Ethics Test: Kant
What is Kant's Formula of Universal Law (FUL) version of the Categorical Imperative?
"Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
What's Kant's "Formula of Humanity" version of the Categorical Imperative?
"Always treat your own humanity or the humanity of other persons as an end; never treat your humanity or the humanity of other persons merely as a means (to your ends)."
Explain what Kant means when he says good will is based on "how it wills"?
"How it wills" = the way in which a good will is motivated- doing things b/c it is the morally right thing to do.
What is the (morally) good will?
-The good will is the only thing in the world that's good w/o qualification or limits. -Doing something simply because it's the morally right thing to do.
Define Deontological Ethics
-an ethics which the rightness and wrongness of an action is NOT based on consequences or results of that action. -The motive/intention determines the moral worth.
What does Kant mean by willing a maxim or principle to be a universal law?
A principle becomes a universal law when it is universally practiced by EVERYONE.
Why does kant think that the majority of our actions that are in accord with duty to preserve ourselves (ex. eating every day) LACK moral worth?
Because they are motivated PURELY BY DESIRES. These inclinations have nothing to do with a sense of moral duty.
When someone intends to act on the maxim of making a false promise in order to get needed money, what is the CONTRADICTION in the will that arises if that person tries to will a UNIVERSAL LAW of FALSE PROMISING?
Contradiction: if it was made into a universal law, then the promise and the intended purpose of it would become IMPOSSIBLE. It would lead to a situation in which NO ONE would TRUST each others promises anymore.
Why does the maxim of cutting in line fail the FUL test?
Cutting in line -> you consider cutting people in line to get ahead more quickly. It's impossible for you to intend for the principle to be practiced by everyone w/o contradicting your own will. If everyone started cutting in line, you can't possibly get ahead of others.
Does the Formula of Humanity say that we can NEVER make use of someones rational nature as a means to an end under any circumstance?
FH does NOT say you can NEVER use someones rational nature as a means to one of your own ends nor that you can never use a persons as a means to an end. We do this all the time-it would be impossible not to.
According to Kant, the Formula of Humanity says we have a moral duty to NOT commit suicide in order to avoid misery. Why?
FH says it's wrong to take your own life to avoid living the rest of your life in misery b/c you're treating your humanity as if it only has value as a means to a subjective end (happiness in this case). FH instead tells you to continue to treat your humanity as something of inherent dignity.
What sorts of maxims/principles should we not act on?
FUL says (morally speaking) you should NOT act on principles that cannot be universally practiced by everyone.
What does Kant mean when he says good will is without qualification?
Good will is something that's absolutely good, there are no limits to it's goodness.
When someone acts on the maxim of letting their talents go to waste, what is the contradiction if that person tries to will it to be a universal law?
If no one ever develops natural talents and spends all their time pursuing amusement and enjoyments, nobody would be able to achieve all any goals you might hope to pursue in life. Developing talents is a means to achieving our purpose of being happy. Thus, since any rational being intends to be happy, developing talents is a means to this.
FUL can be understood as a test to see if there's a "contradiction in the will" of someone considering acting on a maxim. What is this test?
If you would be contradicting your own will by intending for everyone to act in the same way that you do, then you shouldn't act that way.
What does Kant mean when he says other good things are only good with qualification?
It means there are limits to the goodness because their goodness is not absolute. Its goodness can be lost under certain consequences.
What about when people DO act on maxims that cannot also be willed as universal laws?
Kant points out that people who act on such principles don't intend for others to act the same way. They intend for others to do the opposite so they can achieve their goal.
What does Kant mean by "humanity" and what are some of the key features of it?
Kant thinks every person has "humanity", by which he means "the rational nature" of a person. -The rational nature of a person includes the ability to act according to reason, and the ability to freely set ones own end goals.
What's the main reason why good things like intelligence, wit, judgement, health, courage, etc. can often be bad when possessed by certain people?
Kant thinks these things can be used for bad or immoral purposes and in those circumstances their goodness is diminished or lost.
Why does Kant think you must help other people achieve some of their ends in order to treat other people as ends in THEMSELVES?
