Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) Influenced Secular Moral Thought. Raised in a Protestant Household. No formal Church Structure. Morality ground in reason, aside from faith.

Kant vs. Aristotle Humans have been given reason and a will for a purpose other than to achieve happiness.

Kant vs. Aristotle Happiness vs. Morality Happiness seems like too lofty an ideal to make the source of morality.  Happiness is too uncertain – could a vicious person ultimately be happier than a virtuous person in the long run or in certain occassions?  What if hurting others gave a person pleasure or happiness.  Could being “virtuous” ultimately lead you to suffering?  Ex. Virtuous person that gets taken advantage of because of virtuous behavior.

Kant vs. Aristotle Happiness vs. Morality Happy life is distinct from and opposed to moral life.  Ex. Happiness can make an evil person pursue more evil if they find enjoyment in wicked deeds. Counsels of Prudence vs. Categorical Imperatives.  Rules of thumb to guide to happiness vs. absolute rules.  Commands vs. Guidelines

Kant vs. Aristotle If nature desired us to be happy than why give us the ability to use our reason. Reason can cause misery while base desires or instincts can cause happiness.  Reason can take us away from base desires and make us overly critical. VS.

Kant Morality vs. Happiness Morality is about following absolute rules – apply to everyone in every situation. ex. No murder, Respect one another  We have duties that we are required to do whether we want to or not, whether it causes happiness or not.  Moral duty is to follow moral rules.  Categorical Imperatives.

Kant Morality vs. Happiness Moral rules demand more from a person than a guideline which is situational and circumstantial. (Counsel of Prudence)  Happiness – sometimes you follow, sometimes you don’t based on situation.

Kant Good Will vs. Happiness Aristotle said happiness is the goal – Kant said that the only thing that is good in and of itself is the good will. Good will is the only intrinsic good. Good will is the source of all goodness.

Kant Good Will vs. Happiness Your will determines the morality of an act – not the outcome.  If someone abides by the Moral Law then the consequences that follow from his action do not enhance or detract from its worth. Good consequences do not make an action good.  Some virtues according to Aristotle would not be considered “Categorical Imperatives.” Feelings are irrelevant.

Kant Virtues are good in light of the will of the person performing that act.  If virtues are possessed by a person with Good will then they are good.

Kant Good Will vs. Happiness A person has a good will if they choose to obey the moral law for the sake of the moral law. Be good for goodness sake (right thing to do) not for desire of reward or fear of punishment.  Why should a person be rewarded if they are naturally inclined to an act.

Kant Objection - Impossible to tell motivation, some are hidden…  FRIENDLY, KIND, CARING PEOPLE WHO DO GOOD BECAUSE THEY WANT TO(BECAUSE THEY ARE KIND AND FRIENDLY BY NATURE) AREN’T ACTING TOTALLY GOOD BECAUSE THEY AREN’T ACTING ACCORDING TO DUTY BUT ACCORDING TO INCLINATION  GROUCHY, MEAN PEOPLE WHO ACT BEGRUDGINGLY OUT OF DUTY ARE ACTING GOOD BECAUSE HE ISN’T ACTING OUT OF DESIRE BUT DUTY ALONE.

Kant Categorical Imperative Moral obligation that is imposed on us no matter the circumstances or our personal desire.  Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.  Cannot use humanity as a means to an end. Humanity are ends in themselves.

Kant Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Action is Moral if our reason for doing it is one that everyone could have vs. making a decision based on personal desire and being an exception to the rule.  Immoral person makes themselves an exception. Look For Logical Inconsistency.  Could world exist…  Would I will to live in a world….

Kant Cannot use humanity as a means to an end. Treat all humanity as ends (the main goal) not as means only (do not just use them). Human beings are in “kingdom of ends.”  They can think for themselves - reason.  They have an independent will - will.

Kant Cannot use humanity as a means to an end. Treat others as intrinsically valuable. Human beings are autonomous – self governing  Using people violates their autonomy.

Kant Cannot use humanity as a means to an end. Do not treat others as an object or a thing that does not have a will. Use of others is fine as long as they are able to practice their autonomy and use their reason.  Ex. Waiter, Waitress

Kant Cannot use humanity as a means to an end. To involve a person in a scheme of action to which they could not give consent.  Ex. Slavery, Smooth operating a young lady Slaves Smooth Operators

Kant and Freedom Kant said that if we want freedom than we have to use it wisely.  Because you are autonomous (have the ability to reason and will) your ability to rule your life should be respected even if you might hurt yourself and others in the process.  You have the freedom to choose wisely.  You have to accept the result of your behavior without complaints, believe that you should get what you deserve.  retributivism

Kant and Freedom Kant and Retributivism Retributivism - Theory of punishment whereby all or part of the purpose of punishment is the infliction of pain or disadvantage on an offender which is in some sense commensurate with his offence and which is inflicted independently of reform or deterrence. CLAIMS THAT CRIMINALS SHOULD GET BACK IN KIND WHAT THEY DISH OUT. EYE FOR EYE. MUST HAVE DONE THE ACT WITH CONSEQUENCES IN MIND. CRIMINAL ASKED TO BE PUNISHED AND IT WOULD BE IMMORAL NOT TO. IF A CRIMINAL DOESN’T WILLFULLY TRY TO CHANGE THEIR MIND BASED ON THEIR OWN REASON, THEN WE SHOULDN’T TRY AND FORCE HER TO CHANGE IT.

Kant and Christianity Similarities Immoral person makes themselves an exception to established rules.  Ex. Hypocrites Human person is unique.

Kant and Christianity Differences Something that is consensual is not necessarily permissible. Reason is not the sole source of morality – Revelation is needed. Submission to Reason vs. Submission to God.