Kant

Challenges to PoH

(1)Notion of "treating someone as an end" is vague (2)Gives bad advice about punishment and desert (3)Assumes that we are autonomous, but this may be incorrect (4)Restrictive conception of the moral community

Kant's Counter-Argument

1)If you are rational, then you are consistent. (2)If you are consistent, then you obey the principle of universalizability. (3)If you obey the principle of universalizability, then you act morally. (4)Therefore, if you are rational, then you act morally. (5)Therefore, if you act immorally, then you are irrational.

Principle of Universalizability

An action is permissible if and only if its maxim is universalizable. •Contradiction in Conception Test: (1)Formulate your maxim clearly. (2)Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim. (3)Ask whether the goal of your maxim could be achieved in such a world. •If "no," then your maxim isn't universalizable. Contradiction in Conception •Contradiction in Conception Test is a test of consistency. •We do not ask whether universalizing your maxim would generate bad results. -Not a form of AU•We ask whether it would be possible to achieve the goal of your maxim in a world where everyone acted on it.

Two Kinds of Contradiction

Contradictions in Conception Contradiction of the Will

Immanuel Kant

•One of the most important philosophers of the modern era -Influential in metaphysics, epistemology, perception, ethics •Led highly disciplined and solitary life, concerned with perfecting his philosophical system. •Sought to show that immorality was a kind of irrationality

Equality and Morality

•"All men [and women] are created equal." •Often used to combat prejudice and racism •What does the phrase mean? •Two alternatives: -Descriptive -Prescriptive

Prescriptive Equality

•"The principle of equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans; it is a prescription of how we should treat humans." •The principle of equality specifies how we ought to behave. Not an attempt to describe how things actually are. •But what is the prescription, more precisely? •There must be some feature that makes a being worthy of moral consideration. •Prescriptive equality says that the relevant feature is having interests. -If a being has interests, we ought to give them equal moral consideration, regardless of race, sex, intelligence, religion, etc. •In virtue of what does a being have interests? •What's the difference between kicking a stone and kicking a horse? •The horse has interests, while the stone does not. •Singer: Any being that can suffer or feel enjoyment has interests. -Any being that can suffer has interest in not suffering. -Any being that can feel enjoyment has interest in feeling enjoyment. •Any other dividing line would be arbitrary! -"Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin color?"

Categorical Imperative

•A categorical imperative is a constraint that applies to you regardless of your aims. •Laws of mathematics, logic, rationality, morality •Kant: All moral rules are categorical imperatives. -Binding, independent of our aims or the consequences of our actions •On this view, it is false that we have a reason to do something only if it gets us what we want. •Consistency is a plausible requirement for rationality. •Someone who believes both p and ~p is irrational. So is someone who desires both p and ~p. •Kant: We are consistent only if our maxims are universalizable

Hypothetical Imperative

•A hypothetical imperative is a constraint that applies to you because of your aims. •If you aim to become a doctor, then you are subject to hypothetical imperatives: -Take biology classes, and do well in them. -Fill out medical school applications. •You are released from hypothetical imperatives if you give up the aims that give rise to them.

Maxim

•A maxim is a principle that you give yourself when acting. •Two components: -What you intend to do -Why you intend to do it •Example: I will buy water from the vending machine to reduce my thirst. •Kant: Actions are permissible or impermissible according to the maxims from which they are produced. •Why is this plausible? •Maxims are within our control, even though the results of our actions are not. •Avoids AU's problem of moral knowledge.

Kant's Theory of Value

•AU claims that well-being is all that really matters. •Kant: Well-being has no value if it results from wrongdoing. •Only thing always valuable is the Good Will: -Knowing what your moral duty is -Doing that duty for its own sake •Doing your duty out of fear of punishment has no value. •Suppose Mother Teresa helped victims of disease and hunger purely out of compassion. •For Kant, this also has no moral value. •Emotions are unreliable. The Good Will requires a rational grasp of one's duty.

Imperatives

•An imperative is a constraint on action. -Certain actions comply with imperatives. Other actions violate them. •Two kinds of imperatives: -Hypothetical imperatives -Categorical imperatives

Descriptive Equality

•As a matter of fact, all humans are equal in certain respects. As such, they should be treated equally? •What might these respects be? •Humans differ widely in: -Strength, height, weight, intelligence, gender, skin color, moral dispositions Descriptive Equality•Two reasons not to rest the case for moral equality on arguments about descriptive equality. •Problem 1: Even if races/sexes are notdescriptively equal, prejudice would still be wrong. -Stakes case against prejudice on "one particular outcome of a difficult scientific issue" •Problem 2: Would permit more sophisticated forms of prejudice (discrimination based on IQ)

Deontological Ethics

•Deontology: The morality of an action depends on whether the choice to perform that action accords with moral rules.

