Philosophy 2030 Class #16 Deontology 5/3/16 Read Chapter Seven, pp. 320-327 CAREFULLY.

Updated Class Schedule 5/3 – Immanuel Kant & Deontology 5/5 - Personhood, Rights, and Justice DUE: “What Would You Do?” Worksheet, Pt. 1 5/10 - DUE: “What Would You Do?” Worksheet, Pt. 2 5/12 – Applied Ethics DUE: “What Would You Do?” Worksheet, Pt. 3 5/17 - DUE: “What Would You Do?” Worksheet, Pt. 4 5/19– Class “Essay” Due Course Review, BYOQ (Class participation points) 5/24 – Final Exam Class Participation – 25% of your grade.

The Golden Rule Many believe the The Golden Rule qualifies as THE universal moral standard. Is the right thing to do to follow the “golden rule” which is stated quite explicitly by many early philosophers & in the New Testament? -- Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." This principle exists in all the major religions: Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Confucianism, and Taoism. What seems RIGHT about the Golden rule? What are its issues?

The Golden Rule Dr. Karen Armstrong

Professor of Philosophy, John Carroll University “The golden rule is best seen as a consistency principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms. It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers. It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (toward a reversed situation action). It tests our moral coherence. If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the heart of morality.” Harry J. Gensler, Professor of Philosophy, John Carroll University

The K.I.T.A. Principle What about the CEO who actually believes that he treats his employees fairly by paying them under the minimum wage and that they get just what they deserve because of lack of ambition. This is a problem of knowledge and imagination! Without proper knowledge and imagination, the golden rule cannot act as a moral principle. We must apply the Golden Rule with: 1) Knowledge 2) Imagination 3) Testing 4) Action

Is the Golden Rule Always “Right”? But should we use the golden rule when dealing with evil or immoral persons or those with evil desires? Do I really think it is right to treat a terrorist as I would want him to treat me (even with KITA)? But should we use the golden rule in dealing with children? Do I really think it is right to treat an 18-month child who is just about to put his fingers in a light socket based on how I want him to treat me? Or rather, “what is good for him?” Who qualifies as an appropriate “other”?

Is the Golden Rule Always “Right”? If we want someone to do something for us, does this mean that we should do the same to them? Maybe this works fine if I just want my wife to scratch my back, but surely it is not a universal principle. If you want your boss to tell you that you are doing a good job, is the “right” thing to do really to tell her she is doing a good job when you know that she is not?

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who is considered the central figure of modern philosophy. Kant argued that fundamental concepts of the human mind structure human experience, that reason is the source of morality, that space and time are forms of our sensibility, and that the world as it is "in-itself" is unknowable.

Morality as Doing the Right Thing Immanuel Kant proposes this sort of moral theory which emphasizes the nature of duty and obligation, Thus, Kant’s view is a deontological view. In Kant’s view, what makes an act the right thing to do is not just because it is done with a good intention. It is the right thing to do if it is done out of an intention to follow a moral law or rule out of a sense of duty or obligation. Otherwise the act is only done only as a hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative is a act which is done based on a conditional want or desire, e.g. If you want to get an ‘A’ in this class, you should study for the final exam.

Can Rules Define Morality? Video: Can Rules Define Morality? (#20)

Kant’s Deontology For Immanuel Kant, an act is truly moral only if it is done out of the categorical imperative which does not depend on circumstances or conditional wants or desires. The act is done for the sake of the principle of doing the right thing. Actions done fulfilling the categorical imperative are truly acts of good will and thus, the person who does so has a good will. To determine if our acts are good, we must verify that our own intentions ought to apply as a general law for everybody. Thus, Kant’s view is sometimes understood as a modified view of the Golden Rule (somewhat as Prof. Gensler has done) Kant is a hard universalist and relies on conformity to rational principles.

Kant’s Deontology For Immanuel Kant, another way of stating the categorical imperative is that we should treat all mean as ends in themselves, never as means to an end. Treat someone as they agree to be treated. How is this similar or different to Mill’s Harm Principle? This second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is essentially the same principle as the first because the categorical imperative universalizes your maxim. Both formulations are basically saying do not treat yourself as an exception! Both formulations seem to capture the essence and be the wisdom of the golden rule!