2- kants deontological ethics

good will

commitment to doing one's duty, simply for its own sake a good will is one which acts for the sake of duty no motivation by an end , just duty to do the right thing- which is to act in accordance to moral law

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

different imperatives/suggestions our reason puts forward as possible ways we ought to act . imperative= inner tug on our will reason we should act in one way over another

Deontological

ethical theory based on duty and obligation

what happens to others when our duties seem to contradict each other ( pt2)

for kant , duties cant clash by definition . however, we can sometimes be wrong in thinking our grounds of obligation . eg promising your friend to lie for them. seems like u got two contrasting duties 1) I should keep my promises 2) I should never lie . its clear she's not obliged to keep promise in this case; we cannot rationally will a maxim whereby we keep promises to lie. it was wrong to make this promise; in fact we have a duty not to make such promises. in this case, revisiting grounds of obligation shows that duties don't clash .

Humanity Formulation

An action is right if and only if (and because) the action treats persons (including oneself) as ends in themselves and not merely as a means

Duty (Kant)

Deontology (as in Kant's deontological ethics) is the study of duty. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kant argues that we each have a duty to follow the moral law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The moral law, according to Kant, is summarised by the categorical imperative.term-5

Deontological Ethics

The idea that actions are right and wrong in themselves independently of any consequences

anachronism

judging despite time difference

kant on hypothetical

kants not dat interested in hypothetical imperatives , as they are not moral imperatives - lack the universality to be moral imperatives as they are based on desires not everyone shares. second, actions based on hypothetical imperatives are performed because we we are trying to achieve some personal goal . ..remember personal goals= no moral worth , only good will.

kant quote categorical

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." - Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

Categorical Imperative

(A concept developed by the philosopher Immanuel Kant as an ethical guideline for behavior. In deciding whether an action is right or wrong, or desirable or undesirable, a person should evaluate the action in terms of what would happen if everybody else in the same situation, or category, acted the same way.) ---------- for kant moral laws, like scientific laws, should be universally applicable- regardless of particular desires . the sorts of imperatives kant thinks are central to morality are ones that are unconditional and absolute= categorical ---- eg you ought to keep your promises, not dependent on any goals- telling us we have an obligation regardless of consequence. the only genuinely moral ought

Categorical Imperative

(An ethical guideline developed by Immanuel Kant under which an action is evaluated in terms of what would happen if everybody else in the same situation, or category, acted the same way.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -There are two kinds of maxims (rules): categorical and hypothetical. -Hypothetical rules are qualified by an 'if' statement, e.g. "you should do your homework if you want to do well in the exam." (VARIABLE ) -Categorical rules are not qualified by an 'if' statement, they apply universally. E.g. "you shouldn't torture animals for fun" is a rule that applies to everyone, i.e. it applies universally. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kant gives two ways to test whether a maxim applies universally. He also gives another formula for the categorical imperative, called the humanity formula.

time skip to pg 72 clashing duties

for kant we are all creators of our own moral laws . categorical imperative enables us to work out what is morally permissible and what our moral duties are . using this systems , we can create our own metaphorical book of moral laws . however, just because a maxim gets into our book that alone does not tell us where it goes and what weight to attach to it

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.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A contradiction in conception is something that is self-contradictory. Example: we might ask Kant whether it is morally acceptable to steal. I.e., we might ask whether "you should steal" is a universally applicable maxim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ the very concept of ownership wouldn't make sense - as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do. So, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, the concept of private property disappears. If there is no such thing as private property, then stealing is impossible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Therefore, Kant would say, the maxim "you should steal" leads to a contradiction in conception. Therefore, stealing is not morally permissible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a perfect duty not to follow that maxim. It is always wrong.

