Kantian Ethics.

Kantian Ethics

In this lecture… Our moral duty Categorical imperative Universal law
Dignity and respect

Our moral duty Suppose you have promised your friend that you will help her with her homework at 3:00pm. As you are on your way to meet her, you see an accident victim lying on the side of the road who desperately needs help. There is no one else around to help the injured victim.

Our moral duty What should you do: keep the promise to meet your friend, or break the promise so that you can help the injured person? Do you think that we must always keep our promises? Can promise breaking be morally justified in some specific situations?

Our moral duty Deontological ethics, or duty-based ethics, holds that we have a duty to perform or refrain from certain types of actions. The most famous deontological theory is the one put forward by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Our moral duty For Immanuel Kant ( ), we have a moral duty to do what is right for its own sake. Morality, in his view, consists of principles of action that can be discovered through reason.

Our moral duty According to Kant, we are rational persons living in a moral community populated by other rational persons. The fundamental question of morality concerns how we ought to behave based on an understanding of our duties to each other.

Our moral duty For Kant, morality is not something we learn from our parents or teachers. Nor do we learn to distinguish right from wrong by observing other people’s actions. Rather, reason (i.e. our ability to think logically) tells us what we ought or ought not to do.

Our moral duty Reason enables us to understand our relationships with other people as well as the moral duty we have to each other . In Kantian ethics, ‘duty’ can be understood as what we ought to do as ‘persons’ or ‘rational moral agents’.

Our moral duty It is through reason that we come to know our duties, i.e. what each and every person ought to do. Since morality is founded on reason, everyone, except the very young and the severely mentally disabled, has the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

Our moral duty Utilitarianism, as you remember, holds that happiness or pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good. Thus, according to utilitarian reasoning, any act that maximizes overall happiness is the morally right thing to do.

Our moral duty Kant rejects utilitarian reasoning by drawing attention to the fact that some pleasures (e.g. that of the rapist or torturer) are immoral and therefore bad.

Our moral duty Kant dismisses the idea that happiness is the ultimate good or ultimate value. Happiness is no good at all if it comes as a result of wrongdoing. The same goes for other good things such as wealth, knowledge or power, all of which can be misused for bad purposes.

Our moral duty Kant claims that the only thing that is always good, or good in itself, is a person’s ‘good will’ (i.e. good intention). ‘Good will’ can be understood as the intention to perform one’s moral duty for its own sake. It is, in Kant’s view, a necessary element of any morally good action.

Our moral duty We act with a good will when we perform an action simply because we know that it is the right thing to do (i.e. when we are motivated by a sense of duty to do so).

Our moral duty For Kant, a good will is what makes an action ‘moral’. Only when we act from good will does our action have moral worth. In other words, an action does not have moral worth unless it is motivated by the intention to perform one’s duty for its own sake.

Our moral duty Brushing your teeth may be the right thing to do, but it has no moral worth because it has nothing to do with ‘good will’ or ‘duty’. Offering help to others, on the other hand, is an act that has moral worth if and only if you are motivated to do so by good will or a sense of duty.

Our moral duty Consider the following examples:
‘I like helping people because I expect them to return the favor.’ ‘I like helping people because it makes me feel good about myself.’

Our moral duty In these examples, although helping others is right, the actions have no moral worth because they are not done with the right intention or motive. From the standpoint of Kantian ethics, it is not enough that we do the right thing; we must do the right thing for the right reason.

Our moral duty In Kant’s view, actions motivated by desire or self-interest have no moral worth because desire and self-interest often lead us to do bad or wrong things. For Kant, only when we act from duty do our actions have moral worth.

Our moral duty Kant has us imagine two shopkeepers, each of whom does his duty by giving his customers the correct change (i.e. not overcharging them). But the first does this only because he fears that if he were to cheat them, word would get out and he would lose business in the long run.

Our moral duty The second store owner does the very same thing, but for completely different reasons. He treats his customers fairly because he thinks that cheating people is wrong, and he is committed to living up to the highest moral standards.

