KANT

The issue with maxims

* It is difficult to identify which is the correct maxim • It may be that people will use different maxims one of which can be universalized • Maxims can be over specified to allow any action

What is the difference between a maxim and a universal law?

A maxim, he says, is a rule that one person follows. A universal law is a rule that applies to everyone.

Why is Kant unconcerned about moral dilemmas?

According to Kant, those rules don't clash. That is almost his ultraoptimism, the conviction that it is possible to systematize moral action so that no conflict will occur between different rules. That is a kind of starting point of that theory, with which I have great difficulties myself, just because it denies the existence of dilemmas. BUT • No way of resolving conflicting duties — having to tell a lie to keep a promise.

First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law

Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative

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.

Issue with humanity

Comment: the second formulation also applies to yourself—'...treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other...'—and it is not at all obvious what treating yourself 'as a means only' means unless there is a distinction between respecting humanity and respecting the person. Intuitively, we are likely to say the person is more important than the abstract concept.

Problem with developing your talents argument

FIRST FORMULATION This claim can be disputed. An actor may decide to follow the money rather than develop their talents and a parent may choose to forgo many opportunities in order to be with their family. It isn't obvious that this is irrational. SECOND FORMULATION This may be correct but, if so, may be a case where the two formulations lead to different outcomes which shouldn't happen. However, it may also be that someone doesn't foster their talents because they are busy treating humanity in themselves as an end in some other way.

Problem with caring for others argument

FIRST FORMULATION This seems plausible but it doesn't seem strictly contradictory to take the view that you should lead an independent life and if you need help you still shouldn't expect it from anyone. SECOND FORMULATION This also looks plausible but, unlike utilitarianism, it doesn't offer advice on when and how much we should help others. This is a general problem with imperfect duties.

How does Kant justify telling the truth to a would-be murderer?

It's tempting to allow exceptions to the rule against lying, because in some cases we think that the consequences of honesty are bad, and the consequences of lying may be good. But we can never know for sure what the consequences will be. We cannot know that a good result will ensue. The result of lying could unexpectedly turn out to be bad. It is therefore always best to avoid the evil you know (lying) and leave the consequences for what they are. Even if the consequences were to be bad, they would not be our fault, because we have done our duty.

What did Kant recommend us to do?

The 18th century has been called the age of enlightenment. Thinkers declared that humanity had now reached maturity. People should no longer look to others to tell them how to act. They should decide for themselves what morality demands.

Is it strictly moral

The categorical imperative doesn't distinguish between moral and non-moral issues.

Problem with always just treating HUMANITY as not just a means

• Excludes animal rights (unlike utilitarianism) - Kant's view of "humanity" did not expand to other races

Criticism of Kant's non-consequential viepoint

• It is counterintuitive to ignore consequences that can be predicted with confidence. ADDITIONALLY The contradiction in will implies that we do some consideration of the consequences

Imperfect duties

• To self—an imperfect duty to develop your talents—completely neglecting one's talents is incompatible with promoting humanity as an end in itself • To others—an imperfect duty to help the needy—completely ignoring the needy is incompatible with promoting humanity as an end in itself.

It is empty

- Doesn't tell you what to do, just provides a moral framework

contradiction in conception

- In Kantian ethics, the test for whether we can will a maxim to become universal law can be failed if it would somehow be self-contradictory for everyone to act on that maxim. To self—a perfect duty not to commit suicide—the maxim 'out of self-love end your life' is contradictory To others—a perfect duty not make false promises—the maxim 'make a promise with no intention of keeping it' is contradictory

Difference between perfect and imperfect duties

- Perfect duties (duties of justice) are negative in that they require that we never perform certain types of actions, and can only be fulfilled in very specific ways. (but not doing things things ever) - Imperfect duties (duties of virtue) are positive in that they require that we sometimes perform certain types of actions.

Can it allow for immoral deeds?

- Permits some actions that seem to be immoral, e.g. Warburton gives the example of 'Always use the most efficient means of farming regardless of animal welfare. Animal hunting is another example.

Should duty be at the forefront?

