Kant's deontological ethics

Objection to Kant - Philippa Foot - argument 1

Argument 1 - Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives o This objection was put forward by philosopher Philippa Foot o Foot's key claim is that moral judgement cannot be distinguished from hypothetical imperatives Ø This is essentially saying that moral commands are hypothetical o She thinks that the 'common opinion' of most people is to agree with Kant and his view on Categorical Imperatives (as opposed to hypothetical) Ø She says that it appears that Kant is right about this Ø This is because we use the words 'should' and 'ought' in both a hypothetical and categorical sense, depending on the situation Ø When using these words hypothetically (eg If you want to go to America, you should get on this plane), you can take back the 'should' if the person does not want to meet this consequence (going to America) Ø When using these words categorically, you cannot take back the 'should' Ø Moral judgements cannot be taken back as they have to be absolute, so most people take moral judgements to be categorical o Foot says that Kant may be right in linguistic terms to distinguish moral commands as categorical o However, Kant also says that categorical imperatives have a 'special dignity' that no other imperatives have, which Foot says that one cannot prove o There are other cases in which we use words like 'should' and 'ought' in a non-hypothetical way, in cases of etiquette ('You should hold your fork in your left hand') and club rules ('You should not bring ladies into the smoking room') Ø The words in themselves do not give us reasons to act, it is more our desire to conform that causes us to follow these rules Ø As these examples of should statements do not give us reason to act in themselves and have no binding force, then why should moral commands give us reason to act in themselves and be a binding force? Ø Because we only act because we want to conform to society's moral rules (a condition of acting upon these rules), all categorical imperatives (whilst they are linguistically presented as unconditional) end up becoming hypothetical Ø This means that we never do anything for the sake of morality, we always have ulterior motives o Categorical imperatives therefore cannot have special status as they are just hypothetical imperatives in disguise, so they are all the same

Objection to Kant - Problems with Universalisability

Argument 1 - The Universalisation of Immoral Maxims o Kant's theory is that we should only act on maxims that can be universalised o However, we can twist maxims so that they can be universalised, yet they are still immoral o For example, if my maxim was 'To steal gifts from large shops and when there are six letters in my name', this wouldn't cause a contradiction as only people with six letters in their name would be able to steal from shops, not causing chaos o The maxim would apply so rarely (as fewer people have six letters in their name) that there would be no breakdown in society o Therefore, this law could be universalised, even though it is immoral Kantian Response o Kant's response is that his theory is concerned with a real maxim and the intention behind the choice o It is not part of my choice that I have six letters in my name, or that it is a gift that I steal o Therefore, my real maxim that directly makes a choice is 'To steal', which cannot be universalised o So, it is not wrong to act on such maxims as the real maxim in each case can be identified, and then universalised o The above maxim (about stealing when there are six letters in your name) is also a hypothetical imperative(as it is a condition that your name has six letters), so for Kant this could not be universalised anyway

Argument 2 - Reasons for Morality

Argument 2 - Reasons for Morality o The 'binding force' of moral judgements is a reflection of the inner feeling that one has to behave in a moral way o These feelings are not enough to base the existence of absolute moral laws on o Therefore, there is no rational basis for absolute moral laws, and therefore no basis for the Categorical Imperative Kantian Response o Some actions ARE committed out of duty Ø An example of this is if someone helps those oppressed in society, purely because it is the right thing to do Ø This action has no implicit motive to conform to society's standards, making it categorical and going against Foot's theory o Breaking moral laws hurts people - Breaking the laws of etiquette do not

Objection to Kant - Goes Against Intuition

Argument that Kant Forces Us to Act Against Intuition o Kant's theory is said to go outside our moral intuitions o In Kant's scenario where a madman is at your door with an axe asking if your friend inside, Kant would say that we should always tell the truth o This however goes against our moral intuitions as surely it is more moral to lie than allow someone to be brutally murdered o How can our actions be moral if they lead to immoral actions such as murder? o Therefore, intuitively in some situations we feel that we should disregard a rule (as we may feel that it is more important to save a life than to tell the truth) o This does not make lying the right thing to do - it is an evil that is necessary to do in order to save a life Kantian Response o By making exceptions, this leads to inconsistency and a more subjective outlook on morality, which goes against Kant's approach based on reason o He would also say that lying would make the person responsible for the consequences of their lie Ø For example, if the axe murderer did end up finding your friend and killing him, you would be partly responsible as you told the lie in the first place

