CH6 Kant

Explain how Kant uses the categorical imperative in his four examples.

Creates a hypothetical situation where the maxim becomes a universal law to determine if it has moral worth, is it possible?

What does duty have to do with having respect for mortality?

Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law, the moral law. An action done from duty must wholly exclude the influence of inclination, and with it every object of the will, so that nothing remains which can determine the will except objectively the law, and subjectively pure respect for this practical law, and consequently the maxim to follow this law even to the thwarting of all my inclinations.

How does Kant state his basic moral principle?

I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.

What is the difference between how one would reason about whether it is prudent to make a false or lying promise and how one should determine whether it is the right thing to do?

It should be considered whether it would not be more prudent to act herein according to a universal maxim, and to make it a habit to promise nothing except with the intention of keeping it. But it is soon clear to me that such a maxim will still only be based on the fear of consequences. It is a wholly different thing to be truthful from duty, and to be so from apprehension of injurious consequences. In the first case, the very notion of the action already implies a law for me; in the second case, I must first look about elsewhere to see what results may be combined with it which would affect myself. I can will the law but I can by no means will that lying should be a universal law.

If we do the right thing, such as not overcharging customers or preserving our life, do these actions always have full moral worth, according to Kant?

No, only if the intention (feeling of duty) lies within acting honestly and in "good will" will the action, if also good, be considered to have moral worth.

What is the difference between a rule of skill, a counsel of prudence, and a command of mortality?

Rule of skill: "belonging to art" Counsel of prudence: involve necessity, but one which can only hold under a contingent subjective condition they depend on whether this or than man reckons this or that as part of his happiness. "belonging to welfare". Command of morality: laws that must be obeyed, that is, must be followed even in opposition to inclination. "belonging to free conduct generally, that is, to morals"

Out of what motives other than duty do people act?

Selfish view, inclination of fear, the inclination to honor.

Explain how Kant uses the second formulation in the same four examples.

So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never means only.. He applies this idea to the four examples determining if the treatment of rational beings is right, be it they are never used as a means. This will determine the moral worth.

What does Kant mean by an "end?" How does this notion relate to the second form of the moral imperative?

That which serves the will as the objective ground of its self-determination is the end, and if this is assigned by reason alone, it must hold for all rational beings. Man and generally any rational beings exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions, whether they concern himself or other rational beings, must always be regarded at the same time as an end.

How does Kant describe what it means to be under obligation or subject to an "object?"

The relation of the objective laws to a will that is not thoroughly good, is conceived as the determination of the will of a rational being by principles of reason, but which the will from its nature does not of necessity follow.

What is meant by a "good will," and why is it the only thing good "without qualification?"

The sight of being who is not adorned with a single feature of a pure and good will, enjoying unbroken prosperity, can never give pleasure to an impartial rational spectator. Thus a good will appears to constitute the indispensable condition even of being worthy of happiness. it must qualify as a good, so the good will must be behind it. i.e. there must be both the intention and the act itself in order to have moral worth/value.

What does Kant mean when he says that some kinds of love cannot be commanded?

This is a practical love, and not pathological, a love which is seated in the will, and not in the propositioned of sense, in principles of action and not of tender sympathy; and it is this love alone which can be commanded. It means we are not impelled to it by any inclination, nay, are even repelled by a natural and unconquerable aversion.