Kantian ethics

criticisms of Kants view

too harsh on emotion - if someone acts from compassion Kant says no moral worth . this feels counterintuitive Phillips foot argues love and care can be genuine moral motivations but Kant undervalues relationships

what about consequences - if someone has perfect intentions but repeatedly causes harm should that still be morally good Kant says yes if intentions are poor critics say morality connotations ignores outs=come entirely

strengths of good will

protects moral ingregity - focuses on internal moral judgment . protects individuals from outcome based judgement

makes morality objective moral worth depends in rational principles not emotion not social approval

we naturally judge intention and effort Kant captures this intention

good will

good will acts for the sake of duty not for emotion or consequences

for kant an action has moral worth only if one its done from duty 2 it's done out of respect for moral law

if you act because it makes you happy or benefits you the action may be right but has no moral worth

good will only pure good this we normally think are good . intelligence courage can be used for evil purpose such as intelligence used to deceive therefore they are not good without qualification . A good will however is good in its self even if nothing it intends success it still has moral worth

acing from duty

you do the right thing because it is your duty out of your respect for the moral law recognition that it is objectiekt right

retiring lost money even when you could easily keep it because you know that’s what you should do

acting in accordance with duty

his mean you do the right thing but for the wrong reason the action matches what duty requires but motive is not duty a person gives to charity to charity to feel good the action is correct but ut lacks moral worth

distinction from acting from duty and accordance

consequences are outside our control motives are within our control

morality must be based on what we can control

morality must be based on what we can control intention not luck that protects morality from moral luck

when we act from duty we override inclination we act rationally the struggle between desire and reason crates the experience of duty

criticisms to categorical

what if someone likes strange s things could they universal them

kant replies its not about what you can rationally will for anyone

kant forbids lying even if to save a life critics say this is too strict

contradicting duties

I will lie on Tuesdays when my name is x universalization becomes trivial

forming imperatives contradiction in will imperfect duty

you can imagine such a world but you cannot rationally will it eg maxim never help others

you can imagine such a world but cannot rationally will it because you might need help yourself

these leads to imperfect duties which are flexible allow choice in how to fulfill them

categorical imperative

a categorical imperative tells you what you ought to do regardless of your desires . they are unconditional absolute and applies to all rations beings like you ought to not lie

hypothetical imperatives

kant argues morality is experienced as a command . an imperative is telling us what we ought to do there are two types of ought

a hypothetical imperative tells you what you ought to do if you have a certain goal if you want a cup of tea you should boil the kettle . its conditional depends on your desires or aim and doest apply universally if two . if the imperative is sound and you have the desire reason commits you to follow

forming categorical imperatives contradiction in conception

kants says there is one categorical imperative exercised in different formulation the universal law formulation a maxim can fail the universalilastaion test in two ways

a contradiction in conception (perfect duty ) you cannot even conceive of a world where the maxim is universalized

like if universalized promises would become meaningless concept collapses therefor lying is always wrong leads to an imperfect duty