ethics quiz 12

Final thoughts

Kantian Ethics is concerned not with the consequences of an action but whether than action has the right motive and conforms to duty. Kant places heavy weight on treating individuals equally and with respect and this first, before the consequences can even be considered. However, like Rule Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics is open to criticisms of rule worship. When Kant says we have a duty to refrain from lying, he means it, and there are no exceptions. Your duty is to decide which of the theories (if any) is a good account of morality.

Beneficence - Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism

Let us return, one last time to comparing Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism tells us that we should do whatever will promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. One of Rachel's concerns about Utilitarianism is that it asks us to give up a lot of our own happiness in order to help others. That is, it seems to be very demanding. Does Kantian ethics suffer from this problem?

good will

Kant opens the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Ethics with the following line: "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification except a Good Will." The only thing that is good no matter what is a Good Will. A good will cannot be used for evil purposes. Everything else, all other qualities of character or qualities of good fortune can be used for either good or evil. The will is a faculty for choosing. The will chooses (freely) how one acts. A Good Will is somewhat like a good person; someone who does the right thing for the right reasons. A Good Will chooses the right actions for the right reasons. The specific obligations of a Good Will are called duties Kant makes three general propositions about them: 1. Acts are genuinely good when they are undertaken for the sake of duty alone. 2. Actions are judged not according to the purpose they were meant to bring about, but rather by the "maxim" that served as their motivation. 3. Duties should be undertaken out of "reverence" for the moral law.

thought expirament

"Suppose a utilitarian were visiting an area in which there was racial strife, and that, during his visit, a Negro rapes a white woman, and that race riots occur as a result of the crime... Suppose too that our utilitarian is in the area of the crime when it is committed such that his testimony would bring about the conviction of [whomever he accuses]. If he knows that a quick arrest will stop the riots and lynchings, surely, as a utilitarian, he must conclude that he has a duty to bear false witness in order to bring about the punishment of an innocent person" (Rachels, 121). As Rachels points out, bearing false witness, in this situation may genuinely bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people - the riots and lynchings would stop and many lives would be saved. However, does this really seem like the right thing to do?

ex 4 beneficiary

A person who notices that it would be burdensome to help others decides instead to leave them alone. They decide neither to help others nor to hurt them. Whatever happens, happens. Is it contrary to duty to refrain from helping others when they are in need?

to sum help

An action is genuinely good if it is done for the right reasons, that is, from the right motivation. The right motivation is respect for the moral law or duty. The right motivation is respect for the moral law or duty. To have a Good Will is to act from a sense of duty; to do the right thing because it is the right thing out of respect for the moral law.

developing talents and duty

Both versions of the Categorial Imperative tell us that living your best couch potato life is impermissible and morally wrong. Knowing this gives us two corresponding duties 1. We have a duty to refrain from being a lazy couch potato who ignores their talents. 2. We have a duty to develop our natural talents.

suicide and duty

Both versions of the Categorial Imperative tell us that suicide is impermissible and morally wrong. Knowing this gives us two corresponding duties, 1. We have a duty to refrain from committing suicide. It is impermissible and morally wrong. 2. We have a duty to continue our lives. Since it is wrong to end our own lives, we have a duty to continue our lives.

beneficience and duty

Both versions of the Categorial Imperative tell us that choosing not to help others is impermissible and morally wrong. Knowing this gives us two corresponding duties 1. We have a duty to refrain from harming others. To harm others does not treat them as an end in themselves. 2. We have a duty to help others.

prop 2

Example of a Maxim: If I need money but cannot pay it back, I can make a false promise to pay it back even though I know I cannot. For Kant, we judge whether an action is right or wrong based on its maxim. We can see this in the Universal Law Formulation of the Categorical Imperative. What is important is the rule of our action, our maxim, not the consequences we are intending to bring about. If we would not want our maxim to become a universal law, then the action is wrong because the maxim is bad, regardless of the good consequences it might bring. Actions are judged not according to the purpose they were meant to bring about, but rather by the "maxim" that served as their motivation.

qualities of character

Intelligence, with, judgement, courage, resolution, perseverance, moderation in emotions, self-control, and calm deliberation - in addition to the qualities of good fortune mentioned in the last slide all seems like good things. However, as Kant points out, a villain someone who lacks a Good Will, who possess these traits is incredibly dangerous just look to the left. While these traits are helpful to someone who possess a Good Will - they can also be used for evil. Therefore, they cannot be good without qualification.

other motivations

Kant does not think that all of our actions are actually motivated by duty alone. Sometimes our actions are motivated by inclination or self-interest. Inclination: a natural desire to act or feel a certain way this includes feelings of pleasure, displeasure, content, discontent, happiness, sadness ect. Self-interest: a desire to do what is best for oneself. While these actions are in accordance with duty they are not done from duty and so they are not genuinely good actions. They do not have the right motivation.

