Chapter 5: Kant’s Moral Theory Historical Background ◦ Immanuel Kant ( ) ◦ “What ought I do?” What Gives an Act Moral Worth? - The Consequences of our acts are not always in our control. - Our motives are in our control. To have moral value…. ◦ One must act out of the right motive ◦ One must also do the right thing.
Chapter 5: continued What is the Right Motive? ◦ The example of the shopkeeper What is the Right Thing to Do? ◦ Hypothetical vs. categorical imperatives ◦ Moral obligations are universal and necessary
Chapter 5: continued Hyperthetical imperatives vs Categorical Imperatives Moral oughts vs Moral obligation Categorical imperatives - The first form – universalizing one’s contemplated action or policy - The second form – the proper treatment of persons as persons
Chapter 5: continued Evaluating Kant’s Moral Theory ◦ Moral obligation is real and strictly binding ◦ Categorical imperative is a negative test for what we should not do, rather than what we should do ◦ Duty – whatever is the right thing to do ◦ Moral obligation is universally binding.
Chapter 5: continued Perfect and Imperfect Duties ◦ Perfect duties - necessary duties - absolute ◦ Imperfect duties - meritorious duties - more flexible
Chapter 5: continued Variations on Kantian Moral Theory ◦ W.D. Ross and prima facie duties ◦ John Rawls and justice as fairness
Chapter 5: continued Reading: Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals ◦ A Good Will is foundational for all other good ◦ Actions as duty requires, not because duty requires ◦ Duty as the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law ◦ The Categorical Imperative: first formulation ◦ Hypothetical vs. categorical imperatives
Chapter 5: continued ◦ There is one categorical imperative – “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” ◦ The imperative of duty – “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a Universal Law of Nature.” ◦ Man and any other rational beings exists as an end in themselves