Kant and Punishment and Desert

•How do we punish a person for wrongdoing while also showing respect for their humanity? •Kant's answer: lextalionis•Better known as "eye-for-an-eye" •Why? •Criminals are rational. Thus, it makes sense to reverse their maxims, so they see things from victim's perspective.

Advantages of PoH

•Intuitively immoral actions ruled out by the Principle of Humanity: •Fanaticism and genocide •Coercion: Slavery, rape, blackmail •Deliberate deception: Lying, promise-breaking •Paternalism •Intuitively praiseworthy actions encouraged by the Principle of Humanity: •Holding others accountable for misdeeds, and punishing them if appropriate •Helping others to promote their aims, cultivate their talents •Protecting fundamental human rights •Maintaining hope in a person's capacity to reform

Kant's Response

•Kant contends that this line of reasoning is mistaken. •He does not deny that unethical people can succeed in getting what they care about. •The mistake lies in Premise 1: -People have a reason to do something only if doing it will get them what they care about. •Key feature of rules of rationality: Universality•If you believe: -Socrates is a man -All men are mortal •Then you ought to believe: -Socrates is mortal •Universal principle of correct reasoning. Doesn't hinge on your goals or desires. •Kant thought moral rules are the same way.

Absolute Moral Prohibitions

•Kant famously asserted that there are certain absolute moral prohibitions. -It is always wrong to lie, no matter the circumstances. •Murderer is at your door, asking after your friend's location. Your friend is hiding in the basement. Do you lie? •Kant said that it is impermissible to lie, even here.•Lying rests on a system of communication, which itself rests on convention of truthfulness. •But even if we can't universalize lying whenever it is advantageous, perhaps we can universalize the following: -I will say whatever is needed in order to prevent the murder of an innocent person. •Suggests further difficulties: Universalizabilitydepends on fine details of your maxim.

Why is Inconsistency Bad

•Kant saw universalizability as a demand of consistency. •If achieving your goal depends on others not thinking and acting as you do, then you are making an exception of yourself. •We know we are not special in this way. If you assume that you are, then you're committed to an inconsistency.

Autonomy and Free Will

•Kant's conception of human beings requires that our choices be free. •But are we free? •Many have argued that the notion of free will is incoherent. If so, then Kant is wrong in assuming that we are autonomous beings. •Possibility 1: The laws of nature, together with prior conditions (genetics, environment) determine what you will do. •If so, then how could your choices be free? •Possibility 2: The laws of nature together with prior conditions do not determine what you do. •If so, then your choices are random. But if your choices are random, then they are not in your control. Argument Against Free Will (1)Either our choices are necessitated or they are not. (2)If they are necessitated, then they are out of our control, and so we lack autonomy. (3)If they are not necessitated, then they are random, and so we lack autonomy. (4)Therefore, we lack autonomy. Compatibilistsreject (2). Libertarians reject (3).

Amoralist's Challenge

•Morality and rationality seem like different things: (1)People have a reason to do something only if doing it will get them what they care about. (2)Doing their moral duty sometimes fails to get people what they care about. (3)Therefore, people sometimes lack any reason to do their moral duty. (4)If people lack any reason to do their moral duty, then violating their moral duty can be perfectly rational. (5)Therefore, it can be perfectly rational for people to violate their moral duty.

Scope of the Moral Community

•PoH limits our obligations to agents that have rationality and autonomy. •What about the following? -Infants -Mentally disabled -Non-human animals •Does Kantian ethics have the consequence that torturing puppies for fun is permissible? Treatment of Animals •Kant believed that we are duty-bound not to mistreat animals. •Two reasons: (1)One who mistreats animals is likely to cultivate dispositions to mistreat human beings. (2)One who mistreats animals often also fails to respect the dignity of other human beings. •How strong are these reasons? Treatment of the Disabled •Suppose you are very skilled at dissociating your behavior from one context to another. You can choose to harm others only in some situations, and not others (and you know this). •It is surely still wrong for you to torture a mentally disabled man who has no friends or family.

Vagueness

•PoH says that you always need to respect others' rationality and autonomy. But what exactly does this entail? •Celebrity gossip? •Telling "white lies"? •Are we obligated to help alleviate extreme poverty? •Onora O'Neill (1985): Treating someone as a mere means involves acting on a maxim to which they could not rationally consent. •Maxim: I will coerce John into giving me money against his will in order to increase my well-being. •John could not rationally consent to this because the maxim entails that he doesn't.

