Kantian ethics:

Strengths:

Kantian ethics is based on reason; it places a central worth on and rationally articulates human autonomy and its dignity and worth; it is not ends based and therefore it avoids some of the criticisms which are levelled at consequentialism; there is also no single end which allows greater freedom of choice for individuals to pursue their own projects and ends.

Philosophical quotes:

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe...the starry heavens above me, and the moral law within me." "Duty is the necessity of acting out of reference for the law." "While I can will the lie, I can by no means will that the lie should become a universal law." "Two rules opposed to each other cannot be necessary at the same time, so a collision of duties is inconceivable."

Anthology: "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals":

-Good-will: "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be good, without qualification; except a good will." -The importance of eternal goods to happiness: "because we need fortune as well as other things, some people think good fortune is the same thing as happiness but it is not that.".

Expansion on the key subpoints for Kantian ethics:

-Humans as imperfectly rational beings: -Acting in accordance with versus acting out of duty: -Duty as reverence for the law: -Hypothetical versus categorical imperatives: -Using the humanity formulation: -The humanity formulation and human dignity: -The humanity formulation and human rights:

One more issue: Is the good will always good:

-The issue seems circular but also not obviously so; for instance a well intentioned but clumsy person could actually negatively impact someone by accident when trying to help them cross the road; if this behaviour persists then after a while people would stop viewing this as good will.

Issues:

-clashing/competing duties -non-moral maxims -the moral value of consequences -the value of other motives -the value of other motives: care -morality as a system of hypothetical, not categorical imperatives

Examples:

1) The Drowning Man: A man is drowning; if you decide to help him, your morality is dictated by your motivation; if you are motivated by anything other than duty e.g a reward or praise, then you have not committed a good moral act. 2) The dutiful father: Father A spends his evenings tutoring his son as he loves him; Father B also spends his evenings tutoring his son, but he only does this because he feels duty-bound as he actually hates his son; Kant praises the second father which seems counter-intuitive but it is related to the fleeting and subjective nature of emotions. 3) The False promise: a perfect duty to others: I can't say to myself, "Every one makes a deceitful promise when he finds himself in a difficulty from which he can not otherwise extricate himself"- no, universalisability. 4) Not helping others: an imperfect duty to others: You can not rationally will that not helping others would be a universal law; it is a contradiction in will; as children we were all reliant on the help of others. 5) Suicide: a perfect duty to ourselves: Kant said that suicide as a result of self-love is inconceivable. This is the weakest example as suicide is almost always caused by self-loathing. 6) Lazy but talented-imperfect duty to ourselves: Someone with natural talents who lets them go to waste because they are lazy; this is not universalisability; we have an imperfect duty to develop at least some of our talents. 7) The new friend: If someone befriends you only to meet your cousin who will help them to further their own ends this would be seen as wrong as they have bypassed your autonomy and used you as a means to an end. 8) Fake notes: A man came to your house and bought your bass guitar with fake twenty-pound notes, deliberately, they have bypassed your autonomy and used you as a means to an end, rather than an end in yourself.

Duty as reverence for the law:

For Kant, "Duty is the necessity of acting out reverence for the law."; it is better for people to obey laws simply as they are laws simply as they are laws rather than agreeing with the laws or being able to manipulate the laws to suit them.

Summary:

For Kant, it is rationality and autonomy that form the basis of morality; we can work out what our duties are by considering whether the maxim could be universalised; our greatest duty is to follow the categorical imperative; Kant's ideas greatly influenced our modern views regarding human rights.

The argument:

Good will is the source of moral worth; a good will is one which acts for the sake of duty; moral duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence for the moral law; we experience duty as a feeling of obligation- an imperative sense that we should do something; there are two types of Imperative, hypothetical and categorical; moral duty is following the Categorical Imperative so as moral beings we are required to: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law without contradiction". (the universal law formulation) Using the Categorical Imperative: Work out the underlying maxim; ask yourself whether you can conceive of a world where this maxim is law; if no then acting on that maxim is always wrong as you have a perfect duty not to act on it and acting on such a maxim is always blameworthy; if yes then you must also ask if you can rationally will that this be a universal moral law; if no then acting on this maxim is sometimes wrong and therefore you have an imperfect duty not to act on it, to act on this maxim would sometimes be blameworthy; if yes then the action is morally permissible. -"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always...as an end in themselves." (The Humanity Formulation) (+a third which says you should always act as if you are a legislating member of a universal kingdom of ends)

