AP

The Fundamentals of Ethics: The Kantian Perspective

The Fundamentals of Ethics: The Kantian Perspective

Chapter 11: Fairness and Justice

Introduction to Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics is centered around the belief that actions can be judged as moral or immoral based on their adherence to specific principles, rather than the outcomes they produce. This philosophy stands in stark contrast to utilitarianism, which prioritizes overall happiness and well-being. Kant famously critiques actions that may produce good results but are fundamentally unjust or unfair.

The Case of Unfair Actions

  1. Illustrative Scenario: A person chooses to keep his money rather than pay taxes, justifying it with personal gain for a vacation. Despite the personal happiness achieved, this action is viewed as unethical due to its unfairness.

  2. Similar Examples of Unfair Behavior:

    • Cheating on exams

    • Speeding in traffic

    • Engaging in corrupt political tactics

  3. Underlying Issue: All these actions involve exploiting rules that are in place for everyone’s benefit, thereby violating the rights of others. The common thread is that they are unfair and unjust, even if perceived short-term benefits accrue to the individuals.

Consistency and Fairness in Morality

  1. Self-Exemption Inconsistency: Individuals who commit these unfair actions create exceptions for themselves, undermining the moral principle of fairness.

  2. Moral Tests of Consistency:

    • What if everyone did that? Examines the repercussions if everyone engaged in a particular action. If universal participation leads to negative outcomes, the action is deemed immoral. For example:

      • Using emergency lanes in traffic can hinder emergency services.

      • Cheating on taxes threatens societal stability.

    • How would you like it if I did that to you? This test echoes the golden rule. It asks individuals to consider how they would feel if faced with actions they normally commit against others.

  3. Limitations of These Tests: While the tests highlight unfairness, they falter in cases like arguments against homosexual sex or celibacy, indicating that context and description affect ethical evaluations.

The Golden Rule's Challenges

  1. Problematic Foundation: The golden rule ties morality to personal preferences, which can lead to inconsistent applications of moral standards.

  2. Example of Masochists: Since masochists derive pleasure from being harmed, the golden rule would permit harmful actions that would otherwise be seen as immoral, highlighting its inadequacy as a definitive moral test.

The Principle of Universalizability

  1. Definition of a Maxim: A maxim is a principle of action that guides behavior; it outlines what one intends to do and why.

  2. Kant’s Reformulation of Morality: An action is morally acceptable if its maxim is universalizable. The process involves:

    • Clearly formulating a maxim.

    • Imagining a world where everyone acts according to that maxim.

    • Assessing whether goals can be achieved in such a world.

  3. Significance of Universalizability: If a maxim is universalizable, it reflects a fair rule that applies to everyone equally, avoiding self-exemption.

The Role of Intention in Kantian Ethics

  1. Focus on Intentions Over Results: Kant argues that the morality of actions derives from intentions, not outcomes. Different maxims can lead to the same action but differ morally.

  2. Implication for Ethical Assessment: Ethical evaluations must be based on the maxims guiding actions, establishing a clear ethical framework separate from utilitarian outcomes.

  3. Critique of Consequentialist Views: Consequentialists fail to account for moral variations resulting from differing intentions behind identical actions.

The Three-Part Test for Maxim Universalizability

  1. Formulation: Articulating the maxim clearly.

  2. Imagining Universal Application: Envisioning a world where the maxim is universally applied.

  3. Feasibility of Goals: Determining whether the action’s goal could be achieved if everyone acted on the maxim.

Moral vs. Immoral Actions

  1. Case of Lying Promises: A scenario where a compulsive gambler lies to secure money, violating trust and rendering the action immoral based on the inability to universalize the maxim of lying.

  2. Contradictory Morality: Performing an immoral act while thinking it could yield a good result demonstrates the critical connection between intention and rationality in ethical behavior.

Morality and Rationality

  1. Kant’s Rationalist Framework: Inconsistency in adhering to one’s own principles indicates irrational reasoning.

  2. Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives: Hypothetical imperatives dictate actions based on personal desires, which may vary. In contrast, categorical imperatives apply universally to everyone based on moral requirements.

The Argument for the Irrationality of Immorality

  1. Premises Overview:

    • Consistency in rational action

    • Universalizability of maxims ensures moral adherence

    • Therefore, immoral actions are irrational

  2. Overall Conclusion: Rationality mandates moral behavior, as moral duties represent the strongest obligations.

Debating the Principle of Universalizability

  1. Potential Failures: Not every universalizable maxim leads to moral correctness, as demonstrated by certain extreme or selfish scenarios.

  2. Example of Justifiable Killing: Actions centered on universalizable maxims can still lead to immoral outcomes, indicating flaws in the universalizability principle.

The Importance of Integrity

  1. Kant’s Emphasis on Integrity: Integrity involves adherence to personal principles and is a valued trait in moral conduct.

  2. Limits of Integrity: Dedication to flawed principles, exemplified by extreme individuals like Nazis, illustrates how integrity alone is insufficient for moral worth.

Kant on Absolute Moral Duties

  1. Kant’s Stance Against Lying: Kant infamously argues against lying in the face of moral dilemmas, such as not revealing information to a murderer.

  2. Critique of Absolute Duties: The complexities of moral situations reveal that Kant’s absolute moral duties, such as forbidding lying altogether, pose challenges in practical applications.

Conclusion of Kant’s Ethical Framework

This exploration of the Kantian perspective emphasizes that while Kant provided a structured method to evaluate morality, the real-world implications reveal the limitations of universalizability and absolute moral claims about human intentions and the nuances of ethical decision-making.