kantian deontology

main 6 criticisms of kantian deontology

1. Clashing,competing duties 2. Not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral; not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral 3. The view that consequences of actions determine their moral value 4. Kant ignores the value of certain motives, e.g. love friendship kindness 5. Morality is a system of hypothetical, rather than categorical imperatives (Philippa Foot) 6. (Issue of developing maxims)

what is a maxim

A maxim is a "subjective principle of volition". It is a generalized description of an intent to act in a certain way in certain circumstances. They are internalized rules,descriptions of how you mean to behave. (e.g. In my dealings with customers I shall always treat them fairly as to change) what is the categorical imperative moral law: the will's universal conformity of its actions to law as such. Never act except in such a way that I can also rationally will that my maxim should become a universal law. it is asking you to not make exceptions for oneself

describe Kants analysis of the morality of lying promises

Decide what you want to do: Make a false promise to get a loan. Find the maxim: "I shall make a false promise whenever it suits me, as a way to obtain loans" Consider the perturbed world (A world where everyone has done this for some time) Can you conceive of acting on your maxim in the perturbed world? No, trust on the basis of a promise would have died out, therefore, you could not make promises anymore. There is a PERFECT DUTY not to act as contemplated. There is a contradiction in conception (we physically cant)

describe Kants analysis of the morality of helping others

Final example: refrain from helping others Maxim: I shall refrain to help others letting each person get on as best he can by himself Consider the perturbed social world: There is no contradiction in conception However, we cannot rationally will this world. Our will would be in conflict with itself as there are times when we will need the help of others. In these situations we would will that others help us. Therefore, we must will that people sometimes help each other. contradiction in will imperfect duty to help others

explain how wants ignorance of certain motives is an issue for his theory

Kant is explicitly early on, that what determines the moral worth of our action is simply whether it is done out of duty. It is not enough that it be in accordance with duty. The motivation needs to be the right one - namely, that duty requires this action. The action lacks moral worth in so far as it has any different motivation There is some intuitive attractiveness to this: we notice the positive moral value of struggling against evil inclinations and doing good despite temptation. However, actions done out of inclination may have just as much moral value, it is just less obvious. To say that actions done against,despite inclination have more moral value would be wrong. We wouldn't think it was a good policy to bring up children with wicked inclination, so that they could overcome them. Therefore, it seems we do ascribe moral worth to actions done from inclinations AS WELL AS actions against inclination.

describe Kants analysis of the morality of suicide

Second example: Kill yourself out of self-love Maxim: From self-love I shall kill myself if life promises more misery than pleasure Consider the perturbed world: Self-love is a natural psychological feature whose function is to preserve life (This stage can be challenged as Kant begs the question by defining self-love in a way that serves him for this example Self-love may be the function of choosing decisions that bring YOU the most happiness) A world where self-love was regularly used to terminate life, rather than to continue it, would be a world in contradiction with itself Therefore, we cannot conceive of acting on this action in the perturbed social world contradiction in conception perfect duty

explain the issue of consequences relevance to kants deontology

The axe murderer asks where your little sister is. Surely, its relevant that if you tell the truth, your sister will suffer horribly. But, Kant says that only duty and the universalizability of the maxim matters, producing intuitively immoral results . Kantian ethics fails to incorporate the virtues of other normative theories such as utilitarianism.

explain not all universalisable maxims are moral and not all non universalisable maxims are immoral

The first is meant to involve observations such as: I can universalize the maxim, "I shall always tie my left shoelace before my right shoelace". However, the action in question is morally trivial. But this is powerless against Kant as he didn't say that all universalisable maxims are good. He just said that it is morally wrong to act on non-universalisable maxims. This is a misunderstanding and probably does not need to be mentioned in an essay. The second line is a better criticism: An example is homosexuality. A maxim may be, 'Whenever I have sex, it shall be with someone of the same sex'. This will have a contradiction in conception, as the species would die out so you cannot will that the maxim be acted on in the perturbed social world. Therefore, there is a perfect duty to never act on this maxim. However, having homosexual sex is not immoral. Michael Lacewing's example is the maxim, "I shall never sell, but only buy". This is not universalisable as there is a contradiction in conception (no one to buy from). But surely, it is not immoral to never sell and only buy.

