Kant and Moral Duties

 We don’t require moral theory(ies) to tell us that lying and homicide are wrong, and helping those in need is a good thing to do  The theory(ies) explain WHY these things are right and wrong, and give me REASONS for believing them so  Moral theory(ies) also help illuminate “grey areas,” clarify difficult problems, or resolve conflicts that arise What do Moral “Theories” Offer?

What are the Characteristics of a Good Moral (Normative) Theory?  Clear and unequivocal: tell us what actions are right (or wrong)  Reliable: offers straightforward answers in a wide variety of situations and is able to resolve conflicts when they arise  Comprehensive: covers not only individual actions, but social and political practices, institutions, and policies

Characteristics of a Good Moral Theory (Continued)  Psychologically realistic: doesn’t depend on false assumptions about what people are like  Yields predictable results in familiar situations  Is not wildly at odds with our habits, intuitions, and customary responses to ordinary problems

Utilitarianism (review)  The Principle of Utility (GHP) is a good example of most of these provisions  Gives clear answers, helps resolve many problems, explains and justifies our intuitions  But the Omelas story, or “shoot the prisoners” dilemma, illustrate issues (like justice, fairness, and rights) which are not sufficiently addressed

Kant’s Contrasting Strategy  Morality seems to consist in various law-like principles, obligations, that limit our freedom  “I want…” (desire) versus “I ought…” (duty)  Kant will show, however, that these moral duties issue from our truly impartial rational desires, and so are expressions of our freedom (“Laws of Freedom”)  The “Morally Good Will” (person of good character, integrity) is one who recognizes the moral law as his/her own self-imposed limitations on individual freedom for the sake of empowering the freedom of all  Human beings have moral dignity because of this power of reason to regulate their behavior – unlike mere animals, we don’t just “have desires” or impulses and act on them, we also have AUTONOMY (the capacity for self-governance)  Morality is an expression of that autonomy, it is “self-governance”

Kant, Part I: the “Supreme Principle” of Morality If we ask for the essential characteristic defining moral goodness or worth, we find:  An action has “moral worth” if it conforms to the requirements of duty, and is done for the sake of duty (and not for some other motive); and  A person is morally good (“good will”) if he or she can be counted on to do his/her duty, motivated solely by a respect or reverence for the moral law (rather than consideration of some other, variable principle).

Some Notes on this Conclusion NOTE (1) : This does NOT mean that someone who does the “right” thing for the “wrong” reasons is acting wrongly, only that their action is not praiseworthy. It merely means they get no “extra credit.” NOTE (2): Kant allows that this confluence of actions and personal motivations is unusual. He wonders whether, on these criteria, there has ever been a truly “morally good will” in the world. NOTE (3): Our duty presents itself to us in the form of “imperatives” (commands) that are absolute and binding (categorical – no exceptions or excuses)

Observations about Categorical Imperatives  CI’s derive their authority from within – from the rational impulse to obey the dictates of Reason itself (as an expression of my autonomy)  CI’s command absolutely, unconditionally, “no ifs, ands or buts” (no strings attached)  CI’s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change  Duty and the institution of morality are like this (as contrasted with the imperatives of practical behavior, such as advancing one’s career, or engineering a particular social order)  “Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to or not, whether anyone will notice, reward, praise, or blame you (or not).”

The “Categorical Imperative Procedure” = CI 1  CI 1 - “Act only on that maxim (intention?) through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” [4 illustrations]  Do not harm the self (suicide)  Do not harm or deceive others (lying)  Do what is good for the self (develop your talents)  Do what is good for others (beneficence)

The “Categorical Imperative Procedure” = CI 2  CI 2 - “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.” [Note same four illustrations, considered from the perspective of the “agent” (i.e., the person undertaking the action) rather than action.]

Kant’s Illustrations Action and Agent “Perfect” (or negative) duties (precisely-defined actions toward specified others) “imperfect” (or positive) duties (undetermined actions toward unspecified others) Toward SELF Suicide exampleCultivation of Talents Toward OTHERS Keeping promises; truth- telling Beneficence (promotion of public welfare)

The “Categorical Imperative Procedure” (CI 3 )  CI 3 - “The Kingdom of Ends” – Reason is both the source of moral law (legislator) and subject of the law (citizen). Accordingly: “Act always as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaking member of the moral community, bound to obey the laws you impose upon yourself and others”

Concluding Notes on CI-procedure  CI 1 = formula of “universal law”  CI 2 = “respect for persons principle”  CI 3 = “Kingdom of Ends”  Kant portrays the first two as derivations from the third, which attempts to portray the moral situation of a free, rational individual within a democratic society