- Saying moral goodness doesn't come from inclination (liking to help others) clashes with our intuition that these are the exact people worthy of moral praise

Criticism of "good will"

- There are other contenders for sole intrinsic good, like happiness, which is the only thing which never causes harm

Is it freeing?

- how not considering consequences 'frees us' to do our duty - how not considering the way people feel, including ourselves, 'frees us' to do our duty.

Duty

- is examined by Kant to clarify the concept of the good will because "the concept of a good will is present in the concept of a duty." • For an action to have genuine moral worth it must be done from duty not from inclination or self-interest.

Perfect duties under 2nd formulation

- to act on no maxims that use people as mere means. • To self—a perfect duty not to commit suicide—suicide disposes of the rational humanity within me merely to relieve my suffering. • To others—a perfect duty not make false promises—a false promise is simply using someone else.

Maxim

A maxim is 'the subjective principle of our action' and may be good or bad. (You can think of it as a prototype moral law which has yet to be tested against the categorical imperative to find out if it is good or bad.) • A dutiful action gets its moral value from the maxim it involves not from the purpose that's to be achieved.

Positives of Kant's philosophy

1. The universalization formula accords with our deeply held view that if something is morally wrong then it is morally wrong for everyone. 2. The 'not means only' formulation accords with our deeply held view that it is wrong to use other people without their consent. 3. The emphasis on reason gives a rigour to the sphere of thought that can easily be influenced by emotion, personal bias and special pleading.

KEEPING PROMISES TO DEAD PEOPLE

1st formulation: The maxim 'make a false promise whenever convenient' leads to a contradiction in conception because attempting to universalise it will undermine the concept of a promise. 2nd formulation: The other person cannot agree with a false promise so cannot share in the end of the action. They are, therefore, being used as a means only. (but it may bring them comfort??) Comments: - Kant seems to want a maxim that will apply irrespective of the particulars of the situation, almost like a scientific law, but many people will say the particulars matter. A compassionate false promise to bring comfort in a dire situation will not undermine the concept of a promise. • Also, you may be making a false promise but acting on the maxim 'bring comfort to the dying'. • False promises may not always be self-serving and may be designed to protect others from mental distress just as a parent may protect a child.

Issue with contradiction in will and perfect duties

Forbids acceptable actions, e.g show-rooming, not watching adverts, only buying second-hand No exceptions seems too harsh — emergency vehicles crossing red lights / lying for good reasons.

contradiction in will

In Kantian ethics, the test for whether we can will a maxim to become universal law can be failed if, although the maxim is not self-contradictory, we cannot rationally will it. You can imagine the maxim being universalized but it would be inconsistent of you to will that it happens. To self—an imperfect duty to develop your talents—the maxim 'Ignore one's talents' is inconsistent with the rational will that recognises the talents are there to serve that person To others- an imperfect duty to help the needy—the maxim 'ignore the needy' contradicts the rational will because should I need help then universalizing this maxim would deprive me of that help.

Where does Moral Goodness reside, according to Kant?

Interior choices of reason

What does 'human autonomy' consist in according to Kant?

Kant claimed that we experience morality as a conflict. Our moral duty pulls us in one direction, while our bodily desires and self-interest pull us in another. But humans are able to rise above their bodily desires and self-interest. They are able to act according to reason. Kant calls this ability our freedom or autonomy

Acting in accordance with the law

Kant says that it is not a matter of acting in accordance with any particular law, but rather, what is important is acting in accordance with law itself. We can make sure we are doing this by testing the maxim of our action to see if we are able to will that it become a universal law.

Difference between Mills and Kant

Kant's approach to morality also contrasts with a utilitarian one such as Mill's. Kant dismisses the consequences of actions as irrelevant to our moral assessment of them; whereas for Mill the consequences of an action determine its moral worth. Mill's approach gives guidelines for discriminating between competing moral claims: assess the consequences and choose the option which will maximise aggregate happiness. Kant's moral philosophy gives no method of choosing between two actions both of which are moral; or for that matter between two actions both of which are immoral.

What common idea links the two versions of the categorical imperative?

