Ethics Final Study Guide- Week 5

3. Why can't even Jesus Christ serve as a model for moral action? pp. 4:408-409 - Bankes

"For every example of it that is presented to me must itself first be judged according to principles of morality, whether it is actually worthy to serve as an original example, i.e. as a model; but by no means can it furnish the concept of it at the outset. Even the Holy One of the Gospelmust first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before he is recognized as one." (Kant, P.4:408) This is simply stating that we only know if Jesus Christ was morally good by comparing him to what we believe to be morally good. Kant believes moral law cannot come from examples because it has to be a pure law and examples are never pure. Kant notes that appealing to Jesus as an example will run into the problem of trying to establish a moral foundation by appealing to any example. That is, the example itself must be understood against the backdrop of a moral principle in order for it to have any meaning.

We cannot use experience to discover moral rules because experiences are personal to each individual. If a person has not gone through and experienced and certain things then it would be hard for them to know what may even fall as a moral or immoral rule. With the end in itself formulation the focus is on treating one's self and others as an end and never merely as a means. The key here idea is just one of placing the proper respect on humanity. Kant thinks that when we reject charity either when we need it or when another needs it from us is wrong because such a rejection treats humanity merely as a means. When we give or accept charity during a time of need then we are treating humanity as an end.

1. Why can't we use experience to discover moral rules? pp. 4:408-409 = Albritton

What does Kant mean when he says that all moral concepts must be a priori? pp. 4:411-412 - Beeson

A priori knowledge or experience is a form of knowledge of experience that is not based upon empirical -five senses- input. It is based upon 'reason alone'. Kant relies so heavily on the a priori because he does not think that empirical experience itself gives us information or knowledge about morality. Empirical experiences just seem like a series of flashing lights and rolling waves without a priori concepts or ideas to make sense of them and give them intelligible content.

14. On the natural law formulation, why is not developing one's talents immoral? pp. 4:422-423 - Lane

According to Kant (2012), the universal law of nature is "so act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature." With this, he presents a few different scenarios, one of which being a man who chooses not to develop his talents. Kant says that as a rational and moral being, a man should not let his talents waste by because they were given to him for a reason. They are used for the betterment of himself and those around him, therefore they can be seen as a duty to develop these talents. Because talents are a natural part of the person, to neglect them would be to completely ignore the universal law of nature and to ignore one's duty to have the will to act upon these talents. The key idea here is that Kant argues that as a person imagines the universal rules that they would embrace they would much rather embrace of universal rule that says to develop talents rather than a universal rule that says to neglect talents.

10. Why can the moral law not be to maximize happiness? ppp. 4:417-418 - Hodges

Arjan, excellent work noting that Kant does not think happiness is consistent with a rational universal moral code! He is also skeptical that people can use reason to acquire happiness in any consistent fashion. The primary problem Kant notes here is that very often rational people cannot use reason to predict what will make them happy. For instance (and I bet everyone in class can relate) have you ever really thought that having something would make you happy and then you had it and low and behold it didn't make you happy at all even though you had good reason to think that it would. Kant would say this is not a failure of reason, instead it is proof that using reason is often not what leads to happiness.

15. On the natural law formulation, why is rejecting charity immoral? pp. 4:423 - Migatz

At the heart of this question is the idea that rational agents would opt for a universal rule that says to accept and give charity when it is needed, rather than an alternative universal moral rule which says to reject charity. Any of us could find ourselves in a situation where we need charity to even survive, as such a rational person not knowing the future would never endorse a rule that rejected charity for the needy. To do so would be reject self-preservation and Kant would argue that is a clearly irrational thing to do.

19. On the end-in-itself formulation, why is suicide immoral? pp. 4:429 - Staten

Carlos, excellent analysis! Kant argues that suicide is a clear and universal case in which a person uses themselves not as an end and instead merely as a means and hence will always be morally wrong.

6. What does Kant mean when he says "Actions which are recognized to be objectively necessary are subjectively contingent?" pp. 4:412-413 - Brooks

For Kant our (moral) action is a combination of objective principles such as the categorical imperative with our subjective mind and will. The objective principles are true because they are every bit a real feature of the universe as much as matter, space, or gravity. But unlike concepts in physics our moral concepts only become entirely real of 'activated' when they are processed by our subjective minds.

7. What is the relationship between the objective principle of reason and the subjective will? pp. 4:412-414 - Buss

For Kant reason is an objective feature of the universe (much like gravity is) but unlike gravity the will gets its force once when it is digested and understood by a subjective mind.

2. What is the worst thing we can do for morality? pp. 4:408-409 - Bailey

For Kant the worse thing we can do for morality is to think that we can determine it by appealing to examples. For Kant, only a rational principle can provide a universal moral truth. The example itself never simply stands on its own, it is always backed up or explained by some principle. And it is that principle (in the form of the categorical imperative) that Kant tells us provides the foundation for moral judgment, not some example that derives from the principle.

17. Why does Kant believe that the rational will is of absolute value, i.e., valuable as an end in itself? Pp. 4:427-429 - Perry

For Kant, rational will is necessary in order to formulate universal moral maxims of conduct. We need reason to get to a universal morality for Kant. Without it, people would never, for Kant, move beyond an animalistic morality governed by instinct and a base concern only for the outcomes of actions.

12. On the natural law formulation, why is suicide immoral? pp. 4:421-422 - Jefferson

Kant argues that it would be absurd and contradictory for everyone to follow the rule of suicide but not absurd or contradictory for everyone to follow the rule of no suicide - thus he reaches the conclusion that suicide is always morally wrong.