Good Will (Kant)

(only "good in and of itself" and is acquired by obeying the moral law for the sake of the moral law itself, not because you "get something out of it" or to avoid negative consequences, consequences are not accounted for in the morality of the act, only the will to act= without qualification) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Good will is one that acts for the sake of duty. This, according to Kant, is the source of moral worth. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if you save someone's life because you expect to be financially rewarded, this action has no moral worth. You're acting for selfish reasons, not because of duty. However, if you save someone's life because you recognise that you have a duty to do so, then this action does have moral worth.

ignores consequences

-There is a strong intuition that consequences (i.e. utilitarianism) are important when it comes to moral decision making. Is it right to kill one person to save five people? Kant would say no, a utilitarian would say yes. -But what about 100 people? Or the entire population of the world? There's a strong intuition that consequences matter. If you could stop a madman from detonating a nuclear bomb by killing him, surely it is justifiable to do so? -However, Kant would argue that we have a perfect duty not to murder (self-defence is another matter). The problem with such rigid rules is drawn out further in the lies section of applied ethics. Kant argues that we have a perfect duty not to lie - even if telling a lie would save someone's life. These thought experiments draw out the absurd results of ignoring consequences in ethical decision making.

difficult to apply

-sooo Kant argues that ignoring a perfect duty leads to a contradiction in conception. As we saw in the stealing example, the very concept of private property couldn't exist if stealing was universally permissible. -But by tweaking the maxim slightly, we can avoid this contradiction in conception. Instead of my maxim being 'to steal from others', I could claim my maxim is 'to steal from people with nine letters in their name' or 'to steal from stores that begin with the letter A'. Both of these maxims can be universalised without undermining the concept of private property. They would apply rarely enough that there would be no breakdown in the concept of private property. By defining maxims cleverly, it seems possible to justify any course of action using the categorical imperative.

two ways kant tests whether maxim applies universally

1- contradiction in conception 2-contradiction in will

main problemos

1- difficult to apply 2-ignores consequences 3-other valuable motivations 4-conflicts between duties

Advantages of Kantian Ethics, eeeeeh- ask mr Flynn

1-Kant's morality is very straightforward and based on reason, making it accessible to everyone Morality doesn't depend on motives, consequences or religious laws Categorical imperative gives us rules that apply to everyone and command us to respect human life 2-It makes clear that morality is doing one's duty and not just following feelings. We cannot assume what is good for us is good for everyone else- Kant's equivalent of the Golden Rule 3-It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly so corrects utilitarian idea that some can suffer as long as others are happy Kant sees humans as being of intrinsic worth as they are the rational high point of creation. This means they cannot be enslaved or exploited (Basis of the Declaration of Human Rights) Equal treatment of individuals gets rid of bias which sometimes influences decision-making 4-Categorical imperative tells us exactly what is right and wrong, giving us a clear sense of moral guidelines Kant draws a clear distinction between duty and preference Moral value of an action comes from it's intrinsic rightness so issues of teleological ethics are avoided People generally do have the same ideas about morality Ethical practice should be based on reason not subjective emotion Most people recognise the idea of duty, it is part of what it means to be human There is a difference between duty and inclination]

kart summarized

1-The only thing that is good without qualification is good will. 2-Good will means acting for the sake of duty. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-You have a duty to follow the moral law. 4-Moral laws are universal. 5-You can tell is a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6- The categorical imperative is two tests: Contradiction in conception Contradiction in will --------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, do not treat people as means to an end.

Hypothetical Imperative

Commands to do an action on the basis of having a desired end. "If you want y, then do x." this type of ought/should depends upon having a certain goal, eg if you want a cup of tea , boil water first part is condition we aspire , second condition what we should do to meet this condition . in other words , ought is conditional upon desire - which not everyone will have ( not everyone has tea..) VARIABLE

ignores other valuable motivations

In the discussion of the good will, we saw how Kant argues that acting for the sake of duty is the source of moral worth. In other words, being motivated by duty is the only motivation that has moral worth. So, imagine a close friend is ill in hospital. You pay them a visit because you genuinely like them and want to make sure they're ok. According to Kant, this motivation (concern for your friend) has no moral value. However, if you didn't really care about your friend but begrudgingly went to visit purely out of duty, this would have moral value according to Kant. But this seems absurd. Kant seems to be saying we should want to help people because of duty, not because we genuinely care.