Hypothetical VS Categorical : conditions

Hypothetical- Conditional and desire dependent (uses words like 'if' and 'then') It is a means to an end a rule of conduct that is understood to apply to an individual only if he or she desires a certain end and has chosen (willed) to act on that desire. Although hypothetical imperatives may be expressed in various ways, their basic logical form is: "If you desire X (or not X), you should (or should not) do Y." Categorical- Unconditional and applicable to all regardless of desiresand differences Hypothetical imperatives are contrasted with "categorical" imperatives, which are rules of conduct that, by their form— "Do (or do not do) Y"—are understood to apply to all individuals, no matter what their desires.

Duty

In Kant's mind, duty is the concept of the following principles that apply for everyone (universal principles) o Duty is acting in accordance with the Categorical Imperative o One cannot be acting from a sense of duty if one is acting in the name of: Ø Self-interest Ø Revenge Ø Good consequences eg happiness or pleasure (Kant judges by intentions only) o The purpose of rules and duties is to be moral and to force one to behave in a rational way o Acting in accordance with duty is when your decision matches the morally right thing to do, irrespective of the motive o In contrast, acting out of duty is when the motive behind the decision is duty itself, regardless of self-inherent consequences o Although the action could be the same in both cases, Kant said that it is the intention of duty that makes something a morally good action

Maxims to Universal Laws

Kant says that a maxim might fail to become a universal law if: o It leads to contradiction in conception - a logical contradiction Ø 'I should be able to end my life out of self-love' (example 1) Ø 'I should be able to make promises with no intention of keeping them' (example 2) o It leads to a contradiction in the will - against the will of a rational being. When the will of a person contradicts the universalisation of that maxim implies. Ø 'I shouldn't have to help others' (example 3) Ø ' I should be able to neglect my natural talents' (example 4) Example 1 - Suicide o A man feels sick of life due to a series of misfortunes and wants to end his life o He applies the maxim: 'Self-love means that I should shorten my life if it has more evil than good' o He asks himself if this maxim could become a universal law o However, self-love would also want the man to prolong his life and preserve it o These contradictions (preserving life vs destroying it) mean that this could not become a universal law of nature o If self-love would lead to destruction (of life), this leads to a logical contradiction in conception so CANNOT be a moral duty

Objection to Kant - Focus on Duty

Problems with the Focus on Duty o Kant makes the motive of duty the only motive that has moral worth o Doing something good for someone because you want to may be right (in accordance with duty), but Kant would not consider it to be morally good (out of duty) o People oppose this focus on duty as it goes against our rational and natural behaviour that leans towards love and friendship, rather than duty o We don't naturally feel an intention of duty, so this is not a rational approach as it forced us to feel something we don't naturally feel o It is hard to completely disregard emotions and become a purely rational being, as we will always have tendencies and emotions towards people o People may not feel as valued if good deeds are done to them out of duty, rather than kindness Ø If someone went to visit a friend in hospital simply out of duty rather than friendship, this could seem insensitive Ø This is also just using someone as a means to an end (if the end is to fulfil your moral duty), which goes against the second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative o This shows that Kant ignores the value of certain motives such as friendship, love etc by saying that duty is the only valuable motive Ø This devalues these qualities when in reality they are a major part of human nature Raimond Gaita's Argument on Remorse o Kant appears to equate our terribleness as an evildoer and bad actions with being a traitor to reason o Our sense of shock and horror at our actions is trivialised if we express this realisation as 'Oh no! I have been a traitor to reason and duty!', which makes our problems seem shallow o Remorse reflects the feeling of having wronged another person and it is this feeling, not our obligation to duty and reason, that leads to reflection of our wrongdoing o Kant's method of solely focusing on whether we have done our duty does not lead to this self-reflection and so does not help us improve as people and deepen our connection with those we have wronged in the past Kantian Response o Acts of friendship and love are not wrong (they are still important) BUT they are not moral duties o Moral laws and duties cannot be based on something as inconsistent as friendship o Friendship is ultimately a condition, and we should do moral laws irrespective of friendship o Therefore, moral laws need to be based on something strong that is not easily broken, such duty

