Kant

In class we talked about two problems with the Universal Law Formulation of the Principle of the Categorical Imperative, or "the universal law test". First, it seems to have the result that maxims that are in fact morally permissible come out according to the test morally impermissible (false negatives), and second, it seems to have the result that maxims that are in fact morally impermissible come out according to the test morally permissible (false positives). Give examples of each. Explain

-False positives ex: letting people pass through the door If everyone passed through the door, we wouldn't get anywhere but -False negatives: Killing babies that keep you awake at night

Explain why the maxim of the false promiser violates the categorical imperative in its expression in the formula of humanity. How does lying to someone involve treating them merely as a means? Suppose that I lie to you, but it turns out that you know this and don't mind. Am I still treating you merely as a means when I lie to you? Explain your answer.

-they aren't aware of how you are using them -not treating them merely as a means then because they consent and are aware of it

Explain why the maxim of the false promiser fails the universalization test

If everyone acted on this, no one would believe someone who promised them something. You wouldn't be able to act on your maxim because it would be widely known in the world that people don't do what they promise to do. Thus it's self contradictory

Kant makes a distinction between "strict or narrow" duty and "broad" duty. What is this distinction?

Strict - perfect duty - obligation to perform or not to perform a specific type of act Broad - imperfect duty, obligation to pursue a certain end

Explain why the maxim of the person who wills not to help others in need fails the universalization test

The world is possible, but in this world no one would help others, so if i were in need, no one would help me. As a rational being, in willing that I be helped, i have to help. It's an imperfect duty

explain the fundamental moral idea that is expressed by the formula of universal law

a good will is motivated by the recognition that an action is required as a universal law

rule of skill

all of the hypothetical imperatives, which give an end that the imperative depends

What, according to Kant, is the difference between the prudent merchant, or "shopkeeper" and the person who acts "from duty"?

difference lies in the motive/intention -prudent merchant - motive is his own desires and inclination -from duty - did it because he had to, not because he had moral merit to

what does Kant mean when he speaks of acting in conformity to duty

do it because they have to; good will does not act in this

Explain the distinction between empirical and a priori. Why does Kant think that moral laws are a priori?

empirical - from experience priori- born with it moral laws are a priori because they are already hard wired in our brain, something that people are born knowing

what is an imperative

express what you ought to do

What in the end, according to Kant, distinguishes the will of someone who acts in accordance with duty from that of someone who acts from duty?

from duty - doing it for its own sake and is recognizing the moral law and formulating their maxim to copy moral law with duty - recognize the law and do it for other reasons

We tend to praise someone who enjoys helping the needy more than someone who helps the needy with gritted teeth, without any enjoyment whatsoever, but only because she thinks it is her duty. Is Kant saying that the first person is morally no better than the second?

good will is motivated by respect for law other than by inclination or love; yes, because the dp acts from the knowledge that it is the right thing to do whereas the first person acts out of self interest

What does Kant mean when he says that only a good will is good without qualification? Explain how the goodness of a good will differs from other goods, such as talents of mind, and gifts of fortune, such as health and happiness

good will is the only thing that is good without limitation and unconditionally good. There's no scope on it's goodness, and it chooses the right action that is in conformity with moral duty for the right reasons; This is different because other goods are not good in all situations. They're good on the condition that they are exercised by good will.

give an example of a rule of skill

if i aim to get a good grade, i ought to go to class

give an example of a counsel of prudence

if i am to be happy...

what in particular is a hypothetical imperative

if i am to.... -has an end and is escapable

What, according to Kant, is the difference between someone who acts from the immediate inclination of benevolence and someone who acts from duty? Why does he say that the action of the former "deserves praise and encouragement" but lacks "moral worth"?

immediate inclination - gets something out of it; seeking pleasure (self interest), does the right thing but out of self interest from duty - overcomes natural tendency and doesn't desire pleasure

What is a categorical imperative? How does a categorical imperative differ from a hypothetical imperative?

