kant

deontological - some actions are wrong no matter if good consequences come from them

absolutist - certain actions are intrinsically right and wrong regardless of context, consequences and intentions

GOOD WILL

the only thing that is good is good will. this means having good intentions, an intention to do our duty.

good will is the only thing that is truly and intrinsically good. e.g for pleasure, courage and love there would be a qualification. there would be a circumstance that we could think of where this was not good. this is not good will because good will is always good.

our actions can be motivated by lots of different things.

PROPOSTIONS

kant doesnt want to make ethical decisions based on experience, but on a priori. derive moral truths from reason, not empirically

synthetic propositions - are true or false based on empirical evidence and observation in the world

analytic proposition - one which is true by definition, requires no external evidence

INTENTIONS:

kant rules out two false intentions :

  1. we cannot base our view of right and wrong based on consequences because they are out of control

  2. we cannot base our decision based in our inclination because our emotions are always changing.

kant argues that the only thing that does matter is what we do = our duty - the thing that we logically work out is the right thing to do - we should do our duty because its our duty, not because of reward.

kant believes that it is possible to work out our duty, by establishing what command is behind it.

your intention is important, you should act purely out of duty/ you should just do something for the sake of doing it - not because you are getting a reward.

IMPERATIVE - a command

humans have reason, all humans who have reason need to be treated with dignity. you have to act autonomously , if you act heteronmosly then it is not moral , if you act out of hypothetical imperative that is not moral

he believes that when we carry out an action we have rules in mind

hypothetical imperative - a command that is followed to achieve a desired result

they are ‘ if ‘ commands. e.g personal trainer might say ‘don’t eat cake’ but they mean is ‘don’t eat more cake, if you want to lose weight’

‘if you want to get drunk you ought to have a drink’

uninformed customer comes into a shop, the shop keeper thinks maybe i should overcharge him for something, then realises no, people will end up not trusting him if they find out that he overcharged someone, so he tells the customer the right price.

  • the shop keeper here is doing the right thing for the wrong reason, he is doing it because he doesnt want a bad reputation so he doesn’t overcharge he customer, instead he should have done it out of his duty as a shopkeeper.

categorical imperative - a command that applies to all things

a command that is good in itself regardless that is good in itself regardless of consequences

there is no if, they are absolute. e.g ‘do not kill’

it is our duty to act on anything that is a categorical imperative

  1. the law of nature - if considering an action we should ask ourselves would it be logical for this action to be universalised? e.g stealing- taking someone else’s property. if stealing was universalised, then no one would own anything.

  2. person as ends - kant believes that we should treat people as an end in themselves , as free rational beings we deserve dignity and respect. we cannot use people as means to an end = using people to achieve some sort of purpose. must treat people as an end in themselves

  3. kingdom of ends - like a combination of the first two. Kant asks us to imagine we are part of a law making group for an imaginary country where everyone treats others as an end. This is being applied to a political setting, when making law you must consider that everyone is an end themselve because they have dignity. Kant suggests that categorical imperative is an imperative that could be permitted in such a place.

OBJECTION-

  1. we can’t avoid treating others as a means to an end. e.g when we go to the shop are we not using the shopkeeper or whne you go to school, are we not using the teacher as a means to a good grade. but! Kant does not think this. we are not to treat others solely as a means to an end - hopefully in the interactions with the teacher or shopkeeper you consider them as people.

  2. Philips Foot challenges kant’s view that morality should be based on a series of categorical imperatives. Foot interest is to answer the question of why we should be moral - Foot argues that what is missing from kant’s account is an adequate explanation of our motives and desires. in hypothetical imperatives we have a reason to act, we have a clear reason to act in this way. in kant’s categorical imperatives , we are just told that we must do a certain thing - does not take into consideration motives. Foot is influenced by virtue ethics of artistole. many virtues and good character traits of human actions ate things that we freely choose, they are contingent. it would be hoped that these virtue are things we desire and that they motivate us to action, but sometimes we do not. everything about morality is hypothetical.

KANT’S AXE

if a man with an axe came to your door asking where your best friend is, would you tell him.most people would say no, but can’t believed that it would be wrong to lie - morally unacceptable

he believed that telling the truth was a categorical imperative , an absolute.

if you tell the lie to the axe man and your friend ends up getting caught then it is your fault. e.g if you say your friend is not in the house, and you friend sneaks out but on the way out bumps into the axe murderer, its your fault.

but! if you tell the truth then it cannot be your fault, no matter what happens to your friend, it is not on your conscience

PERFECT AND IMPERFECT DUTIES

maxim - the rule that we are following when we perform an action

perfect duty - one where our maxim cannot be universalised because a logical contradiction would occur if we were to do so.

e.g keeping promises. if we were to make false promises without the intention of carrying out the promise this cannot logically be universalised as the whole concept relies on the idea that people are telling the truth when they make promises. if everyone was lying when they made promises the concept of promises is destroyed.

imperfect duties- do not create logical contradiction but they do present us with a situation that no rational person could desire or will.

e.g we could conceive a world where people did not help others in need, it is not illogical in the way a false promise is illogical but a rational person could not sincerely desire or will to be part of such a world

3 POSTULATES - things that must be assumed for morality to work at all

  1. god - we have to assume that god exists. in order for summum bonum to actually occur and goodness is rewarded by happiness then god must exist, he must ensure justice in the universe.

  2. immortality - summum bonum = highest good. the highest good occurs whne perfect virtue is rewarded for perfect happiness. it is our duty to aim for this. we ought to aim for this and because ought implies can, we can achieve the highest good. however we have experienced in life where doing the right thing can make things worse. so if the highest good can be achieved but not in this life, then we must assume that a life after death exists.

  3. free will - ought implies can. when we talk in terms of moral duties, ought and should we have to assume the person we refer to is genuinely able to do this duty. if we were to have no control over our actions, then we cannot be held accountable to carry out OUR duty.

objection

  • making god one of the postulates undermines the fact that kant’s ethics are indepedent of religion and that morality can be deduced rationally no matter what religion.