Objection to Kant - Consequences

Utilitarian Objection to Kant o Utilitarians take a more consequentialist approach and so object to Kant's intention-based approach to ethics o In their view, a decision about what is right should be based on what will result in the best possible consequences o This may involve making exceptions to rules (like lying to a murderer at the door), as fixed rules do not always lead to the most moral outcome o They might argue, for example, that if murder is wrong, we should be trying to ensure the minimum number of murders possible Ø In order to achieve this, it might be necessary to justify the killing of a murderer to save many others Kantian Response o Kant would of course reject this means-end reasoning o He would also reject the utilitarian view that happiness/pleasure is the only desirable end o In the case of lying to a murderer to try and save someone's life, Kant would claim that it would not be an act of moral duty to lie o This is because, in lying, we become responsible for the consequences o We cannot justify lying for altruistic (thinking of others and the greater good) motives o We do not know what consequences will be and by changing the course we gain responsibility o Whilst deontology is not consequentialist it is important to think consequentially although Kant thinks is important to value intent. o Moral value does not lie in consequences

Deontological

an approach to ethics that is based on duty and obligation

contradiction in conception VS contradiction in the will

conception = when the maxim , when universalised is no longer a viable means to an end. a logical contradiction where it is not logically possible that everyone could do that action. For instance, if everyone acted on the maxim that 'I should lie when it benefits me', no-one would believe a lie, and so lying would become impossible because there would be no environment of truth telling in which lying could ever be of benefit to me. Thus such a maxim is logically self defeating and thus immoral.​ will= where the will of a person contradicts what the universalisation of a maxim implies - whereby I cannot will an action because it would lead to a world in which it would be impossible for us to will our own ends. So, 'never helping others' is a contradiction in the will because were it to be universalised I could never expect any help from others, but in order for me to achieve my goals in life I need others to help me, for instance, to become educated, to give me medical treatment, and so on. The maxim 'I should waste my talents' works in a similar way when universalised. Thus 'I should never help people' and 'I should waste my talents' are immoral.​

Examples

hypothetical - If you want to get fit, you ought to go to the gym If you want to go on holiday, you ought to get a job categorical - You ought to tell the truth You ought to treat others respectfully

Kant's view

hypothetical - Moral commands cannot be hypothetical as a command based on a desired outcome cannot be an absolute moral law Not based on dutyor obligation categorical - Moral commands must be categorical and applicable to everyone (universalizable) It isobjectively necessaryand theonly thing good in itself o Kant's view was that a command that only applies to those with relevant desires cannot be a moral command o All moral commands must be categorical, but not all categorical commands are moral (eg 'I ought to murder' is not a suitable moral command, even though it is categorical)

Who does it concern?

hypothetical : Only concern those with an interest in the end Categorical - Concern all and not desire dependent

Second formulation of the Categorical Imperative

o 'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person, or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end' - formula of humanity Ø All people have intrinsic value and inherent dignity and we must respect that they are people in their own right Ø Humans have value in themselves simply because they are rational beings Ø We cannot just use others as SOLELY a means to an end Ø We cannot decide the value of another person simply because they help us achieve our goals - people have value independently of their assistance to you o 'Act always as though you are a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends' Ø The Kingdom of Ends is a place where everyone acts appropriately and follow the moral laws Ø Kant thinks that one should act in such a way that one's actions would be approved by even the most righteous in the Kingdom of Ends

perfect duty

o A perfect duty is one that we should always do and is an absolute obligation o The only examples that Kant gives are: Ø 'I should keep promises' Ø 'I should not take my own life' o Breaking a perfect duty leads to a contradiction in conception (logical contradiction) and is therefore considered immoral

imperfect duty

o An imperfect duty is one that we should do as far as we can but there is no absolute obligation as it is not always possible to keep it absolutely o We do not have an absolute obligation to fulfil these constantly if we lack the resources to carry them out OR if they clash with a perfect duty o The only examples that Kant gives are: Ø 'I should try to cultivate my natural talents' Ø 'I should help other people' o However, as Kant only gives four examples (two perfect and two imperfect), it is unclear as to which other duties are perfect or imperfect

