Flashcards

What is acting out of duty?

Acting out of duty is doing what is good because it is good and for no other reason, such as praise. Only actions done out of duty have genuine moral worth.

What is acting in accordance with duty?

Doing what is good for a non moral reason, such as praise. These actions do not have genuine moral worth.

What is the ‘good will’?

The good will is the only thing that is good without qualification. A good will chooses actions purely because they are morally right, it is directed by practical reason, not emotions or desires.

What are hypothetical imperatives?

Commands that tell you what to do if you want a certain goal (e.g if you want to get fit, then you should exercise)

What are categorical imperatives?

Commands that tell you what to do regardless of your personal desires or goals (e.g do not lie)

What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

The first formulation of the categorical imperative requires that we act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be some a universal law. If a maxim cannot be universalised without contradiction, it is morally wrong.

What does Kant mean by a contradiction in conception?

A contradiction in conception occurs when universalising a maxim would make the action impossible.

What does Kant mean by a contradiction in will?

A contradiction in will occurs when a rational agent could not will a maxim to be universalised without contradiction because it would conflict with their own rational interests.

What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative?

The second formulation requires us to treat humanity as an end and never merely as a means. This means respecting rational agency and not using people solely as tools for our own purposes.

What are perfect duties?

Absolute, exception-less duties that must always be followed. They arise form maxims that cannot be universalised without contradiction.

What are imperfect duties?

Duties that allow flexibility in how and when they are fulfilled. They arise form maxims that can be universalised but cannot be willed as universal laws without contradiction in the will.

Explain the problem of conflicting duties for Kantian ethics

Kant claims duties never conflict, but in real life they often appear to, such as the duty not to lie and the duty to protect others. The agent is unable to act according to both (or all) the maxims, so the agent cannot avoid doing something morally wrong. Kant offers no clear method for resolving such conflicts.

Explain the issue that Kant ignores the value of certain motives, e.g love, friendship, kindness

Kant claims that the only good is the good will. Other motives such as desire to do good, feelings of friendship, kindness and love do not have intrinsic value according to Kant. But emotions such as love, compassion and kindness do have moral value when judging the morality of an action. Kant is wrong to ignore the value of other motives. Other motives matter because they give us reasons to act morally and we usually see these motives as being to the benefit of the individual.

An example of the problem with Kant’s emphasis on reason over emotion

Imagine a person who helps an elderly neighbour with their shopping every week because they genuinely care about them and feel compassion for their struggles. According to Kant this has no moral worth, because it is motivated by emotion. It would only be morally worthy if the person helped solely out of duty.

Explain the view that consequences of actions determine their moral value

Kant says the moral worth of an action depends only on the intention and not on its consequences. However, consequences clearly matter in moral decision-making because they determine how much harm of benefit an action produces. Since we desire a world with more good in it, it is rational to choose actions that maximise good consequences. This suggests that consequences are morally relevant. Mill also argues that Kant implicitly relies on consequences when he tests maxims, showing that consequences cannot be ignored.

Example of the issue with the view that consequences of actions determine their moral value

Imagine a doctor gives a patient a treatment with the good intention of curing them. The doctor acts from duty: they believe it is the medically correct thing to do. But the treatment unexpectedly causes serious harm and the patient becomes much worse.

Kant’s view:

• The doctor acted from duty with a good intention, therefore the action has full moral worth

Why this is a problem:

• Most people think the harmful consequences matter morally.

• It seems wrong to say the doctor acted “morally well” if the result was serious suffering.

Why might some universaliable maxims be immoral?

Kant claims that a maxim that is universalisable is a moral duty. Some maxims that are universalisable appear to be immoral or morally trivial. Therefore, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is not a good test of what a moral duty is. For example, the maxim ‘Always wear pink shirts on Friday’ can be universalised without contradiction, but it has no moral significance.

Why might some non-universalisable maxims not be immoral?

There are maxims that cannot be consistently universalised but these maxims seem morally permissible or morally good. Therefore, the first formulation of the categorical imperative does not tell us what our moral duties are. For example, the maxim ‘I will turn up early to avoid the que’, fails the first formulation of the categorical imperative because if everyone turned up early then you couldn’t fulfil your intention of avoiding a que, but it isn’t immoral.

What is Philippa Foot’s criticism that morality is hypothetical, not categorical?

• Foot argues that Kant is wrong to think moral duties are categorical imperatives

• She claims that categorical imperatives don’t motivate action

• Moral judgments aren’t automatically action guiding, someone who doesn’t care about morality can simply reject them

• Real motivation comes form hypothetical imperatives, we act for reasons connected to our goals, values and concerns

• Therefore, moral requirements function like hypothetical imperatives, they depend on what we care about

For example, imagine someone sees a person collapse in the street. Kant view is that they have a duty to help, regardless of what they want. Foot says if the person doesn’t care about others at all, the categorical imperative gives them no motivation. The rule ‘help others’ only motivates if they already have a relevant concern (e.g compassion, sympathy, wanting to be kind). So the real reasoning looks like a hypothetical imperative: ‘if you care about others’ wellbeing, then you should help’