Our moral duty Although the first shopkeeper does his duty, his action cannot be described as ‘moral’ because it has nothing to do with morality. The second shopkeeper does his duty for its own sake and, as such, his action can be described as ‘moral’ (i.e. his action has moral worth).

Our moral duty Morality, in Kant’s view, has nothing to do with selfish motives, but everything to do with duty and good intention. Right actions are those done out of a sense of duty. An action that has moral worth is one that is done for the sake of duty.

Our moral duty Do the following actions have moral worth?
I build a school for poor children because I want the school to be named after me. I build a school for poor children because this is the best thing I can do to help them.

Our moral duty For Kant, morality has nothing to do with producing good consequences. If an action is right, we have a duty to do it no matter the consequences. Consequences, in his view, are irrelevant when we make moral judgments or decisions.

Our moral duty From the standpoint of Kantian ethics, some types of actions (such as truth telling or promise keeping) are always right or always wrong (such as lying or promise breaking) irrespective of the consequences that follow from them.

Our moral duty According to Kant, we have a duty to perform or refrain from certain types of actions, and this duty is derived from the nature of the actions themselves, not from the consequences produced by these actions.

Categorical imperative
For Kant, reason is the source of moral principles. As rational moral agents, we impose moral duties on ourselves. We act upon the moral law (i.e. a set of moral principles) that we give ourselves through reason.

Kant maintains that there are moral principles that all persons, as rational moral agents, have a duty to follow. We can use reason to work out a set of universal moral principles. To do so, we should begin with the question: ‘What ought I to do?’

Kant suggests that ideas of duties can be translated into the language of ‘imperatives’ (i.e. principles of reason that specify what we ought to do in various situations).

However, Kant notices that the meaning of the word ‘ought’ can be confusing in everyday language. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between hypothetical ‘ought’ (which is non-moral) and categorical ‘ought’ (which is moral).

A ‘hypothetical imperative’ tells us what we ought to do to get what we want: e.g. ‘If you want a good job, you ought to get a good education’; ‘If you want to arrive on time, you ought to leave early.’

The ‘Categorical Imperative’, on the other hand, tells us what we ought to do as rational moral agents, e.g. ‘You ought to keep your promise,’ ‘You ought not to torture innocent people.’

To sum up, a hypothetical imperative specifies a means to an end is always expressed in the form of a conditional sentence is about satisfying a goal or desire has nothing to do with ‘morality’

In contrast, the Categorical Imperative specifies what everyone has a duty to do as a moral person is not expressed in the form of a conditioned sentence (moral duty is ‘unconditional’) has nothing to do with satisfying goals or desires is the basis of the moral law

It is important to note that the Categorical Imperative is discovered within ourselves through reason alone; it is not discovered from experience (e.g. not through observing other people’s behavior).

There are two formulations of the Categorical Imperative: the Formula of Universal Law the Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself

Universal law At the heart of Kantian ethics is a system of universal moral principles, i.e. the moral law that everyone has a duty to obey. For Kant, the moral law is binding on all persons at all times. Every rational person is expected to follow the same moral principles.

Universal law The Formula of Universal Law: ‘Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’

Universal law When we are considering whether an action is morally right or wrong, we must ask ourselves whether we would rationally want and expect everyone to act in that way.

Universal law In Kant’s view, beneath every action there is a ‘maxim’, i.e. a subjective principle of action that we employ to decide what we should do. A ‘maxim’, in other words, can be understood as a personal rule that reflects the underlying reason or intention for action.

Universal law For an action to be moral, its underlying maxim must be one that can be universalized (i.e. applicable to everyone). An action is morally right only if it is based on a rule or principle that we can apply not only to ourselves but also to other rational moral agents.

Universal law If the maxim can be universalized, then we accept it, and its corresponding action is seen as moral. If the maxim cannot be universalized, then we reject it, and its corresponding action is seen as immoral.

