strengths n weaknesses

rational: kant is not swayed by emotion. his theory does not allow us to show favouritism for friends. it is a purely rational theory

consequences: there are some occasions when consequences are so severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful things to happen

universal: kant’s theory provides moral laws that hold universally, regardless of culture/individual situations

moral law: some philosophers question the existence of the moral law. why should we believe that there is objective morality?

equality n justice: kant’s theory provides the foundation for modern conceptions of equality n justice

unrealistic: kant asks us to follow maxims as if they were universal rules, but just because we act this way, it doesn’t mean others will. for example, pacifism makes sense as a law of nature, but if we chose to be pacifist, we would be a sitting duck for any non-kantians

autonomy: kant has the greatest respect for human dignity n autonomy

conflicting duty: sartre described a pupil torn between looking after his mother in france or going to england to fight with the free french forces. “i find myself drawn into a vicious circle.” which of the duties do i follow?

reliable: a system of rules works, n everyone knows what their obligations are. if you allowed ppl to break rules because of their consequences, or out of love, the legal system would be a mess, and no-one would know what they ought to do

every situation is unique: universal rules aren’t helpful in the real world where every situation is different. if no 2 situations are the same, morality should be relativist, not absolutist

duty: at first, it may seem better to act out of compassion. however, it is possible to make bad choices out of love. acting out of duty is always right

lack of motivation: realising that something is irrational (like illegally downloading music, for example) doesn’t give any motivation to do the right thing