Example 2 - Borrowing Money

o Another man finds himself borrowing money because of need o He knows that he will not be able to pay it back, but also knows that he will not get the money unless he promises to pay it back within a fixed time o He applies the maxim 'Whenever I am short of money, I can borrow money and promise to pay it back, even if I know this is impossible' o He asks himself if this maxim could become a universal law o If we all made promises with no intention to keep them it would make the concept of promising impossible Ø Everyone would know that promises made to them would be worthless and so nobody would believe promises o There is also a logical contradiction in this maxim: Ø The concept of a promise is that you will keep it Ø This maxim says that promises do not have to be kept Ø This defeats the concept of a promise in the first place as there is a logical contradiction between the idea of a promise (has to be kept) and the maxim that says that promises don't have to be kept

Example 3 - Having Natural Talents

o Another man has natural talents in many areas and fields of life o However, he does not want to use these talents to his advantage and prefers to live a life of laziness o He applies the maxim 'I should be able to neglect my natural talents' o He asks himself if this maxim would be able to become a universal law o There is no self-contradiction in this maxim as it is logically possible for everyone to do this o However, if universalised, it would have a contradiction: Ø If nobody cultivated their talents, it would lead to a downwards spiral with nobody trying to further the world Ø This would contradict/obstruct our rational nature to develop our natural abilities and use them to our advantage Ø This is not a logical contradiction but a contradiction in will

Example 4 - Helping Others

o Another man sees a man in distress and struggling o He thinks that it doesn't matter to him and doesn't want to help him o He applies the maxim 'I shouldn't have to help other people' o He asks himself if this maxim would be able to become a universal law o There is no self-contradiction in this maxim as it is logically possible for everyone to do this o However, if universalised, there would be a contradiction: Ø It obstructs the will of a rational being as humans naturally want to help people in need due to our free will Ø It also causes us to live in a purely selfish world where nobody helps anyone else

Categorical Imperative

o Believed in absolute moral laws and universal maxims that everyone must act on - Kant called this the Categorical Imperative 'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law' o Only do actions that can be followed by everybody without contradiction Ø He believed in not acting selfishly and treating others with respect o This allows us to see our behaviour in universal terms (universalisability) and not just as an individual action and keep in mind that people have a life of their own and deserve happiness Ø For example, one should not steal in any situation because if everyone universally stole, this would create chaos o Moral duties should be consistent and not depend on the situation Ø This is because Kant believed that inconsistency strikes at the very basis of our nature as rational human beings o Kant believed that all moral duties derived from the Categorical Imperative o Moral duties are not hypothetical (conditional) but categorical (absolute and must be obeyed at all times and in any situation) Ø A hypothetical imperative tells us what actions would be moral solely as a means to something else A moral action is one which fulfils the two versions of the categorical imperative (CI)...​ ​ Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will it become a universal law - formula of universalisability​

Judging Moral Actions

o Focus on intentions and principles of action rather than consequences o Actions shouldn't be influenced by the situation we are in - we should act by absolute laws in all scenarios o A moral maxim is correct and therefore morally binding if they are consistent with the Categorical Imperative o If our maxims are consistent with the first, second and third formulations of the Categorical Imperative, then they can be considered maxims of moral duty o Moral maxims must be categorical so that they can be universalised without contradiction

Morality and Reason

o Kant argues that disobeying the Categorical Imperative involves a self-contradiction Ø This shows that it is not just morally wrong to disobey the Categorical Imperative, it is also irrational o We intuitively think that morality applies to all rational and thinking beings, not just human beings o However, morality does not apply to beings that cannot think rationally, such as dogs or cats, as they cannot make rational choices o Morality therefore is universal and so is reason o Even if we do not care about being moral, morality and reason still apply to us as they are categorical and do not depend on what we want o Kant believed that moral laws were a priori synthetic Ø They are objective and exist independent of experience and through reason (a priori) Ø They are also not true by definition as we need to reflect on it in order to see its truth (synthetic) Ø Therefore, moral laws are objective and exist through reason, but we need to reflect on our experience to discover them