Universal law Suppose I need some money and I am considering whether it would be moral to borrow the money from you and promise to repay it without ever intending to do so.

Universal law In this example, the underlying maxim of my action is:
M: Whenever I need money, I should make a lying promise while borrowing the money.

Universal law Is it possible for me to universalize the maxim (M) of my act? When I try to do so, I get following principle: P: Whenever anyone needs money, that person should make a lying promise while borrowing the money.

Universal law It is easy to see that the principle (P) is self-defeating or contradictory to reason. Why? Because no one in his right mind would take promises as promises if they were meant to be broken (i.e. no one would be willing to lend money to others).

Universal law Now let us consider the opposite maxim (M1), one based on keeping one’s promise: M1: Whenever I need money, I should make a sincere promise while borrowing it.

Universal law Is it possible for me to universalize the new maxim?
P1: Whenever anyone needs money, that person should make a sincere promise while borrowing it.

Universal law Yes. The new maxim can be universalized. There is nothing self- defeating or contradictory in P1, and thus the maxim can be considered as a universal moral principle. In short, making a sincere promise is moral, whereas making a lying promise is immoral.

Universal law Can we universalize the following maxims?
Steal from others those things you cannot afford to buy. Shout at waiters in restaurants. Avoid polluting the environment.

Universal law In Kant’s view, if a maxim cannot be universalized, we must reject it as immoral. One of the problems with the formula of universal law, however, is that maxims that cannot be universalized are not necessarily immoral.

Universal law Consider these maxims: ‘Never speak unless you are spoken to’, ‘Don’t start eating until someone else does’, or ‘Leave early to avoid the traffic’. None of these maxims can be universalized because it would be self- defeating for everyone to follow the same maxim. But are they ‘immoral’?

Universal law A common ‘Kantian’ argument against homosexual sex is that if everyone did that, disaster would soon follow, for the human race would quickly die out. (The assumption being that the only purpose of sex is procreation.) Can we draw the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral?

Universal law How about those people who have decided to remain lifelong bachelors, such as Kant himself who remained unmarried all through his entire life? What would it be like if everyone followed Kant’s example?

Universal law For Kant, the moral principles derived from the Categorical Imperative – such as ‘Never lie’ and ‘Always keep your promise’ – are universal and do not admit of exceptions. These principles, as the absolute commands of reason, are binding on all rational moral agents under all circumstances.

Universal law For example, Kant argues that it is wrong to lie under all circumstances. There is even one occasion in which Kant himself suggests that if a killer comes to the door asking for someone hiding inside whom he wants to kill, we ought to tell the killer the truth.

Universal law Suppose you are an ordinary German citizen living in Berlin in early 1940s. In your home you are hiding an innocent Jewish woman named Sarah, who is fleeing Nazi executioners. When the Nazis knock on your door and you open it, they ask if Sarah is in your house.

Universal law What should you do? Should you tell the truth or lie? Suppose you told the murderers the truth, and they found the victim and killed her, are your responsible for her death?

Universal law Kant argues that you would be ‘blameless’ because consequences, in his view, are irrelevant when making moral judgments and decisions. Inasmuch as you have done your duty (i.e. as long as you are telling the truth), you are not responsible for any bad consequences that might follow.

Universal law Can you escape responsibility so easily? After all, you have helped the murderers find their victim. Is there something seriously wrong with Kant’s reasoning here?

Universal law Most people would consider Kant’s reasoning mistaken or highly unsatisfactory. Some may go further and argue that given the circumstances, you would have a duty to lie if there was no better way to save the life of the innocent person.

Universal law There are two ways in which we might modify Kant’s reasoning. One way is to add qualifications to the universal principle, changing the maxim ‘Never lie’ to the more modest ‘Never lie except to save an innocent person’s life’.

Universal law The trouble with this way of solving the problem is that there seem to be no limits on the qualifications that could be attached to the original principle. How about this one: ‘Never lie except to please my girlfriend’?