9. What end do we all have? (Kant thinks that it is naturally necessary.) pp. 4:415 - Higgins

Kant thinks that happiness is the end that we all have. But at the same time he does not, unlike Mill, think that happiness is the cornerstone of morality because (i) often times we cannot use reason to know what will make us happy and (ii) happiness is far too subjective to be governed by a universal rational maxim

11. What is the natural law formulation of the categorical imperative? pp. 4:421 - Hollingsworth

The concept of the categorical imperative is used to identify judgments and states that we have an indefinite moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on an individual's inclination or purpose. According to Kant, he states that morally applicable rules are categorical imperatives because the consequences of our actions which is prohibited morally, will apply whether we like it or not. One example if we commit crimes we cannot escape these consequences of our actions as long as we are moral individuals. The natural law formulation of the categorical imperative mentions to "act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature". In other words, we should do the right thing always whilst taking humanity into consideration regardless of the circumstance and treating our actions as if it were the natural laws of nature.

21. On the end-in-itself formulation, why is rejecting talent's immoral? pp. 4:430 - Vick

The end in itself formulation is primarily concerned about a person treating his or her self or others as an end and never merely as a means (like a tool to be used to merely accomplish some goal). Kant thinks our duty to treat humanity as an end applies to ALL of humanity including our self. Kant sees no reason why the moral ways in which we are supposed to treat others would also not apply to ourselves as well. It is an aspect of humanity either way.

18. What is the end-in-itself formulation of the categorical imperative? pp. 4:429 - Smith

The end in itself formulation of the categorical imperative directs us to think about whether we are treating people as ends in themselves or merely as objects to be used as mere instruments or means. It sounds simple enough not to treat people like a tool such as a hammer but sadly this basic notion is violated countless times everyday.

20. On the end-in-itself formulation, why is a false promise immoral? pp. 4:429-430 - Stottlemyre

The end in itself formulation of the categorical imperative states that we should treat all of humanity always as an end and never merely as a means. This suggests that we should never use ourselves or others as a mere tool or object to get something else but instead must treat all of humanity as valuable in a non-instrumental fashion. Kant further suggests that all instances of lying constitute using another merely as a means and hence lying will always violate this idea.

16. Explain the two tests for consistency of natural law and maxim. What two different kinds of duties are illustrated? pp. 4:423-424 - Ovwielefuoma

The first test just asks us 'could we' make a universal rule out of the maxim that we are choosing. Not even would it be a good idea but could it even be done. In the case of lying, murder and suicide, Kant argues that rules allowing for these things could not even be conceived of as universal maxims. In a logical sense they could not exist as universal maxims. As such for Kant these actions are all strictly prohibited. But we can run a second test and ask would it be a rational for our maxim to be a universal rule? So even if it is possible for everyone to do this would rational people have a universal rule that allowed it? Here we get into areas like charity and developing talents. Yes it is possible to conceive of a world where no one develops talents or accepts/gives charity but no rational person would have a rule that wanted such a world. Thus we have an imperfect or wider meritorious duty to form rules that encourage to develop their talents and accept and give needed charity.

8. What are the two different kinds of imperatives? pp. 4:414-415 - Dannenberger

The two different kinds of imperatives that Kant speaks of are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical, according to Kant are "only if the action is good for some possible or actual purpose" (4:414). Categorical imperatives "declare the action to be of itself objectively necessary without reference to any purpose" (4:415). Hypothetical imperatives are the ones where we first set an end or goal and then form a maxim around some sort of means to reach that end or goal. I think it is safe to say that for almost all of us hypothetical imperatives are extremely common. But with categorical imperatives we are completely duty driven toward the stated imperative end or goal, the means-ends process has no role within such imperatives.

5. What happens when reason is perfect and perfectly controls the will? pp. 4:412-413 - Bermundez-Martinez

When reason is perfect then the outcome for Kant must be a moral action. For Kant moral actions flow from our reason and likewise immoral actions flow from a lack of reason or as is more often case a weakness of being able to act with reason when other things get in the way such as goals of happiness or a concern with the consequences of an action. Kant takes this connection to reason so seriously that uses it explain the morality of God. For Kant, God always acts morally BECAUSE God is a fully rational being - this is what Kant has in mind when he speak about the idea of a 'divine will'. Even for God, in Kant's moral picture, it is reason that allows for morality

22. On the end-in-itself formulation, why is rejecting charity immoral? pp. 4:430 - Traore

With the end in itself formulation the focus is on treating one's self and others as an end and never merely as a means. The key here idea is just one of placing the proper respect on humanity. Kant thinks that when we reject charity either when we need it or when another needs it from us is wrong because such a rejection treats humanity merely as a means. When we give or accept charity during a time of need then we are treating humanity as an end.

13. On the natural law formulation, why is a lying promise immoral? pp. 4:422 - Knollenberg

a lie will necessarily form a contradiction and violate the notion of universal rational law. The natural law formulation says that people must be willing to will actions that could be universally willed by all. The demand here is just that the action could be willed (not even that it should be willed) in universal fashion. So we have to ask could a person even will that the lying promise be universalized to all? The answer here is no. This is not because of the bad consequences that would result from everyone lying. That would only show that the maxim could be universally willed but with a result that most people would not like. The reason here goes much deeper. Imagine a world where everyone lies as a universal rule. At first this seems like bad situation but possible. But that is deceptive, this situation is actually conceptually impossible. Why? Well, if everyone were a liar and this was known then the lie could not exist. Lies depend upon people thinking something could be true and if the universal rule is to lie then no one would think this at all! Thus it is literally impossible to universalize the will that everyone engage in lying promises - it simply cannot occur because it such a situation the lie would lose its deceptive power and hence no longer be a lie. *Note that this is all very different from the typical idea that lies are wrong because they harm people. Kant would likely agree that lies can harm people but he does not think that is what makes lying wrong.