planning for Kant

CORE FOUNDATIONS - AO1 (part 1)

• good will

• duty

• reason and autonomy

• deontological ethics

Good will (3 main points)

• what Kant means by the only thing good without qualification.

• why intelligence, happiness talents etc (examples) can be misused

• why moral worth depends on motive not outcome

Duty (3)

• what acting out of duty means.

• difference between doing the right action because it is right or for selfish motives

• why duty is central to morality

reason and autonomy

• why humans are rational agents

• why morality comes from reason

• what autonomy means

• why free rational beings legislate moral law from themselves

deontological ethics

• meaning of deontological

• why Kant judges actions by principle not consequences.

• Contrast with teleological ethics like utilitarianism.

The categorical imperative

• What it is

• Difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

• Why hypothetical = conditional commands.

• Why categorical = unconditional moral law.

First formulation: universalisability

-          Act only on that maxim you can will as universal law.

-          How to test lying, stealing, promise breaking.

-          Contradiction in conception.

-          Contradiction in will.

Second formulation: humanity as an end

-          Treat humanity always as an end, never merely as a means.

-          Human dignity.

-          Respect for persons.

-          Applications to exploitation, lying, manipulation.

Third formulation: kingdom of ends

-          Community of rational moral law makers.

-          How everyone should act as if making laws for all.

TYPES OF DUTIES

Perfect duties

Absolute duties that must never be broken.

Examples: do not lie, do not murder, do not break promises.

Imperfect duties

General duties allowing flexibility in how fulfilled.

Examples: help others, develop talents, charity.

Moral worth and intention

Acting in accordance with duty vs from duty

Shopkeeper example.

Why correct actions may lack moral worth if motivated by gain.

Importance of motive

Why intentions matter more than results.

Application topics likely in exams

Can lying ever be justified in Kant?

Murderer at the door issue.

Euthanasia

Would Kant allow it?

Human dignity and suicide.

Theft

Can stealing ever be universalised?

summary

Using people merely as means.

Consent and dignity.

universalisation

Punishment

Retribution and justice.

Strengths of Kantian ethics

Clear rules and consistency

‘humanity fomulae’

Protects human rights and dignity

Rejects using people as tools

clear rules based on maxims and the good will

Morality based on reason not feelings

Universal and impartial system

Weaknesses / criticisms

Too rigid / absolutist

Problem of lying to save life.

Ignores consequences

Too rationalistic

Neglects emotion, care, relationships. (partiality)

problems with duties

Conflicting duties

Universalisation problems

How maxims are phrased can change outcomes.

Not everyone is fully rational

scholar examples

W. D. Ross as criticism of strict absolutism

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill contrast with consequences

Aristotle contrast with character ethics.

Deontologists believe that morality is a matter of

duty

We have moral duties to do things

which it is right to do and moral duties not to do things which it is wrong to do.

many deontologists focus on the intention of an action

meaning that whether an action is right or wrong is judged by the agents intentions, eg, accidental killing verses murder

Most deontological theories recognise two classes of duties.

general duties we have towards anyone. These are mostly prohibitions; e.g. do not lie; do not murder. But some may be positive; e.g. help people in need.

there are duties we have because of our particular personal or social relationships. (give an example)

If you have made a promise, you have a duty to keep it. If you are a parent, you have a duty to provide for your children. And so on.

We each have duties regarding

our own actions

for example

I have a duty to keep MY promises

. I have a duty to keep my promises, but I don’t have a duty to make sure promises are kept. why?

we should each be most concerned with complying with our duties, not attempting to bring about the most good.

Statement of intent: Kantian ethics can be successfully defended for the following reasons

1. Deontological nature

2. Human dignity

3. Prioritising duty as motivation

Problem 1- because Kant is a deontological ethical theory, they are only concerned with inte lions and acting in accordance with duty. This means that because duty cannot change, the theory seems very (2)

-strict/rigid

-does not address consequences

What does the deontological nature of Kantian ethics allow agents to aviod

It allows agents to avoid problems associated with consequentialist theories

Give an example of a consequentialist approcah

Utilitarianism.

What problems arise from consequetialist approaches that KDE avoids

Our inability to predict and guarantee outcomes.

How does utilitarianism judge actions

based on their outcomes

Therefore a utilitarian knows what is right or wrongs

To know what is right you must estimate whether an action will maximise pleasure without pain (happiness)

Give an example to show how this becomes a problem

A doctor has five patients who need organ transplants, and one healthy person comes for a check-up. A strict act utilitarian might argue that killing the healthy person and using their organs saves five lives, producing greater overall happiness than allowing five to die.

What are the two ways in which kant explores this issue

this feels deeply unjust because it uses an innocent person merely as a means (under the Formula of Humanity)

And

A maxim such as ‘kill one innocent person to save more people’ couldn’t be rationally universalised (under the Formula of Universal Law)

Explain why it would be avoided under the Humanity formula

feels deeply unjust because it uses an innocent person merely as a means.

the healthy person is treated merely as a tool for others’ benefit, violating their intrinsic worth as a rational being.

What does it avoid that utilitarianism doesnt

It avoids tyranny of the majority

So how does it responds to the lack of consequentialist thinking objection

Kant deliberately limits the role of consequences because outcomes are uncertain, manipulable, and can justify atrocities. Ignoring consequences to some extent may preserve justice.

How is it more successfuly defended against utilitarian excess

Without constraints, consequentialism can permit oppression, or sacrificing innocents if enough people gain (tyranny of the majority)

Not relying on consequences preseves human rights and justice

How does this example respond to the objection that KDE is too ridgid

The strictness ensures moral boundaries cannot be crossed for convenience. Some actions, such as murder, coercion, or deception, remain wrong even when socially beneficial.

In Kantian ethics, some actions are intrinsically wrong because they violate rational agency, autonomy, or human dignity. Why is this appealing (4)

First, it protects individual rights. If there are no firm moral boundaries, then innocent people could be harmed whenever it benefits enough others.

Second, it gives morality stability and consistency. If right and wrong change whenever circumstances change, moral rules become unpredictable and risk being meaningless. Kant offers clear principles grounded in reason rather than fluctuating preferences or calculations.

Kant offers clear principles grounded in reason rather than fluctuating preferences or calculations.

Fourth, it prevents rationalisation. Humans are very good at excusing harmful acts by claiming they serve a greater good. Strict boundaries make it harder to justify oppression, corruption, lying, or abuse under noble slogans.

How critics argue that if boundaries are too absolute, morality can become

insensitive to tragic circumstances, such as lying to save a life.

So where does this the appeal lie on whether or not this can be defended

Thus the appeal of strictness depends on whether one prioritises rights or outcomes.