Kantian Ethics

deontological ethics

aspects of Kantian ethics are deontological which means that they are concerend with the nature of the acts themeselves.

consequentialism

kant requires some consequentialist styled reasoning in his ethical approach. “kingdom of ends” indirectly leads us to predicting outcomes.

however he does not evaluate morality6 based on immediate outcome rather holds a long-term consequentialist view.

kant’s method

• attempted to reconcile the a priori method with the empiricist method

• must explore rational logic and sythethic evidence to know what is moral

• all moral concepts are a priori synthetic

• believed in an objective moral law

• “all our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to understanding and ends with reason. There is nothing higher that reason”

• reason enables use to pursue the summon bonum

a priori synthetic

• moral knowledge comes from within us.

• an action alone cannot be right or wrong.

• additional own knowledge of right and wrong is needed to make judgements.

Kant on duty and good will

• duty is acting morally according to the good regardless of consequences

• duty is what we ought to do

• duty is not ICES - inclination, consequence, emotion, situation

• we should be motivated by our duty, do what is morally required regardless of personal feeling towards the action.

• goodwill is an intrinsic good

• good will is the desire to do “duty for duties sake”

• duty is the mark of good will

what is the hypothetical imperative ?

a command to achieve a desired result

if a command is dependent on a certain outcome then it is not a moral duty

why does Kant reject the Hypothetical imperative

• relies on ICES duty is not ICES.

• moral imperative is absolute and therefore both moral and categorical.

categorical imperative

command to act that is good in itself regardless of the outcome.

clarification on three forms of the categorical imperative

Kant’s second and third way are only clarifications of the first form not to be considered different.

first formulation

universal law

“act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it will become universal law”

consider whether the act is something that everyone could logically do. if it is not then we shouldnt put ourselves above the law.

critcisms of the first formulation

• consider that humans are driven by pleasure and pain

• too absolutist

• moral philosophy for robots

the second formulation

“act so you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another always as an end and never as a means also”

all human beings are rational and autonomous

all humans occupy a special place in creation and have an “intrinsic worth that is dignity”

criticism of the second formulation

reliant on God and christianity

third formulation

“act as if you were through you maxim a law making member if a kingdom of ends”

reminder of duty and responsibility

emphasises the significance of ends

three postulates

freedom(autonomy) - central condition for rational thought , necessary part of being a moral agent if not freedom then we would be able to have goals and choose our way in life. if are actions are not free then we cannot be true moral agents.

immortality and the summum bonum - if morality exists which it does then for it to be meaningful then God is a necessary postulate. it is rational for then to be an immortal reward for a virtuous life.

criticising the categorical imperative

• morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives.

• categorical impertative does not explain our desires and motives behind actions

• how do we recognise the difference between hypothetical and categorical. marriage, protecting the weak.

problems with kant

• is a universalised action true at all times

• clashing duties - lying to keep a promise