it's imperatives that are true of you regardless of your ends, even your end of happiness Difference: hypothetical has an aim to the end, but the categorical is just true regardless of the ends, hypotheticals are escapable

Many people have made the following objection to Kant: consider two people. One helps because she wants to . The other helps from duty and also wants to. There is nothing more commendable about the second person, but Kant holds that there is. What do you think Kant's reply to this objection would be?

kant says that when somebody is acting out of duty or the primary reason and it is secondary that they enjoy it then they are more commendable. The first person is acting out of self interest and without duty. If that enjoyment went away, then that person would no longer be doing that action

Kant says that the difference between the naturally sympathetic person and the dutiful person lie in their maxims. What does Kant mean by a "maxim" of an action? Give an example of a maxim

maxim - an intention, a proposition of what you are going to do and why you are going to do it Ex: im going to drink water because im thirsty

Is Kant saying that it is never okay to treat someone as a means (notice that there is a distinction between treating someone merely as a means and treating them as a means)?

merely as a means - don't have their consent as a means - they are okay with it and are knowledgable of it

Kant says that the goodness of the good will is independent of consequences, so that even when someone with a good will does something that has bad consequences, the action is not devalued by the bad consequences. Give an example that illustrates Kant's point. Do you agree with Kant on this point? Is the moral worth of a good action independent of its consequences?

neighbor's house is on fire and you go in to save the baby. The baby ends up dying, but you still tried to save it

counsel of prudence

not just one absolute thing

two principles of practical reason

principle of hypothetical imperatives (rules) of skill and principle of categorical imperatives

What does Kant mean when he speaks of acting "from respect for law"?

recognizing that the command of a reason is a universal law (just like laws of physics) and you should act in respect to that, give up your own personal will so you can act in the good will with respect to the moral law

what according to kant is a limitation of what he calls anthropology

study of man; a priori fact that we exist is the limitation because anthropology can't tell us how or why we exist

does kant think that all actions done from inclination are done for the sake of pleasing oneself?

taking pleasure from doing one's duty doesn't diminish its moral worth, but the reason behind why someone acts from immediate inclination determines the outcome

When Kant says that moral duties command with absolute necessity, what does he mean?

the moral duties will be telling you what to do and you will be compelled to do this and it is the only right thing you can do, it is absolute necessity because you won't have to choose between two things because there is one obvious right way and your reason will command this to you

What does Kant mean when he says that moral duties, such as the duty not to lie, are "absolutely necessary"? What does he mean when he says that they are absolutely "universal"?

there's no way to escape the moral command and you have to do what morality dictates; for example, you can't say it doesn't fit your purpose. Despite what you want, you do it anyway because it's absolutely universal

what do you think Kant means when he speaks of a good will

they are only good on the condition that they are possessed by someone with good will, it's good in any circumstances and in and of itself, it does not depend on consequences

If you violate the principle of hypothetical imperative, how would your action best be described?

thought of as irrational

good will's propositions

unconditionally good and the value of a good will does not derive form the value of its consequence but from the motive

what do you think Kant's point might be of distinguishing between what is valid for all human beings and what is valid for all rational beings?

valid for all human beings is relative to human nature as seen in seeking self preservation and happiness, hunger, and appetites; rational beings can recognize the universal good will and try to act from that even if they are not human because rationality is recognizing the good will

What do you think Kant might mean by "supreme principle of morality"?

what helps you find the good will and measure actions against the good will which is the categorical imperative

Can we according to Kant know what the real motive of our actions are?

yes because we have to know what our motive is in order to conform our motives to the good will

Is Kant saying that an action has moral worth only if one has the inclination to act contrary to duty?

you don't have to be acting against your own self interest for it to be moral. As long as the motivation is for the duty of it and pleasure is on the side

Kant distinguishes between particular hypothetical imperative and the principle of the hypothetical imperative. What is the principle of hypothetical imperative?

you ought to take the means to the end