Kant

Kant: a good will is the basis of morality

"Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will."

we cannot always know our true motive for doing something and if it is truly just to obey the moral law

"We like to flatter ourselves with the false claim to a more noble motive; but in fact we can never, even by the strictest examination, completely plumb the depths of the secret motives of our actions." ex--Maybe deep down you only volunteer to get hours

inner principles

"When moral worth is being considered, the concern is not with the actions, which are seen, but rather with the inner principles, which are not seen." (the inner desire to do what is right)

Kant history

-Philosopher, lived from 1724 - 1804 (AKA the enlightenment) -strict lutheran (believed in the christian god) -had a secular code of ethics, tried to keep God out of it, but you can see the influence

obeying the moral law for the sake of the moral law itself

-be good for goodness' sake -do it because it is the right thing to do, no other reason -do it out of respect for the law -doing something for the sake of the moral law is the same thing as doing ones duty -this involves really high standards

How Kant Sees Aristotle's Virtues

-Courage, intelligence, happiness, and wealth are morally neutral. -they are only good if they exist in a person with a good will -If a man with an evil will possesses them, they are evil. -If a man with a good will possesses them, they are good.

Good consequences do not make an action good

-Deontologists don't believe that the ends justify the means. -if a person abides by the moral law, then the consequences that follow from his action do not enhance or detract from its worth -only the action itself is worthy of praise or blame -you cant be blamed for stuff after the fact, the only thing that is important is the decision to act - a person should be praised for their decision to act even if he cannot do what he intended to do! Why? because the decision itself is the only thing under control of the will

why can't happiness be a basis for moral rules?

-human happiness is too uncertain too provide a basis for moral rules -this is why moral rules are different from virtues

The important question isn't what you end up doing, but why you end up doing it

-it doesn't matter morally if you follow the moral law if you are only doing it out of fear or even if it because you are doing something that brings you joy. Only if it is done because you are doing your duty does it have moral worth -If you do something just because it is your duty, this is the only good way. -Obey because it is the law, but not because it is your emotions that are compelling you to do it

Kant: Happiness cannot be the foundation for morality

-it is not always a good thing (happiness can make evil people more evil if they enjoy doing wicked things, ex-terrorists) -Aristotle says we need courage (a virtue) for happiness, but Kant says a courageous act is good in itself whether or not it brings us happiness

Kant: The life of reason is not necessarily a happy one

-reason/the ability to make choices cannot bring happiness -more unhappiness is brought by what humans do using free will than by natural disasters -nature must have given humans reason and will for another purpose than happiness -usually instinct makes us happier than reason

Kant versus Aristotle

Aristotle: -human telos/goal is happiness, this is the goal of the moral life -individuals acquire virtue in order to achieve happiness -the good life is the happy life lived in accord w/ reason Kant: -the purpose of our lives as people who can choose should be something other than happiness -the pursuit of the happy life is distinct from and sometimes opposed to the moral life -reason and free will are for a purpose other than happiness

A good will is one that follows the "categorical imperative".

Formula of Universal Law -act only according to the maxim (rule) whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law) -this is like the golden rule, do things only if you wouldn't mind having other people do them too -this is another way of stating "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" you have to think of two things 1. can it be conceived as a universal law (can you picture it?) 2. can it be willed to be a universal law? (would you want it) if yes: do it if no: dont

one can always choose to follow the moral law

No matter what a person's inclinations might be, he or she is still capable of choosing to follow the moral law out of respect for the moral law, because every rational being has a free will and is equally capable of doing his or her duty for the sake of duty.

Where Kant Missed the Mark: The role of emotions in the moral life

for Kant, the emotions are not part of the self, but are external to who we are as persons

the only thing of intrinsic work

having a good will

more on high standards

he demands that all emotions be kept out of doing your duty

Where Kant Missed the Mark: the neglect of moral integration

he emphasized duty so strongly that he missed something very important: the quest for moral integration, for overcoming the split between duty and inclination -Too much split between duty and the emotion behind the duty -He doesn't let emotions be brought into it, but we need both

Kant helped us see clearly: respecting other persons

his insistence that we treat other people as ends-in-themselves, that we respect them as autonomous beings capable of reasoning and of making choices based on the results of that reasoning Treat people as ends, not means to another end

moral rules

moral rules=categorical imperatives, or commands which must be followed by all people in every situation

Kant's philosophy is grounded in

reason alone

The Enlightenment

-there were many Discovery and investigations into the sciences -it revolutionized how people viewed their place in nature and their relationship with religion -the Earth and human beings were no longer seen as the center of the universe (which is what Christians had long believed) -People began to question statements that were based only on authority -people put more of an emphasis on reasoning and science than in faith, and this is reflected in Kants work which says moral questions should be kept separate from faith

Kant: Doing one's duty

-to do ones duty is to follow moral rules, which are always absolute commands

What makes a will good?

1. obeying the moral law for the sake of the moral law itself 2. good consequences do not make an action good 3. following the categorical imperative

Kant's 4 imperatives of duty

1. to ourselves (our duty to ourselves is to exist, this is why suicide is wrong. we must love ourselves) 2. to others (we must repay debts/borrowed money, we must be honest and just and treat people with respect) 3. to society (we must use our gifts and talents for the betterment of other people as opposed to wasting them) 4. to serve (we must be responsible)

consequences of excluding emotions

1.) working against moral integration; 2.) making the moral life near-sighted; it is often through our emotions that we can see suffering that would otherwise be hidden. Emotions help us perceive the world 3.) sometimes what is most needed in the moral life is an emotional response. Ex--. when we cannot do anything to help a person in pain, we can care and feel compassion for their suffering. Kant's ethics has little room for any emotive responses.

Categorical imperatives vs. counsels of prudence

AKA doing your duty vs. striving for happiness, they are quite different -Kant: doing one's moral duty is different than striving for happiness

Where Kant Missed the Mark: the place of consequences in the moral life

Kant insulates the moral life from our everyday life. Consequences do count and Kant failed to provide an adequate account of their full role in the moral life -He doesn't allow you to think about consequences -Don't base your choice on it, but it should be a consideration

the test for a maxim

The test for a maxim is whether people could consistently will that everyone adopt this maxim as a guide in their actions.

categorical imperative

the golden rule, more important -Good without qualification -Action is good without reference to another end -Action is objectively necessary of itself -it is universal and the circumstances cannot change it

good without qualification

the good will is always good in itself, regardless of what follows (it is inherently good)

hypothetical imperative

the lesser imperative -Practical necessity -Relative to circumstance (try to avoid traffic, try to avoid red lights) -The action is good only as a means to something else (only because it is important to do something. -A more minor thing, smaller every day things -This can change because of circumstances

maxim

the subjective rule that a person has in mind when performing an action

Kant helped us see clearly: the admirability of acting from duty

there is something morally admirable about people who do the right thing, even when they do not feel like doing it, just because it is the right thing to do, because it is their duty

A person should only be praised or blamed for something that is within the power of his will

they should only be held responsible for what they have control over

treatment of others

to treat another only as a means of achieving what we want is to disregard his/her humanity, to treat a person as a thing and to fail to show due respect for his/her status as a rational human being

counsels of prudence

virtues

Kant helped us see clearly: the evenhandedness of morality

we are not permitted to make an exception to the laws of morality just to benefit ourselves or those we care about -More even because there are certain norms everyone must follow -It is for everyone, we shouldn't make exceptions