Happiness as an intrinsic good

Kant thinks that happiness cannot be good without qualification because there are plenty of things, we can do in pursuit of happiness that are just wrong. Without a Good Will we may use all sorts of means to achieving happiness. Power, riches, honor, health, and wellbeing (all of which Kant calls Qualities of Good Fortune) can inspire people to do either good or evil. So, happiness, power, riches, honor, health, and wellbeing cannot be good without qualification. They are only good when they are used by or pursued by a Good Will.

Classifying Duties - Perfect and Imperfect

Not only can we classify duties based on whether they tell us to avoid something to do something, but we can classify them based on the number of ways we can fulfill the duties. For Example: Beneficence 1. We have a duty to refrain from harming others. The only way to fulfill this duty to refrain from committing suicide. There is no grey area. If you harm someone in any way, you have not done your duty. 2. We have a duty to help others. There are multiple ways to fulfill this duty. You could help your friend move out of their apartment. You could donate to charity. You could help your roommate clean the house. Duty (1) is a perfect duty. A perfect duty is a duty that you must always do that tells you specifically how you go about doing it. Most perfect duties are negative duties. Duty (2) is an imperfect duty. An imperfect duty is something that you must not ignore but there are multiple ways to go about fulfilling it. These duties are less specific and allow you more choice in how and when to fulfill them. Most imperfect duties are positive duties.

Classifying Duties - Negative and Positive

One thing you may have noticed is that for each example, we got two duties. For Example: Suicide 1. We have a duty to refrain from committing suicide. 2. We have a duty to continue our lives. For these examples, we got a duty to "refrain from" and a duty "to". One is telling us something that we should not do and one is telling us something that we should do. Kant calls the duties that tell us to refrain from doing something negative duties. These duties prohibit us from doing something. Kant calls the duties that tell us to do something positive duties. These are duties that tell us about things we should do.

ex 3 developing our talents

Someone is a lazy couch potato and decides that rather than developing their talents, they want to waste the days away on the couch binge watching Netflix shows. We all have a natural affinity for something. For example: math, reading, writing, music, or athletics (it even be multiple things). But if we decide that rather than pursuing anything that we are good at that we want to be lazy, is this contrary to duty?

the categorical imperative

The Universal Law Formulation "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" The Humanity Formulation "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only"

developing talents and the categorical imperative

The Universal Law Formulation 1. Determine what the maxim of your action is. Your maxim: "From inclination and self-indulgence, I can neglect my natural gifts and become a couch potato" 2. Ask whether you would be willing for your maxim to become a universal law. Would you allow your rule to be followed by all people at all times? Kant thought that this maxim could not be a universal law because any rational being could not will that they fail to develop their talents because their talents serve them in some way. Therefore, this action is impermissible and morally wrong. The Humanity Formulation 1. Determine what you want to do. I want to sit on the couch and watch Netflix rather than develop any of my natural talents. 2. Ask whether your chosen action will treat others/yourself an end. When you opt to neglect your natural talents you are not treating yourself as an end in yourself. It is not enough to just preserve your life, you have to make it a good one and failing to develop your talents while you sit on the couch binging does not qualify. Therefore, this action is impermissible and morally wrong.

suicide and the categorical imperative

The Universal Law Formulation 1. Determine what the maxim of your action is. Your maxim: "From self-love I adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction" 2. Ask whether you would be willing for your maxim to become a universal law. Would you allow your rule to be followed by all people at all times? Kant thought that this maxim could not be a universal law because it contains a contradiction. Self-love is supposed to encourage you to continue and improve your life. It will never be in the interest of self-love to take your own life. Therefore, this action is impermissible and morally wrong. The Humanity Formulation 1. Determine what you want to do. I want to end my own life because continuing to live will result in more unhappiness than happiness. 2. Ask whether your chosen action will treat others or yourself an end. When you opt to commit suicide you are not respecting yourself as an end in yourself. You are using yourself as a mere means to end suffering. Therefore, this action is impermissible and morally wrong.

