Philosophy Week 5
On the natural law formulation, why is a lying promise immoral?
A lie will necessarily form a contradiction and violate the notion of universal rational law. The natural law formulation says that people must be willing to will actions that could be universally willed by all. The demand here is just that the action could be willed in universal fashion.
What does Kant mean when he says that all moral concepts must be a priori?
A priori knowledge or experience is a form of knowledge of experience that is not based upon empirical -five senses- input. It is based upon 'reason alone'. Kant relies so heavily on the a priori because he does not think that empirical experience itself gives us information or knowledge about morality. Empirical experiences just seem like a series of flashing lights and rolling waves without a priori concepts or ideas to make sense of them and give them intelligible content.
On the natural law formulation, why is rejecting charity immoral?
Any of us could find ourselves in a situation where we need charity to even survive, as such a rational person not knowing the future would never endorse a rule that rejected charity for the needy. To do so would be reject self-preservation and Kant would argue that is a clearly irrational thing to do.
Why can't we use experience to discover moral rules?
Experiences are personal to each individual. If a person has not gone through and experienced and certain things then it would be hard for them to know what may even fall as a moral or immoral rule.
What does Kant mean when he says "Actions objectively recognized as necessary are subjectively contingent?"
For Kant our (moral) action is a combination of objective principles such as the categorical imperative with our subjective mind and will. The objective principles are true because they are every bit a real feature of the universe as much as matter, space, or gravity. But unlike concepts in physics our moral concepts only become entirely real of 'activated' when they are processed by our subjective minds.
What is the relationship between the objective principle of reason and the subjective will?
For Kant reason is an objective feature of the universe (much like gravity is) but unlike gravity the will gets its force once when it is digested and understood by a subjective mind.
Why does Kant believe that the rational will is of absolute value, i.e., valuable as an end in itself?
For Kant, rational will is necessary in order to formulate universal moral maxims of conduct. We need reason to get to a universal morality. Without it, people would never move beyond an animalistic morality governed by instinct and a base concern only for the outcomes of actions.
On the natural law formulation, why is suicide immoral?
Kant argues that it would be absurd and contradictory for everyone to follow the rule of suicide but not absurd or contradictory for everyone to follow the rule of no suicide - thus he reaches the conclusion that suicide is always morally wrong.
On the end-in-itself formulation, why is suicide immoral?
Kant argues that suicide is a clear and universal case in which a person uses themselves not as an end and instead merely as a means and hence will always be morally wrong.
Why can the moral law not be to maximize happiness?
Kant does not think happiness is consistent with a rational universal moral code! He is also skeptical that people can use reason to acquire happiness in any consistent fashion. An example being having something would make you happy and then you had it and low and behold it didn't make you happy at all even though you had good reason to think that it would. Kant would say this is not a failure of reason, instead it is proof that using reason is often not what leads to happiness.
On the natural law formulation, why is not developing one's talents immoral?
Kant says that as a rational and moral being, a man should not let his talents waste by because they were given to him for a reason. They are used for the betterment of himself and those around him, therefore they can be seen as a duty to develop these talents. Because talents are a natural part of the person, to neglect them would be to completely ignore the universal law of nature and to ignore one's duty to have the will to act upon these talents.
What end do we all have?
Kant thinks that happiness is the end that we all have. But at the same time he does not, unlike Mill, think that happiness is the cornerstone of morality because (i) often times we cannot use reason to know what will make us happy and (ii) happiness is far too subjective to be governed by a universal rational maxim.
What is the natural law formulation of the categorical imperative?
The concept of the categorical imperative is used to identify judgments and states that we have an indefinite moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on an individual's inclination or purpose. One example if we commit crimes we cannot escape these consequences of our actions as long as we are moral individuals. In other words, we should do the right thing always whilst taking humanity into consideration regardless of the circumstance and treating our actions as if it were the natural laws of nature.
On the end-in-itself formulation, why is rejecting talent's immoral?
The end in itself formulation is primarily concerned about a person treating his or her self or others as an end and never merely as a means. Our duty to treat humanity as an end applies to ALL of humanity including our self. No reason why the moral ways in which we are supposed to treat others would also not apply to ourselves as well. It is an aspect of humanity either way.
What is the end-in-itself formulation of the categorical imperative?
The end in itself formulation of the categorical imperative directs us to think about whether we are treating people as ends in themselves or merely as objects to be used as mere instruments or means. It sounds simple enough not to treat people like a tool such as a hammer but sadly this basic notion is violated countless times everyday.
On the end-in-itself formulation, why is a false promise immoral?
The end in itself formulation of the categorical imperative states that we should treat all of humanity always as an end and never merely as a means. This suggests that we should never use ourselves or others as a mere tool or object to get something else but instead must treat all of humanity as valuable in a non-instrumental fashion.
Explain the two tests for consistency of natural law and maxim. What two different kinds of duties are illustrated?
The first test just asks us 'could we' make a universal rule out of the maxim that we are choosing. Not even would it be a good idea but could it even be done. In the case of lying, murder and suicide, Kant argues that rules allowing for these things could not even be conceived of as universal maxims. A second test and ask would it be a rational for our maxim to be a universal rule? Thus we have an imperfect or wider meritorious duty to form rules that encourage to develop their talents and accept and give needed charity.
What are the two different kinds of imperatives?
The two different kinds of imperatives that Kant speaks of are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are the ones where we first set an end or goal and then form a maxim around some sort of means to reach that end or goal. I think it is safe to say that for almost all of us hypothetical imperatives are extremely common. But with categorical imperatives we are completely duty driven toward the stated imperative end or goal, the means-ends process has no role within such imperatives.
What is the worst thing we can do for morality?
The worst thing we can do for morality is to think that we can determine it by appealing to examples. For Kant, only a rational principle can provide a universal moral truth. The example itself never simply stands on its own, it is always backed up or explained by some principle. And it is that principle (in the form of the categorical imperative) that Kant tells us provides the foundation for moral judgment, not some example that derives from the principle.
Why can't even Jesus Christ serve as a model for moral action?
We only know if Jesus Christ was morally good by comparing him to what we believe to be morally good. Kant believes moral law cannot come from examples because it has to be a pure law and examples are never pure. Kant notes that appealing to Jesus as an example will run into the problem of trying to establish a moral foundation by appealing to any example. That is, the example itself must be understood against the backdrop of a moral principle in order for it to have any meaning.
What happens when reason is perfect and perfectly controls the will?
When reason is perfect then the outcome for Kant must be a moral action. For Kant moral actions flow from our reason and likewise immoral actions flow from a lack of reason or as is more often case a weakness of being able to act with reason when other things get in the way such as goals of happiness or a concern with the consequences of an action. Kant takes this connection to reason so seriously that uses it explain the morality of God. For Kant, God always acts morally BECAUSE God is a fully rational being - this is what Kant has in mind when he speak about the idea of a 'divine will'. Even for God, in Kant's moral picture, it is reason that allows for morality
On the end-in-itself formulation, why is rejecting charity immoral?
With the end in itself formulation the focus is on treating one's self and others as an end and never merely as a means. The key here idea is just one of placing the proper respect on humanity. Kant thinks that when we reject charity either when we need it or when another needs it from us is wrong because such a rejection treats humanity merely as a means. When we give or accept charity during a time of need then we are treating humanity as an end.