Objection to Kant - Conflicting Duties

o Kant considers moral duties as absolute and unconditional o This is problematic when two duties directly clash/conflict o Jean-Paul Sartre criticises Kant by using an example of his own experience in Nazi-occupied France Ø Here a young man is torn between his duty to his country which compels him to join the resistanceand protect France (although this would probably lead to his death) and his duty to his mother, who already lost her other sons due to war Ø Kant's ethical theory is of no use in helping him resolve this conflict since both imperatives are categorical and yet they pull in opposite directions Kant's Response o Kant's response is that a real conflict of duties should not take place o If there appears to be a conflict, we have misunderstood what at least one duty requires of us o We must formulate our duties carefully to avoid them from conflicting Ø For example, we should not make promises that have the potential to cause such difficulties o However, if we do perceive a conflict, we should choose the perfect duty over the imperfect one o BUT this brings up the objection of which duties are perfect or imperfect, as Kant only specifies four o This also brings up the objection of two conflicting perfect duties (or two conflicting imperfect duties) as it is hard to know which duty to choose over another: Ø An example of this is if one has to 'break a promise' (perfect duty) to 'save our own life' (perfect duty) Ø Since all perfect duties have the same value, how do we know which one to prioritise?

Weaknesses

o Logical derivation is questionable (the questions of objective moral laws and whether they are right) - Philippa Foot's argument o It is difficult to sustain universalisability (as sometimes duty leads to worse consequences) o Sometimes duties appear to conflict o Problems with the methods of universalising maxims o Disregards friendship and feeling o Limited number of perfect/imperfect duties specified can make his theory difficult to apply practically o Consequences DO matter

Strengths of Kant's Theory

o Provides clear and consistent rules o Doesn't rely on weighing up or predicting consequences - more reliable o Avoids subjectivity (emotions getting in the way of our judgements) and inconsistency o Provides universal standards for morality o Ensures people are treated with dignity and respect (second part of the Categorical Imperative)

Strengths

o Provides clear and consistent rules o Doesn't rely on weighing up or predicting consequences - more reliable (this therefore avoids the problems of utilitarianism) o Avoids subjectivity (emotions getting in the way of our judgements) and inconsistency o Provides universal standards for morality, showing that we can't make exceptions for ourselves o Rational method for decision making

Argument 2 - Moral Acts That Are Not Universalisable

o There are some acts such as 'to tell a lie' that is not morally wrong in all cases, but cannot be universalised o For example, if I needed to tell a lie in order to save a life, this is morally acceptable BUT if telling lies is universalised this would create a deceitful society o Therefore, Kant's Categorical Imperative does not provide us with the right answer to morality as it is not always wrong to do actions that cannot be universalised o More examples of maxims like this include 'I will use contraception when having sex' Ø This cannot be universalised (as if everyone used contraception then the whole human race would die out and there would be nobody around to have sex in the first place) Ø BUT it is not an immoral act in itself Kantian Response o Kant may argue that since these maxims are based on an individual's own circumstances they are acts of inclination, not moral commands o These maxims therefore become more like hypothetical imperatives o These things are not necessarily considered immoral as they are more related to practical matters than moral acts anyway o A response to this is that this shows how difficult it is to apply his theory to practical cases o It is also then hard to distinguish which cases need moral laws and which cases need acts of inclination

Good Will

o To have a good will is to: Ø Be motivated by duty and not by any ulterior motives Ø Act only on maxims that one can will everyone to act on (categorical imperative) o Choices and decisions are only good if they are based on good will o Considers a good will to be the only thing that is good in itself o Moral action must be based on something that is good in itself, so moral action must be based on a good will o Being honest in dealings with business partners as it is right thing to do VS doing this to work with them again

Maxim

rule/principle

Universalisability

the belief that if you do an action, that action should be applicable to everyone else in every situation