Beneficence and the Categorical Imperative

The Universal Law Formulation 1. Determine what the maxim of your action is. Your maxim: "I should not help others when they are in need" 2. Ask whether you would be willing for your maxim to become a universal law. Would you allow your rule to be followed by all people at all times? Kant thought that this maxim could not be willed to be a universal law because there will be times when you will be in need of help and want the help of others. If you will your maxim to be a universal law, others will not help you when you are in need. Why would you want this? Therefore, this action is impermissible and morally wrong. The Humanity Formulation 1. Determine what you want to do. I want to refrain from helping others when they are in need. 2. Ask whether your chosen action will treat others/yourself an end. When you opt to refrain from helping others, you are failing to treat them as ends in themselves. It is not enough to refrain from using other people as a means to an end. You must also treat them as an end it themselves. Therefore, this action is impermissible and morally wrong.

prop 3

The moral law is given to us through the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative tells us that it is wrong to lie (see last week's slides). Therefore, we have a duty not to lie. The reason we should not lie is because it is morally wrong. To show reverence for the moral law is to understand that moral law ought to outweigh all of our other interests and concerns. Therefore, we should be motivated to do our duty simply because it is the right thing to do, regardless of other reasons we might have. Duties should be undertaken out of "reverence" for the moral law.

The categorical imperatives and duty

The previous examples are used by Kant to show how to use the Categorical Imperative. We not only use the Categorical Imperative to determine whether our own chosen course of action is right or wrong but whether it would be right or wrong for anyone to choose that action. The Categorical Imperative, then, is like the Principle of Utility insofar as it supposed to be a principle that anyone can use to determine whether an action is right or wrong. However, it is also a system for developing rules. Let's take a look at the ones we have developed... We have a duty to refrain from committing suicide. We have a duty to continue our lives. We have a duty to refrain from making false promises to borrow money (or more generally, to refrain from lying). We have a duty to tell the truth when asking to borrow money (or more generally, to tell the truth). We have a duty to refrain from being a lazy couch potato who ignores their talents. We have a duty to develop our natural talents. We have a duty to refrain from harming others. We have a duty to help others. Do you see a way we can organize these duties?

Beneficence - Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism

Unlike Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics does require that we give up all of our personal goals in order to help others. Kant insists that we have a positive and imperfect duty to help others. He does not say that we have to help others all the time, nor does he specify in which way we have to help others. It is a duty to help others but we can choose when. Certainly, there are cases where it is very clear that we would be violating a duty to help others. If you are a sole person standing at the shore of a lake and notice a children drowning, if you can (without great harm to yourself) help the child, then failing to do so would not be following the duty to help others. However, in the case where you have to choose between paying for a friend to go to the movies and donating the $10.00 you would spend on their ticket to charity, you are free to choose which you choose to do. After all, you are a rational being with goals and desires and you are capable of making a free choice about what you want to do.

happiness as an extrinsic good

We already know that for the Utilitarian, happiness is the sole intrinsic good. It is the one thing that is good in itself and everything else that is good is good because it helps us to pursue or gain happiness. For Utilitarians, the ends justify the means. As long as what we are doing brings about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, it does not particularly matter what we have to do. But aren't there some ways of achieving happiness that seem... wrong?

ex 2 false promise to burrow money

We have already discussed why making a false promise to borrow money is not allowed using the Categorical Imperative (see last week's PowerPoints). Like suicide, however, we get two corresponding duties: 1. We have a duty to refrain from making false promises to borrow money (or more generally, to refrain from lying). 2. We have a duty to tell the truth when asking to borrow money (or more generally, to tell the truth).

prop 1

What matters to Kant? The motivation. Doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. For a Utilitarian, whether an action is right or wrong depends solely on the consequences of the action. Will doing X bring about the best consequences (where "the best consequences" are those that bring about the most happiness)? Acts are genuinely good when they promote overall happiness. For Kant, whether an action is genuinely good does not depend on the consequences of the action, rather it depends on the motivations of the individual who performed the action. An act is genuinely good when it is done because it is the right thing to do. Acts are genuinely good when they are undertaken for the sake of duty alone.

actions as right or wrong

While the motivation determines whether an act has genuine moral worth - whether an action is permissible or impermissible depends on whether it conforms to the Categorical Imperative.