Morality as a system of hypothetical, not categorical imperatives:

In her paper 'Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives', Foot argues that the moral law does not give sufficient reason to act, as it is only end based hypothetical imperatives which give us sufficient reason to act; Foot also claims that a non-hypothetical ought does not provide sufficient reason to follow such an imperative; Foot concludes that moral 'oughts' do not gain their binding force from the fact that they are hypothetical and do not depend on ifs.

The humanity formulation and human rights:

Kant claimed that it is through the ability to create universal laws that human autonomy exists; the development of human rights is closely associated with the belief in the importance of human autonomy; it was Kant's work that placed this at the heart of ethics; Kantian ethics can, therefore, deal with the problem of the innocent scapegoat much more intuitively than Utilitarianism.

Responses (Foot):

Kant claims that moral laws are generated because of the fact that some maxims cannot be rationally consistent; Foot rejects this and states that an immoral man would still be consistent, "The fact is that the man who rejects morality can be convicted of villainy but not of inconsistency; Foot also states that by using the metaphor of being "bound by" morality, people are relying on an illusion, as if trying to give a magical force to the moral 'ought'. Foot's solution: To solve this issue, Foot rejects psychological hedonism; Foot sees morality as a series of hypothetical imperatives; there is no single ultimate morality, but instead this series of imperatives is what constitutes morality.

The moral value of consequences:

One of the key objections to Kantian ethics is that it places all of the moral worth on the motives of an action; there is a seemingly consequentialist nature to Kant's theory as he focuses on the issue of universalisability; we do not live in an ideal world where everyone is rationally consistent, it is therefore not enough to focus on our own sphere of motive and control.

Hypothetical versus categorical imperatives:

One type of 'ought', is a conditional or hypothetical imperative; for example "If you want a cup of tea, then you should boil the kettle."; the other type of 'ought' is unconditional and absolute; this is a categorical imperative; for example, "you ought to do Y"; it entails obligation regardless of consequence.

The value of other motives:

The acting in accordance with or out of duty debate appears to be highly counter-intuitive; Kant's approach is viewed as cold and calculating by critics as it demands that we put aside our empathy and emotions unless they are in strict accordance with our duty.

The humanity formulation and human dignity:

The humanity formulation places a great emphasis on respecting autonomy, which for many people is the key to dignity; therefore the humanity formulation can address ethical issues such as leaking personal photos of an ex better than utilitarianism can.

Non-moral maxims:

The link between universalisable maxims and morality is not very clear; not all universalisable maxims are moral; also not all non-universalisable actions are immoral.

Clashing/competing duties:

The problem of the enquiring murderer, it is wrong to lie but there is a duty of care, hinges on the perfect duty of telling the truth and the imperfect duty of caring for others; if it is the case that two duties are rationally inconsistent, then they cannot be duties and therefore the whole system falls apart; conflicting duties prompt negotiation of obligation but there is no clear method of doing this.

Issue: the value of other motives: care:

There is a feminist critique of Kant which states that he offers too much of a male-oriented pattern of ethical thought; females, it claims, put more attention on the subjectivity of situations and the importance of care and concern for others; we cannot adopt an impersonal perspective; Willaims says that with moral deliberations there cannot be a "unity of interest" as we all have differing desires and interests.

Using the humanity formulation:

This is supposed to yield the same results as the universal law formulation; imperfect duties are more complex when it comes to applying the humanity formulation to them.

Acting in accordance with versus acting out of duty:

This is the example which involves one father who tutors his son as he loves his son and one father who tutors his son out of duty but actually hates his son; Kant celebrates this as duty is unchangeable as opposed to subjective emotion which is highly changeable.

Humans as imperfectly rational beings:

We are a mixture of reason and desire and this is why it is important to have the right motive; reason reveals the moral laws that we have a duty to fulfil but desire gives us the goals that we can then try to achieve.