Universal law Another way is to ask ourselves whether any other principle is relevant in this situation. And we discover that another one ‘Always protect innocent life’ also applies. Thus, we have to decide which principle is more important: ‘Never lie’ or ‘Always protect innocent life’?

Universal law An implication of the second approach is that there might be no such thing as absolute moral principles. (A principle that is ‘absolute’ is applicable under all circumstances and does not admit of exceptions.)

Universal law Moral decision-making typically requires us to weigh different options carefully with respect to the specific situations we find ourselves in. Thus, contrary to Kant’s personal view, perhaps there is no need for us to regard all moral principles (or moral duties) as absolute.

Dignity and respect Kantian respect for persons is derived from the Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself: ‘Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.’

Dignity and respect The belief that people ought to be regarded as having the highest intrinsic value is central to Kant’s ethics. The dignity of being human arises from the fact that humans exist for goals and purposes of their own. As such, they must be respected as ‘ends in themselves’.

Dignity and respect The Formula of Humanity demands that we always act in ways that respect persons as ‘ends in themselves’ (i.e. as autonomous beings who can make choices, set goals, and take responsibility for their own actions and decisions).

Dignity and respect Autonomy can be understood here as the capacity to decide what goals and values to pursue and how to achieve them in a morally acceptable way. It is in virtue of their autonomy that persons have dignity, i.e. intrinsic value that is ‘above all price’, according to Kant.

Dignity and respect Objects, in Kant’s view, have no intrinsic value. They cannot make choices and therefore do not exist for purposes of their own. We can use objects for our goals and purposes because they do not have goals and purposes of their own.

Dignity and respect For example, a pen does not exist for any purpose of its own; instead, it exists to serve a human purpose, i.e. to be used as a tool for writing. The pen is not an ‘end in itself’. It has no intrinsic value; it only has instrumental value to the extent that it can be used as a means to an end.

Dignity and respect Only persons have goals and purposes. Objects have instrumental value only as means to human ends. For Kant, only human beings have intrinsic worth, or ‘dignity’, which sets them apart from all other animate and inanimate objects.

Dignity and respect To sum up, persons are not objects; they have dignity (intrinsic value or intrinsic worth) because they can make choices and set goals for themselves. Unlike objects, persons exist for purposes of their own. That is why we have a duty to respect their dignity and autonomy.

Dignity and respect According to the Formula of Humanity, it is morally wrong to treat persons as mere means to our own ends, i.e. as mere objects for use. However, it is not necessarily immoral to treat a person as a means as long as we do not treat them as mere objects.

Dignity and respect For example, in hiring a taxi I employ the driver to get me to my destination, thereby making use of him. But I do not treat him as a mere means (i.e. as a mere object for use) because I also recognize his end of making a living by getting people to their destinations.

Dignity and respect What does it mean to treat a person merely as a means? People are treated merely as means when they are seen as mere objects rather than ends in themselves, i.e. when they are coerced, deceived or manipulated to do something against their will.

Dignity and respect It is morally wrong to treat other people as objects because when we do so, we fail to acknowledge that they exist for purposes of their own. In other words, when we force or mislead others into doing something that they are unwilling to do, we fail to respect them as ends in themselves.

Dignity and respect We should never manipulate people, or use them to achieve our purposes without their consent, no matter how good those purposes may be. From a Kantian point of view, it is always wrong to manipulate people to do things for us by force or by deceit.

Dignity and respect Slavery, murder, extortion, deception and coercion are morally unacceptable because all of these practices involve failure to respect people’s dignity and autonomy.

Dignity and respect Since human infants and the mentally disabled are unable to make choices and set goals for themselves, they cannot be regarded as ‘autonomous beings’ or ‘ends in themselves’. Does it imply that it is morally permissible to conduct medical experiments on human infants? Why or why not?

Kantian Ethics.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Kantian Ethics."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Kantian Ethics.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Kantian Ethics."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback