Essay plan


Intro: Define Kant’s ethics, deontological (rightness of an act determined by duty/rules, not consequences), humans are rational autonomous decision makers, Kant ethics is partly convincing


A: Kant convincingly argues that….the good will, only thing that’s intrinsically good, moral worth comes from acting out of duty rather than in accordance with duty e.g helping your elderly neighbour cross the road because it is the right thing to do, not because you hope she will give you some money

S: Clear standard for evaluating morality, highlights moral integrity of the agents, ensuring that morality is not about personal desires or external outcomes, this is a strong strength because it protects morality from being reduced to luck or consequence

C: Kant ignores value of certain motives such as love friendship and kindness, seems to ignore moral value of natural human motives suggesting actions done from love, friendship or kindness lack moral worth e.g comforting a grieving friend because you love them appears to have no moral worth on Kant’s view

CC: However, Kant would say that acts from kindness can be morally praiseworthy if they are performed out of duty, Kant does not reject kindness, but he rejects the idea that emotions alone give moral worth, Kant’s emphasis on duty ensures that morality is objective and universal

E: Although the love/kindness objection weakens the appeal of Kant’s position, it does not entirely defeat it. Once we seperate an act’s motive from its moral worth, the good will still holds up.




A: First formulation of the categorical imperative, what is a categorical imperative, what is the first formulation of the categorical imperative (example)

S: Step by step method makes the theory easy to follow, this is a strong strength because it is a clear rational test for morality, morally consistent, easy to apply

C: Not all universalisable maxims are moral and not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral, give in depth examples of both, categorical imperative d produces ambiguity and inconsistency

CC: Philippa Foot’s objection: the categorical imperative actually functions like a system of categorical imperatives - we only have reason to follow if we want a stable, trustworthy society, morality is therefore conditional on desired outcomes after all

CCC: Kant would reject Foots’s point saying that moral obligations apply regardless of what individuals want

CCCC: Kant would place the blame on the agent’s formulation of the maxim, not the test itself

E: Kant overcomes this objection with some conviction




A: Second formulation of the categorical imperative, treating humans as a means to an ends

S: Supports human dignity, rights and equality

C: Clashing and competing duties, no clear way to resolve this, agent cannot avoid doing something wrong Kant’s ethics fail to guide moral decisions in complex and real life situations, e.g a murderer asks you where your sirens is hiding, the duty not to lie conflicts with the duty to protect your friend from harm

CC: Kant tries to address this issue by using perfect and imperfect duties, this helps resolve the issue of clashing and competing duties because Kant could argue that perfect duties take priority over imperfect ones

E: Kant’s perfect/imperfect duties distinction provides some help, but it doesn’t fully solve the problem, both lying and protecting your friend from murder seem like perfect duties, so saying “perfect duties win” doesn’t tell you which one should win. This means the objection still stands to some extent, and Kant’s ethics doesn’t give completely clear guidance in this kind of extreme situation


Conclusion:

  • Only partly convincing

  • The theory succeeds in grounding morality in something stable and rational, gives a clear standard of moral worth that survives the challenge from love and kindness one motive is separated form with

  • However there are weaknesses that the theory cannot fully resolve, the clashing duties problem shows Kant ethics can fail to guide decisions in genuine moral emergencies

  • Kant's ethics therefore succeeds in grounding morality rationally and objectively, but falls short as a practical guide to moral decision-making.