issue of formulating maxims in pants deontology

There is a vagueness in the application of Kant's first formulation. This vagueness arises due to two factors: 1. We cannot indisputably predict the outcomes within the perturbed social world 2. The restrictions in the wording of the maxim will make a difference to whether it is universalisable a. 'I shall steal whenever it suits me' b. 'I, being a philosophy teacher at D'Overb shall steal from Sainsbury's (Oxford) on Tuesdays when I am hungry' The second action is universalisable, the first is not. Making the action simultaneously moral and immoral. This seems incoherent, or at the least, vague. Kant could argue that the second maxim, makes an exception for oneself, this is exactly what the categorical imperative is aiming to stop you from doing. But how do we know what constitutes an exception?

describe Kants analysis of the morality of not developing talents

Third example: Fail to develop your talents Maxim: I shall neglect gifts and talents, and devote myself to enjoyment Consider the perturbed social world: It is conceivable that this maxim can be adopted by all people However, we cannot rationally will for this world. • There is another weakness within this stage as some people would rationally will for this world According to Kant, there is an imperfect duty to develop talents contradiction in will imperfect duty to develop talents

what does wants view of good will lead him to

To have moral worth, action must be done from DUTY Motives for actions can be: duty, inclination or self-interest. Anything done due to the motivation of inclination or self-interest have NO MORAL WORTH. (A moral action has no worth if it is done out of inclination as opposed to duty. However, an action is still immoral even if it is done out of inclination as it goes against the categorical imperative.) Doing something in accordance with duty is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a moral action. what, according to kant does an act have worth through via its maxim, not its outcome or purpose

what is pants second formulation of the categorical imperative

Treat humanity never merely as a means, but also as an end. ('So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never merely as a means only.') In the fare dodging scenario - you are using other people as a means to make your life easier as they are effectively paying for your fare.

explain conflicting duties as a criticism to kantian deontology

Under Kantian ethics, perfect duties can arise. There is an absolute, exceptionless duty to follow them (ban on lying). Such perfect duties can conflict: eg You may have promised to look after someone (eg Jews in occupied Amsterdam in WWII), but yet also cannot lie to the Gestapo when they visit. Therefore, we must NOT do one. Reply: By promising to look after the Jews, you have promised to lie to the Gestapo. Promising to lie is immoral. Therefore, the initial act of promising to look after someone was immoral in the circumstances. Also, conflicts of imperfect duties: eg Sartre's example - I ought to join the resistance to help my compatriots but I ought to stay home and look after my mother. The theory gives us no decision procedure, for which we ought to do.

Objection of categorical imperatives by phillappa foot

moral obligations are hypothetical - they that depend on our subscription to certain schools of thought. hypothetical imperatives can be withdrawn if a person lacks a relevant desire as hypothetical imperatives say an action is requires as a means to an end kant thought hypothetical statements are non moral and categorical statements are moral but categorical statements of etiquette are categorical but societal not morally relevant Since this is so, it cannot be the 'categorical' nature of certain statements that distinguishes moral from non-moral imperatives kant is right, morality is thought to have some special binding force. however, on analysis, we cannot see this binding force in the external world it is not rationality as it is not irrational to be immoral therefore, foot thinks there is nothing objectively binding, it is education and tradition lack of objective binding means imperative is subject to subscription of social laws Therefore, the moral laws are hypothetical

issues with pants illustrations

some examples aren't great (eg suicide) this is significant as he cannot find 4 concrete moral rules by his theory we need more moral rules Kant's system (formal test: can the maxim be universalized) may not be sufficient to provide us with enough concrete moral guidelines

what does kant say about good will

that nothing is intrinsically valuable other than good will nothing "can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will" • Other things are only good instrumentally (e.g. wealth, virtues and health) Reason: virtues affect your ability to achieve your goal; but your goal may be bad e.g. affable thief: charm is not always good - as charm can be used to deceive, therefore, charm, in itself, is not intrinsically good Good in terms of the end it achieves

what is an imperfect duty

you must do it sometimes there is a contradiction in will

what is a perfect duty

you must never do it there is a contradiction in conception