Immanuel Kant’s ethics Philosophy 102, Christina Hendricks Spring 2018 Except parts noted otherwise, this presentation is licensed CC-BY 4.0. Icons not attributed were purchased from The Noun Project.

Moral scenarios from Mill doc Breaking a deathbed promise to a friend for sake of greater happiness A company donating to charity because they want more business

A little about Kant Kant: 1724-1804 Königsberg, Prussia Mill: 1806-1873 Königsberg, Prussia now Kaliningrad, Russia Map of Kaliningrad, licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 on Wikimedia Commons Painting of Kant by Becker, 1768, public domain on Wikimedia Commons

The fundamental principle of morality How you determine which actions are morally right

Mill’s fundamental principle of morality GHP: Are acts sometimes morally good even regardless of consequences? If so, what might their moral goodness be based on? Acts are right because Good consequences: happiness

Kant’s fundamental principle of morality The “Categorical Imperative” Several forms (we’ll look at two) First form, CI(1): Act only in such a way that you could will your maxim to be a universal law (Kant, Early Modern Texts, p. 4) “An act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable” (Schafer-Landau, p. 157)

What is a maxim? A kind of rule you’re following 1. What you intend to do 2. Why you will do it; your reason for doing it Maxim for my action

Example of a maxim “When I could make a false promise to get myself out of difficulty, to avoid harm to myself, I will do so.” -- e.g., gambling debt Your view on morality of this? Lying promise maxim

Is this maxim universalizable? Lying promise Ask: Can the goal of my action be achieved if everyone acted on my maxim? Lying promise example: No! (Kant, Early Modern Texts p. 5) Lying promise Lying promise

Why does universalizability matter? Unfairness: If maxim can’t be universalized, you are doing what couldn’t will others to also do; you are unfairly making an exception for yourself (Schafer-Landau p. 161) Inconsistency: If you have a good reason to do something, it should be good for all; if you can’t will it for all, then you’re being inconsistent in saying it’s a good reason for you but not for others.

How to tell what’s morally right? Use the fundamental principle of morality: Categorical Imperative; CI (1): can you universalize the maxim? Important because of fairness and consistency How do we act morally rightly? Act with a “good will”

How do we act morally rightly? Don’t just do what the Categorical Imperative requires, but do it in the right way

Unconditional good Is there anything unconditionally good? good in itself and in all circumstances, never bad? (Kant text p. 1) What about happiness? Only a “good will”… Children image from pixabay.com, licensed CC0

A good will Intending to do the morally right thing, because it’s morally right Intention: to do what morality says, to do your moral duty Motive: because that’s your moral duty Always good; can never be bad (even if bad consequences) This puts morality in our control; consequences out of our control (Schafer-Landau 159)

Acting from duty/merely according to duty Acting from duty: because that is the morally right thing Acting merely according to duty: doing the right thing but for some other reason/motive Kant pp. 2-3

Some questions that may be coming up Why is it important to act from the motive of duty? Is Kant saying we can only be acting morally if we dislike doing our duty but do it anyway? No! Morally good!

One more question Are acts done merely according to duty morally wrong? No! They just aren’t morally praiseworthy in the same way Morally wrong?

Some differences from Mill Not consequentialist Focus is on intention and motive— good will is good even if bad consequences Happiness is not the highest good, the most good thing Instead, it’s a “good will”

Summary so far How do we tell what acts are morally right? Use the fundamental principle of morality, the Categorical Imperative (several forms) CI (1): can you universalize the maxim? How do we act morally well? A good will: do your moral duty, from the motive of duty (act from duty, not merely according to duty)

Categorical and hypothetical imperatives Why is Kant’s fundamental principle called the “categorical imperative”?

Hypothetical imperatives Statements about what you ought to do if you want something else (if-then statements): If you want then you should goal action(s) Only required if you want the goal! (Schafer-Landau 162) Avoid lung disease Stop smoking

Hypothetical imperatives, cont’d Actions recommended are good only instrumentally, as a means to something else (Kant 6). Action good b/c goal is good: you want the goal Action Goal

Categorical imperatives Tell you what to do just because it’s intrinsically good, good in itself, not because it leads to some other goal (Kant 6). Action good in itself What actions could be intrinsically good, always good no matter what else they lead to?

Moral rules are categorical imperatives Apply to everyone (not just those who want certain goals) Strong obligation: outweighs our individual desires, goals Why is Kant’s fundamental moral principle the categorical imperative? Africa & Europe from a million miles away, image by NASA. Not copyright restricted.

Applying the CI (1): Kant’s examples Universalizing the maxim for each one leads to a contradiction of some kind

Suicide, lying promise examples Suicide maxim: "For love of myself, I make it my principle to cut my life short when prolonging it threatens to bring more troubles than satisfactions." (Kant 7) contradictory to use the feeling of self-love to destroy that self “When I can make a false promise to get myself out of difficulty I will do so.” Contradiction?

Developing talents I will not develop my talents because I want to just indulge myself in pleasure (Kant 7) Contradiction if universalized: willing both that no one develop talents and that people do so: we need people to develop talents to get many things done, including what’s needed for pleasure Photo by Anthony de Kroon on Unsplash

Helping others I will not help others when they are in need, even if I have the means to do so, because I want to keep my money and time to myself. Contradiction if universalized: willing both that no one help others and that someone help you when you need it (Kant 8). we require some things to continue to exist as rational beings and so must will we get help with those when needed.

Overall summary CI (1): how to tell if an act is morally right is to see if its maxim can be universalized Is the goal of the action still achievable? Is there a contradiction if the maxim is universalized? Kant gives four examples to illustrate. In order to be acting morally well, we not only have to act according to what the categorical imperative says, we have to do so with a good will: Do our moral duty, from the motive of duty.