Principle of Humanity

•Principle of Humanity: Always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means.•What is a human being?•Not the same as homo sapiens •By human beings, Kant means agents that possess two capacities: -Rationality -Autonomy •Rationality and autonomy make someone a member of the moral community.-Beings that have obligations and are owed obligations

Contrast w/Utilitarianism

•Rule Utilitarianism: An action A is morally permissible if and only if A is permitted by the optimificmoral code. •Optimific moral code is the one that would generate the best results if generally endorsed. •Not the same as universalizability.

Problems for Lex Talionis

•Seems that criminals who intentionally harm their victims should be punished more severely than those who accidentally harm them. -But lextalionis doesn't register this difference. •What about perpetrators of victimless crimes? -E.g., drunk or reckless driving •Is it really permissible to do to criminals exactlywhat they've done to their victims? Tension: •Kant wants to limit the morally relevant features of action to those that are within our control. •Problem: The results of criminals' actions are not wholly within their control. But lextalionistakes them into account in determining punishment.

Two Dimensions of Kantian Ethics

•The Principle of Universalizabilityembodies Kant's emphasis on fairness and integrity. •Kant offered another moral rule, the Principle of Humanity, that emphasizes the importance of respect for the dignity of others. •Argued that the two were equivalent principles!

Problems for Kant

•Two kinds of problems: -Intuitively moral actions whose maxims aren't universalizable-Intuitively immoral actions whose maxims are universalizable •You aim to collect as many baseball cards as possible, and you intend not to sell them. -Maxim: I will buy baseball cards but not sell them in order to build my baseball card collection. •Fails Contradiction in Conception Test: If everyone followed this maxim, you couldn't achieve your goal. Nazis and Fanatics •Suppose that when Adolf Eichmann organized the deportation of Jews to concentration camps, his maxim was: -I will send people to their deaths in order to rid the world of non-Aryan races. •No contradiction in imagining that everyone supports this, and Eichmann achieves his goal. •No obvious contradiction in willing it, either! •Kant's view seems to avoid the problem of moral knowledge, but does it really? •To know whether we are acting morally, we need to know which maxim we are acting on. •But psychology tells us that we are often unaware of our true motives. The Devil is in the Details •We stated Joe's maxim like this: I will make up lies about my opponent in order to gain an edge in the election. •But suppose his maxim really is: I will make up lies about Frank in order to ensure that I win the election.

Rationality

•What makes someone rational? •Three components: (1)Capacity to understand and reason about the world (2)Capacity to respond to reasons and act on them (3)Capacity to act on moral reasons even when you fear punishment, or know that it is not in your best interest

Inconsistency

•When people benefit from "cheating the system," they are guilty of a type of inconsistency. •If I lie to avoid paying taxes, I gain happiness. But I also reap benefits that are only possible if others are paying their taxes. •I both affirm a rule (insisting that others follow it) and reject it (insisting that I'm not subject to it). •Two key features of Kantian ethics: (1)Emphasis on the maxim of action, rather than its consequences (2)Permissibility of an action depends on whether its maxim is universalizable.

Autonomy

•When we say that someone has autonomy, we mean that she can make free choices. •More broadly: Capacity to freely set ends for oneself, and stick to them. •Principle of Humanity only specifies our duties to beings that have these capacities. •Distinguish capacity from exercise of a capacity. •We still have moral duties to people who are asleep or unconscious. •Some fully awake people fail to exercise their rational capacities, or to freely set ends for themselves. Doesn't banish them from the moral community.

Contradiction of the Will

•When you will that everyone acts on your maxim, two contradictions are possible: -Contradiction in supposing that everyone acts on your maxim while your goal is achieved. -Contradiction in willing that everyone acts on your maxim •Example: Assisting others in need •I don't like helping others in need, so I decide to focus onlyon my own aims. My maxim: -I will not help others in need, so that I can dedicate myself solely to my own aims. •We can conceive of everyone doing this. And I could achieve my goal. •Kant: Necessarily, we all will that we be helped when we are in need. So we cannot coherently will that this scenario come about.

People as Means and Ends

•You treat someone as a means when you use that person as a tool for getting what you want. •You treat someone as a mere means when you use them as a tool, and also fail to respect their humanity (rationality & autonomy). •If you do respect humanity, you also treat as an end. •Example: Using chef as a tool for obtaining food -You also treat the chef as an end if you recognize that he has goals of his own, and that by eating at his restaurant you are helping him to achieve those goals.