KANTIAN ETHICS Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Fields of Knowledge Logic (rules of thought) Physics (behavior of the natural world) Ethics (behavior of the human body) Kant’s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory* but on whether they fulfill our duty *the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences A Priori: Knowledge that we have that has no reference to our experience with the world A Posteriori: Knowledge that we get through engagement and experience with the world

Why do we have Reason? Set up for good will More you develop reason; more likely to develop ideas that are good but that will not bring happiness  develop good will Purpose is not to be successful

What is a Good Will? Desire the good or achieve good; only good thing without qualifications Good will is good without exception Good of goodness for a sense of happiness Outcomes and wills of wanting to do good Way we are made; intellect leads us to good will What other capacity do we have that allows us to survive?

Obligations of Good Will are called “Duties” 3 general positions Accord with duty but from a different inclination Accord with duty from an inclination to that action Accord with duty but with contrary inclination e.g: A person who gives to charity for the tax break e.g: Helping an elderly cross the street (makes one feel good) e.g: A child sharing a toy (doesn’t want to, but feels he has to)

Propositions of Morality Action must be done from duty to have moral worth Action has moral worth from its motivation Duty is a necessity of an action done from respect for the moral law Respect: is what kind of feeling? -fear -love/inclination  Disposition or bent, especially of the mind or will; a liking or preference  When Kant uses the word “respect” he means rational concept *inclination= doing it because it is the right thing to do

Kant: Account of Autonomy and Heteronomy Heteronomous Choice: a choice based on a desire Autonomous Choice: a choice not based on any desire A person making a Heteronomous choice is said to have a Heteronomous will A person making Autonomous choice is said to have an autonomous will. For Kant, an autonomous will is a moral will, the good will. it is good in itself not because of any good results that it brings about.

Morality and imperatives: What is an imperative?  An imperative is a command.  Two Kinds of Imperatives 1.) Hypothetical Imperatives Command conditionally on your having a relevant desire 2.) Categorical Imperatives: These command unconditionally. What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives? 

Categorical Imperatives: (3 Formulations) What is one thing that all humans want to achieve? Formula of the Universal Law "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]“ (pg. 30). Formula of the Natural Law (Humanity or End in Itself): "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end“ (pg. 38). Kingdom of Ends “So act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means” (pg.39).

Categorical Imperative 1 (CI1) Action is permissible if and only if it is performed on the basis of a maxim that one can will to be a universal law. Maxim: The reason for one’s action. Every voluntary has an action Universal Law: Everyone will perform action A in circumstances C for motive M. Categorical Imperative 1 has the following type of duties:

Type of Duties For CI1 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. Imperfect duties (duties of virtue) are positive in that they require that we sometimes perform certain types of actions. ( THIS APPLY MORE TO THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE Categories of Moral Duties Perfect Duties Imperfect Duties Duties to Self Suicide example Developing talents example Duties to Others Repaying loan example Saving drowning person example

Can you make a false promise? (Perfect duty to others) Can you make a promise you don’t intend to keep? There will be no trust; when you try to make it universal and you are in a comfortable situation We want everyone to tell the truth, yet there are cases we want to make an exception When you go against this, you are re-affirming its authority That shows that you recognize that there is a rule that you should obey If it exists, then we must obey (Categorical Imperative) Anything else that exists has to obey any physical laws. (we don’t because we are rational beings– we are the only ones that can do that)

Categorical Imperative 2 Kant believed the first Imperative was hard to follow so he created the following: An action is permissible if and only if the agent does not treat any rational being merely as a means. Dignity can’t be replaced If something has intrinsic worth than it has dignity Humanity and morality Kant believe people should not be used as a means to obtain an end because they were rational beings. IS there something that has Absolute Value? Kingdom of ends

Kant: Supposed Right to Lie “All practical principles of right must contain rigorous (forceful) truth; and the principles that are here called middle principles can contain only the closer determination of the application of these latter principles (according to rules of politics) to cases that happen to occur, but such middle principles can never contain exceptions to the aforementioned principles of right. This is because such exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone they bear the name of principles.” What is a lie? a lie: a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally.

