philosophy lecture 6 notes

how kant believes a moral claim is made true

Discovered a priori via pure reason and a moral claim that is also false is discovered a priori via pure reason -By determining the categorical imperative.

Inquiry distinction

Formal inquiry: Inquiry into the form of the laws that govern some set of entities Material inquiry: inquiry into the entities themselves: the things in that set of entities that are governed by the laws. We've studied the things in questions -Kant: also involving being clear on what something means exactly and how we're being asked to think of something before we can ask if it's true. -Kant says you can't do a material inquiry until after you've done a formal inquiry (first know the laws before you can see how things governed by those laws work)

practical policy and imperatives for Kant

Imperative/practical policy: Rule that an agent issues themselves that directs how they are to act in certain situations. -for kant: if a practical policy is to be a moral rule, it must be a law: That must legitimately bind all rational creatures.

impure versus pure practical reasoning:

Impure practical reasoning: concerned with unstable reasons for acting, those in which the circumstances may change, and in turn, what the agent should do also changes. In other words, if the circumstances change, the agent's obligation will also change Pure practical reasoning: practical reasoning is concerned with stable reasons for acting, those in which the circumstances can change but what the agent should do doesn't change. Furthermore, the circumstance of the issue may change, but the agent will remain firm in their thinking about what they should or should not do

epistemological distinction: a priori versus posteriori

Moral skeptics versus moral anti skeptics. -episemiologists seek to answer: Is human knowledge possible. Inquire into necessary conditions for human being a to have knowledge: Epistemic justification condition. -A priori: belief is justified via rational evidence, evidence comes from reason itself -a posteriori: belief justified via experimental evidence: one or more experiences being sensory or introspective.

pure versus impure reason

Pure reason: reason that is entirely a priori, devoid of any posteriori content Impure reason: Reason that's partially dependent upon some a posteriori content, reason that's dependent upon some a posteriori content.

kant believes that formal inquiries are

a priori and Material inquiries are a posteriori -since you must do formal inquiries before you can do material inquiries, moral philosophy must begin with a priori knowledge.

for kant, person does not mean the same thing as human

all humans are persons but not all persons are human

Groundwork: Kant

ancient Greeks: physics referred to any type of science ex astronomy chemistry biology geology. -Kant uses the term science for these. because it comes from Latin: Scientia which means Knowledge. This indicates that each different science governs something. these are sciences that concern laws, what they are and how they work.

practical anthropology:

any inquiry that is material in nature (based on impure reason) can teach us about this. -the most we can learn in moral philosophy from material inquiry is: application of the moral laws to some particular species, e.g., human beings, hobbits, etc -These claims are contingent, synthetic truths or falsities.

Synthetic statements:

are informative, they give us information that we can't simply determine by understanding the claim.

kant: uses the term anthropology but

as a different meaning from ours.

kant's view a nomological theory of moral justice:

because kant's view of moral justice being based on categorical imperative and tied to moral law. -Nomological theory: Any type of theory that explains its subject matter with laws and how those laws govern the things in question. Kant: Morality must be understood in terms of laws that govern our actions

rational creatures have dignity

because rational creatures have autonomy: Kant says rational creatures have free will that is to be respected at all times. -it's about investigating the moral law not investigating creatures governed by the law.

impure versus pure practical reasoning is important because it strikes a debate:

between internists and externalists: rationality of morality concerns what gives a moral agent good and motivating reasons to do what justice demands. JQ2: What, if any, good reasons are there for a person to follow a demand of justice? -what reasons can be god enough to motivate a moral agent to do what is demanded of them.

for kant, moral demands are

demands of pure practical reason and only laws of reason can do that work. Kant agrees that the moral law must be a categorical imperative. Investigation into metaphysics of morals and NOT practical anthropology.

kant is committed to

ethical foundationalism: he seeks to demonstrate that there are moral laws that govern and justify our conduct in virtue of them being a foundational or first Principle of morality.