conflicts between duties

Kant argues that it is never acceptable to violate a perfect duty. But what if you find yourself in a situation where such a situation was unavoidable? For example, what if you had to either steal or tell a lie and there was no other option? Or, what if you accidentally made two separate promises that contradicted each other? Kant might respond that a true conflict between duties is impossible. But if there were such a conflict, then it seems that whatever choice you make will be wrong as it will mean violating a perfect duty.

why is it deontological

because it is the motive , not consequence- key in assigning moral worth - that wants ethics are labeled as deontological general term for ethics that are based on duty

kant again textbook

deontological innit

contingent

dependent

TEST 2: CONTRADICTION IN WILL? (ask mr Flynn)

does not result in a contradiction in conception, we must then ask whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not. Example: can we rationally will "not to help others in need"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone else. But we cannot rationally will it, says Kant. The reason for this is that sometimes we have goals (Kant calls these ends) that cannot be achieved without the help of others. To will the ends, we must also will the means. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- So, we cannot rationally will such goals without also willing the help of others (the means). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, not all goals require the help of others. Hence, Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty. In other words, it is sometimes wrong to follow the maxim "not to help others in need".

act in accordance w/ duty vs out of duty

doing right thing = accordance w/ duty , but if you have the wrong motive then the act has no moral worth kant gives eg shopkeeper doesnt rip ppl off cuz he wants a good reputation - To kant even tho he's in accordance, his actions aint moral. -- in contrast , consider a poor shopkeeper doesnt rip ppl off because he knows lying is wrong , in this car case his action is carried OUT OF DUTY = has moral worth -- sometimes u can be motivated by both the sense of duty and another end eg enjoyment, duty and interest coincide. this can make the motive of duty less clear to see, but as long as duty is a motivation , act is a good act

what happens when our duties seem to contradict each other

eg axeman asks where your friend is . kant would say wrong to lie . you cannot universalize lying . however you have a duty to care for others . clashing duties. perfect duty to tell the truth and an imperfect duty to care for others. always have to follow perfect duties - no exceptions, imperfect doesn't have to be followed = some direction, ---- for kant however, clashing rules represent a serious problem . his whole moral system involves not acting on rules that cannot be consistently followed /universalized . clashes give rise to duties not to follow the rule, duties all about consistency so if two total duties are rationally inconsistent , then by definition they cannot be duties

criticism of good will

is a good will always good? if you mean well but clumsily/ accidentally hurt ppl/break things as a result all the time- ppl might question whether you're undeniable good will is such a good thing .

imperatives and reason

kant believed that as rational beings, if we have a genuine desire, and the imperative is a sound one , then we are rationally committed to follow it . eg if you want to lose weight you ought to eat less and exercise more kant believes if you genuinely want this then your reason commits you to the ought. -Kant is sometimes criticized for ignoring weakness of will, when we want the end ,accept the imperative and still don't do it -likewise, categorical imperatives reason reveals that there are certain ways we should act as rational beings , we have a duty to act on these imperatives.

good will reasoning

represents only 'pure' good in this world and it is the source of all moral value most of us pursue ends we think of good; money/happiness/inteligence kant says nah they're sometimes bad eg torture could make u happy . - for kant no 'end' is morally good in itself . happy/money etc can only be good if accompanied by or result from good will . in this way good will is only source of good

Competing imperfect duties

the situation is less clear w/ imperfects included. such as our imperfect duty to develop our own talents and help others etc leaves us with a very vague moral moral duty . having an imperfect duty alone doesnt tell us when to perform imperfect duties . also prioritizing is hard , and sometimes the duties compete/clash ---- utilitarians have an advantage here through the common currency of happiness. they can weigh up different actions and see how they compare . --- kants approach is less clear , instead of looking at the consequences we need to examine our reasons- grounds of obligation- and see which one is stronger --- this approach is not easy to follow and kant doesnt offer much guidance, u can argue complexity is just part of the world we live in. after all lawyers spend years arguing about the hierarchy of competing rights does freedom of speech mean I can say anything? does it undermine pals right to practice religion? if I incite hatred, might this undermine pols right to freedom of movement ? so on..