Kant: Supposed Right to lie A lie always harms another; if not some other human being , then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general. It vitiates (destroys or impairs legal validity of) the very source of right. Does a person have the right to be untruthful? Kant says “no”, you have to be truthful to everyone in ever situation because if you are truthful then you cannot be punished. Is he/she not actually bound to be untruthful in a certain statement which he/she is unjustly compelled to make in order to prevent a threatening misdeed against himself/herself or someone else?

Kant: Supposed Right to Lie In the article “On a supposed right to lie” Kant goes deep into the consequences of lying and being truthful. Kant’s view on lying is that it is always wrong even when circumstances force you to. Being absolute in truth is the only to be morally right. To be morally and judicially right you must “tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Kant: Supposed Right to lie [[ hypothetical question is “If a murderer came to your home looking for your friend should you lie to save your friend or tell the truth?” ]] Kant goes to say that if you lie you are hurting that person because if and when your friend leaves and become caught then you are responsible for that persons death because you lied of his whereabouts. "The moral principle stating that it is a duty to tell the truth would make any society impossible if that principle were taken singly and unconditionally.” "To tell the truth is a duty, but is a duty only with regard to one who has a right to the truth."

Kant: Supposed Right to Lie “Truthfulness in statements that cannot be avoided is the formal duty of man to everyone, however great the disadvantage that may arise therefrom for him or for any other. And even though by telling an untruth I do no wrong to him who unjustly compels me to make a statement, yet by this falsification, which as such can be called a lie (though not in a juridical sense), I do wrong to duty in general in a most essential point.” “to have a right to truth” “A principle acknowledged as true […] must never be forsaken, however apparently danger is involved in it.”

Kant: Supposed Right to Lie “It would be a crime to tell a lie to a murderer who asked whether our friend who is being pursued by the murderer had taken refuge in our house." The idea that Kant had was to be absolute in truth. If we are truthfully absolute then we are moral and free of punishment in our actions. Just like if you’re on trial and you lie to help someone/yourself you are in contempt of court.

Korsgaard, “Right to lie: On Dealing with Evil Believes that the laws of morality, in its practice, will ultimately benefit society. Korsgaard believes kants views of moral rightness, over the obligation of our ends, and respect over goodwill are what's important to society. It is unfeasible to always live by Kantian ethics. However, If these standards leads us to do bad, we should seek to avoid it. In situations involving evil, the application of the kingdom of ends should be a goal rather than something to live up to. All information/materials are the property of Dr. Christine Korsgaard and Harvard University. I do not claim to have full knowledge of such material. Please refer to instructional material for additional support. (e.g study guide, Korsgaard article).

Korsgaard, “Right to lie: On Dealing with Evil Believe that in certain situations, there is no justification as to doing something or action that another person could not do as well in certain circumstances. (e.g. universal law, murderer at the door.) Korsgaard believes Kant’s views on ethics aren’t as demanding, left room for modification, through the studying of his writings. (e.g. “lecture on ethics”). She uses the laws/rules of war from Kant’s lecture on ethics as an example of the uncompromising ideals in his view on ethics. Laws of war, that peace is not only good in the short term, but as a long term goal that guides the conducts of war when it is required. Korsgaard considers this applicable in the individual sense. “ goal” as oppose to words to live up to. Kantian ethics could be used to as “principles” when dealing with situations involving evil. All information/materials are the property of Dr. Christine Korsgaard and Harvard University. I do not claim to have full knowledge of such material. Please refer to instructional material for additional support. (e.g study guide, Korsgaard article).

Teleology or Deontology? Deontology theory is not goal oriented Rightness or wrongness of an act not explained in terms of its consequences, but its own features. It denies that right and wrong are in some way or other functions of goodness or badness Teleology theory is goal oriented A morally right act is one that brings about overall good

lol