kant: Categorical imperative is his

first principle of morality. TO locate it we must do investigation into metaphysics of morals (into those moral laws that permit or do not permit the actions of all rational creatures, irrespective of biology or psychology or social empirical facts)

logic is science of

good and bad reasoning

debate between internists and externalists is

how to answer justice question #2 Internalism: the view that what provides good reasons for doing what justice demands is something "internal to" the moral status of the action. Externalism: the view that what provides good reasons for doing what justice demands is something "external to" the moral status of the action.

kant: Form inquiry material

if we engage in formal inquiry, we should NOT be asking if premises and conclusion are true, rather ask if pattern of reasoning is good (logically good)

for kant: moral laws are NOT tied to human nature like mill says they are or to social empirical facts about situations,

instead it's a function of moral duty and moral law. -absolutely binding on every rational creature-human or otherwise-in all possible circumstances. Idealized necessity.

kant is an

internist: (plato is too) believes that moral reasoning can only be pure practical reasoning: Must be driven by stable reasons for acting. It's the moral status of the action alone that gives moral agents good reason to act, which will motivate the agent. -And insofar as we're rational, we'll be motivated to do what is morally right simply because it's right and we'll be motivated to not do what is morally wrong simply because it's wrong. Caring about morality is irrelevant. -for Kant, your desires can pull you in the opposite direction of what morality demands

for kant, a lie by definition

is denying someone information that they have a right to. If you ask someone for information that you need and have a right to you don't want to be misinformed -Kant: lying is always morally unjust not by concerning ourselves with particular psychological facts about humans or by concerning ourselves with social empirical facts, it's by concerning ourselves with the national nature of the agent of the action. Rational nature that deserves to be treated with respect. -Every rational creature has dignity: The very nature of being a rational creature is simply by being a person.

logical validity

it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. -there are no possible counterexamples to it -doesn't necessarily mean you should accept the conclusion of an argument, because it doesn't tell us if a conclusion is true (That's what logically sound means)

kant: being a person has nothing to do with biology or psychology

it's the fact that a creature is an agent that can govern themselves by reason and reason alone (pure practical reason)

kant's simple idea/philosophical theory

morality is a function of how persons deserve to be treated given that they are persons. They deserve to be shown respect because they have dignity

Laws that each field studies: distinguishing factor

not their being laws, but what those laws govern: generalization of the way that things necessary must be or must go. -Idealized regularities: describes regularities that tells us how things will go 100% of the time in perfect condition.

kant: begin ethical inquiry with study

of ethical concepts; Key concepts to kant are moral duty and good will.

why understanding analytic versus synthetic statements is important to kant

paying attention to this distinction is essential to establishing not only the conditions that make thought even possible, but establishing the very foundations of the moral law. For Kant, the moral law is an a priori knowable synthetic truth. So, it's something we know by reason and reason alone (nothing empirical can assist), but it is made true not by anything to do with language, but how the world is.

practical versus theoretical reason:

practical reason: Reason that informs an agent how they should act. Ethics is the domain of this. Because ethics is concerned with what actions an agent should morally speaking do. Theoretical reason: Reason that informs an agent how they should think.

kant believes that moral justice isn't concerned with consequences, but

rather is a function of moral laws: Universalizable rules that are absolute and bind to all moral agents with necessity. Because rationality demands being treated with dignity

Externalist like Hume

reason has never motivated anyone to do anything. And that's because it cannot motivate anyone. What can motivate agents? What he calls "the passions," namely, what we want, what we fear, what we love, what we hate, etc. -some act having a moral status cannot motivate you. -They may act immorally but they're not acting irrationally if they don't care about morality.

laws: generally mean

specify generalizations of how things must go

the key fork and: any talk of moral justice requires

talk of moral laws, requiring that we locate morality in the form of a categorical imperative.

logical soundness

the argument is logically valid and the premises are actually true. -means the conclusion is true -requires two requirements: validity and has accurate premises.

kant's focus of the Groundwork is to show that

the supreme principle of morality is a necessary synthetic a priori principle: the categorical imperative. Because it's alone capable of doing the relevant work of governing the actions of moral agents. (rational creatures)

kant:

there's no reason to study material governed by laws until you've first studied and determined what the laws are.

