ - an ideal community where rational beings acts as both sovereign legislators and subjects of universal moral law

• Kant suggests we shouldn't consider a moral framework within practicalities or expectations of how others/society will perform

• e.g. arguing that lying is permissible it is inevitable/necessary in the society we live in

• We must imagine moral decision making on a blank slate - how would we treat people on this basis - a kingdom of wholly rational people - being rational leads to us acting good

• Acting how we would act in a perfect society - in his kingdom

• Just because everyone lies doesn't mean you can - you cannot bring societal concerns into the kingdom, lying is wrong

The Three Postulates

1. The summum bonum

2. Immortality

3. God

1. The summum bonum

• Humans are self-directing and autonomous

• Freedom means freedom to choose the moral law over our instinct or desire

• Universal rules derived from reason - a priori

• Moral choice derives from moral responsibility

2. Immortality

• Kantian ethics looks towards a perfect world - the summum bonum

• We are constantly striving towards the good, according to Kant

3. God

• Kant's ethical theory does not start with God but can be linked to a theological basis

• The notions of eternal law, humans as rational creatures and an 'end' to humans striving for moral perfection

• Equally, his consideration of human dignity and respect for the individual - don't use people as a means to an end

the maxim of the action =

the law behind it

Evaluation -  Categorical Imperative

• Kant's theory carefully prevents maxims being created which would violate one of his laws and be unjustifiable

• The categorical imperative prevents relativised or personal rule breaking to satisfy a subjective end rather than the moral outcome

• But - should there be a system of qualifications and expectations to these?

• What rules should be universalised?

• Duty could be relative, based on the situation

Respect for human rights/categorical imperative

• Humans have the right to be self-directed and autonomous

• They also have intrinsic value and are capable of reason

• Does Kant's ethics align with our nature

• e.g. it respects our autonomy (not using us as and end) and our value as individuals

Ethics and Duty

• Kant's theory places a lot of significance on motive and responding to duties

• Rather than a focus on the results

• But, don't consequences prompt duties rather than reason?

• Perhaps both should be considered?

• How does reason reveal our duties

• Is intention significant in moral decision making/outcomes

An impractical approach?

• Remember, Kant argues that reason reveals moral truth and should guide our ethical decision making

• But calculating what we should do doesn't seem so evident through reason

• How do we separate ethical decision making from our subjectivity

• Kant's theory focuses on a respect for all as their own ends, but perhaps some situations we cannot do this

• There will be some situations where individuals have to be used - sacrifice - using themselves as a means to an end, trolley problem

Emotions vs. reason

• Aren't emotions important and compel us to act

• Kant is wrong to remove emotions from moral evaluations

• Is his focus on reason too reductive ---> limiting

• Solving moral problems is not the same as solving a mathematical problem