Kant thinks we must attach some value to other peoples ends to help them achieve their goals and ends. You must treat their ends as important.
If someone intends to act on the maxim of only looking out for their own happiness & never helping others, what is the contradiction that arises if this person tries to will this to be a universal law?
Kant thinks you cannot act on this maxim because we often need the help of others in certain situations to attain happiness. If this maxim is made a universal law, no one will ever look out for each other.
Consider the person who wants to act on the maxim of letting his talents go to waste to pursue enjoyment/pleasure. Why would he be contradicting his own intention in acting on his maxim?
Kant would say willing such a universal law would contradict his own intention to derive pleasure from other peoples talents.
Do actions that are purely from inclination have genuine moral worth?
NO! These actions lack true moral worth because they are not motivated by any sense of duty!
Can the bad consequences of acting from good will tarnish the goodness of good will?
NO. For Kant, bad consequences CANNOT tarnish the goodness of good will.
According to Kant, is happiness the hightest good in life?
No. Happiness is not the ultimate good in Kant's eyes.
Do all acts in accord with duty have this true moral worth?
No. Not every act that is in accord with a duty deserves the esteem of true moral worth.
Define objective ends
Objective end: has absolute value; rational nature has an inherent value that can't be lost or diminished.
What sorts of actions have true moral worth according to Kant?
Only ACTS DONE FROM DUTY have true moral worth
What does Kant mean by "acting from duty"?
Someone acts from duty when they do something that's in accord with duty and is motivated by a sense of moral duty. -If you do an action that's in accord with duty, PLUS your motive for doing it is b/c "it is my moral duty" then you acted from a sense of duty.
What does Kant mean by a "subjective end"? Why does he think such ends only have "conditional value"?
Subjective end: any sort of personal goal that a rational being tries to achieve through his/her actions. The value of these ends is conditional upon human desires and preferences.
Kant believes that although they are in accord with duty, even unselfish acts of helping others that are purely motivated by inclinations of sympathy and compassion lack true moral worth. How does he explain this view?
Sympathy and compassion are both INCLINATIONS. Acts of helping others that are purely motivated by these lack true moral worth. Kant says there's nothing genuinely moral about the motives of sympathy or compassion.
Why, according to Kant, is it that the shoe-keeper (who charges the same prices for everyone) acts in accord WITH duty, but does not ACT FROM duty?
The shoe-keeper is acting in accord WITH the duty to be honest but his honesty lacks true moral worth b/c he is motivated by an inclination to serve his own interest. -keeping the same price is best for his business b/c if he cheats some people, he may lose customers.
According to Kant, what sort of value do THINGS have? (inanimate things and animals)
They have "conditional value". They only have instrumental value, which means their value serves as a means to human ends and derives from human desires.
What does it mean to treat someone's rational nature merely as a means?
This means you are treating that person's humanity/rational nature as if it only has INSTRUMENTAL value.
What does Kant consider the ultimate good in life?
To develop and exhibit a morally good will.
What does Kant mean by "true moral worth"?
True moral worth is a special kind of moral goodness that we esteem higher than everything else.
Explain Kant's idea that we fail to treat a person as end in itself whenever we use them in a way that fails to respect their autonomy.
Using another person as a means to our own ends involves disrespecting that person's inherent dignity by using that person in a way that they cant "contain" the end of our action. They can't freely agree to what we're using them for.
What does Kant mean by "acting in accord with duty"?
When someone does something that happens to be an action that's required of us by moral duty.
What does Kant mean by "acting purely from inclination"?
Whenever we are motivated ONLY from inclinations.
Why does Kant think borrowing money from someone and making a false promise to repay them involves treating that person as a means to YOUR end?
You're using that person in a way that they cannot agree to. That person is deceived into thinking they are being used as a means to get a temporary loan. They believe they will be repaid later and don't know they're being lied to.
Define an end in itself
an end in itself means it has value inherent in itself: this inherent value isn't derived from, or depend, upon anything else, such as the satisfaction of human desires or preferences.