ethics: (science)

those fields of knowledge that study of the laws that govern the action of rational creatures

logic (science)

those fields of knowledge that study of the laws that govern the thought of rational creatures

natural science

those fields of knowledge that study the laws that govern the behavior of physical systems

kant's important and central idea: that it's never morally permissible to

treat a person as if their only value is instrumental value: the only thing that makes them good or bad is how they can be used for securing one's ends. If we must use people, it requires that we only do so as they willingly agree to be used, agreeing autonomously

how to apply the moral law to a species is contingent upon

what the species is like, and we must discover those moral truths a posteriori via impure practical reasoning. -Know what the moral laws are first by determining what the metaphysics of morals are, and then apply the moral laws to some species. -seek a priori and necessarily true -for it to be informative it must be synthetically true.

necessary versus contingent truth values: when a statement has a certain truth value (when they're true or false)

-Declarative sentences can be sometimes, always, or never true or false. -Necessary truth: a sentence s is necessarily true iff (i) s is true and (ii) there is no possible world where s is false. Always true = necessarily true. Always false = necessarily false. True or false in all possible worlds. -Contingent truth: a sentence s is contingently true iff (i) s is true and (ii) there is at least one possible world where s is false. Sometimes true: Contingently true. Sometimes false: Contingently false. Not true in ALL possible worlds.

analytic versus synthetic truth values;

-facts are the truth makers -Analytic: a statement s is analytically true only if (i) s is true and (ii) s is true in virtue of the linguistic properties of s (namely, that the predicate concept is "contained in" the subject concept).False or true by linguistic feature alone. (Subject and predicate terms) -Synthetic: a statement s is synthetically true only if (i) s is true and (ii) s is true in virtue of the predicate concept of s accurately "extending" the subject concept of s given what the world is really like. Non linguistic properties of argument are connecting with the real world. Made by how the world connects things picked out by objects names by subject and predicate terms.

for kant: laws describe things that will go that way

100% of the time, because they must go that way: Describing a necessity, "Idealized necessity" -Miricle is defined as violation of the laws of nature

Priori versus posteriori

A priori epistemic justification: a person S is epistemically justified a priori in believing that a statement p is true only if (i) S has some evidence E for believing that p is true and (ii) S's having E does not require that S be able to appeal to a particular experience. § A posteriori epistemic justification: a person S is epistemically justified a posteriori in believing that a statement p is true only if (i) S has some evidence E for believing that p is true and (ii) S's having E does require that S be able to appeal to a particular experience e.

form content distinction:

All whales are mammals All mammals are animals All whales are animals Form: pattern on reasoning. Content: What the argument is about.

Kant: before we can do practical anthropology

(Figure out how to apply the moral law to a species) we must first determine what the moral law is, which is a formal inquiry (metaphysics of morals) -idea of a law and absolute necessity are front and center

kant's argument for the a prioricity of moral laws

1. In order for a law of morality to specify an actual/genuine moral obligation (i.e., what a moral agent actually morally ought to do), it must be absolutely true in all cases. 2. If a law of morality is to be absolutely true in all cases, we cannot discover it by observing either the way human beings behave (i.e., it is not an empirical fact about human biology or psychology), or the kind of situations we find ourselves in (i.e., it is not a social empirical fact). Hence, 3. An actual law of morality cannot be sought a posteriori (that is, in empirical facts) via impure reason. 4. Anything not sought a posteriori must be sought a priori. Therefore, 5. We must seek an actual law of morality a priori. 6. Given (5), an actual law of morality is sought via pure reason. Accordingly, 7.. Since all inquiries via pure reason are formal inquiries, ethics is a formal inquiry. 8. Since ethics is a formal inquiry, it is an investigation into the metaphysics of morals.

Kantian formalism

The view that moral agents can know the form of the moral law a priori via pure practical reason and apply it in their daily lives. -Form of moral law is like a law of logic, how things necessarily go together. Because existence for rational and autonomous creatures

Kantian constructivism

The view that the moral law exists iff at least one rational creature exists. -For kant, the idea of there being rational creatures but no morality makes no sense. -He argues that you do have moral duties even if nobody is left on earth. Even if you're the only rational creature left alive, you still have moral duties to yourself because you're a rational creature with autonomy and deserve to be treated with dignity.