Kant's two versions of the categorical imperative sound very different. Yet they are closely connected to the same social ideal from the enlightenment. This is the idea that we all belong to a community of free and equal persons....what he's trying to get us to understand is that what's at issue when we talk about ethics is, as he puts it himself, a matter of acting always and deciding how to act always in a way that involves treating yourself as just one fellow citizen in the commonwealth, with what he calls the Commonwealth of Ends, that every human being is an end in him or herself, and we have to live together in this kind of moral democracy.

Is it detached from human emotion?

The emphasis that only acting from duty in accordance with law is meritorious seems to elevate rationality above other important human characteristics. Being motivated by sympathy seems to many equally important and more open to humans who often find it difficult to think rationally. For example, you might, when walking around London, be approached by someone begging for money. The sight of this person stirs up feelings of compassion that have you reaching for your purse; but you also recognise a moral duty, following from the categorical imperative, enjoining you to give money to this person. In such a situation it may be difficult or even impossible to tell what your real motivation for giving money is: is it an inclination, or is it reverence for the moral law? However, if your immediate response to being asked for money was revulsion and irritation, yet you still acted according to the categorical imperative, then you would have no trouble in knowing that you had acted morally. Kant doesn't rule out the possibility that those who feel compassion also act from reverence for the moral law; what he does say is that acting from compassion alone will not make your action a moral one. Nevertheless, Kant's dismissal of emotion dehumanises moral relations. The coldly rational responses which he points to as models of moral behaviour seem to be less human and less desirable than appropriately emotional ones. BUT - Kant's focus on respecting individual provides an objective foundation for human rights and is therefore not cold and detached — Kant's stipulation that we should never treat someone simply as a means supports the idea that human beings possess an inherent dignity which should be respected and therefore his theory is not cold and detached from real life — Kant's claim that some things are wrong in themselves fits with most people's thinking — Kant's theory offered impartiality and equality in the way he promoted reason above everything else — the observation that Kant never said that consequences, inclinations and emotions are unimportant, only that they cannot be the determining ground of an action if it is to have moral worth.

What is the 'main strength' of Kant's theory?

The strength of Kantian ethics is that is appeals to a lot of intuitions that most well brought up people in our culture have. And these include the notion that the heart of immorality, typically, is to treat yourself as an exception, to do something that you wouldn't want other people to do. There's also something that is built into modern Western culture, perhaps because of our interest in law and also the parallels with the kind of science that developed from the work of Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century. We think of ethics as involved with principle.

According to Kant, why couldn't we all become 'vagabonds'?

There's a contradiction between what he is choosing for himself and what he wants or is willing to have others do. And because of that contradiction, Kant says, this kind of behaviour is wrong. It might be all right for the vagabond to take off for a while, to do it for a year maybe, but you cannot simply drop out of society, opt out your duties, because not everyone could do that. And so it's wrong for you to do it.

Problem with suicide argument

This maxim looks 'fixed' to get the right answer. There isn't an obvious contradiction if it were 'from selfhate...' which might result from guilt. This highlights the difficulty of identifying 'the' maxim and the fact that different maxims might lead to different outcomes. Kant's second formulation - This allows no distinction between 'suicide' and managing the last stages of life. More problematically it also rules out laying down your life for others which is often seen as the greatest and noblest sacrifice.

What was new or radical about Kant's discovery of the categorical imperative?

What was new about Kant's categorical imperative and Kant's moral philosophy is actually, in essence, only that he says that we don't need a superhuman authority to find morality. We just need our own reason. Our reason teaches us what we have to do. This self-imposed morality, which is called the autonomous morality, requires a broad understanding of human beings.

What is the 'Golden Rule'?

You should do unto others as you would have them do unto you or, more normatively, it is right for you to act towards somebody else only if it would be right for them to do that to you if the situation were reversed.

The Good Will

is the only thing that is good without qualification. • is good in all circumstances and does not depend on anything else for its goodness. • Other things may be good in all sorts of ways but they are not always good and without a good will they can become extremely bad, e.g. bravery might lead a criminal to be more audacious.