1. Introduction to Ethics Online Course & Instructor
Philosophy 2030
Introduction to Ethics
Class #17
Hand Out “What Do You Do?” #2
Complete Discussion of Kant’s Deontology
Discuss Chapter 7, pp
Online Course & Instructor
Feedback through 5/18/16 –
Is simply following the Golden Rule the Right Thing to Do???? Even if you know that the instructor WANTS you to say you loved the class, what does the Golden Rule tell you to do?

2. 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.

3. 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!

4. Personhood, Rights, and Justice
Chapter Seven:
Personhood, Rights,
and Justice

5. What is a Person?
Only a true person has ethical duties and obligations.
Only a true person is eligible to receive the benefits of ethical rights.
Although we in the Western world would be hard pressed to deny personhood to others explicitly and logically, do we in essence often do so implicitly?
Historically, frequently cultures have granted personhood to a class of individuals: males only, landowners, or denied it to classes of individuals: foreigners, POWs, criminals, children, mentally incompetent individuals, gays and lesbians.
Could there be an ethical justification to do so? Or is respect for all human beings as persons a universal ethical value?
Immanuel Kant’s ethical view, as are many views, dependent on the nature of a person. By such, he means a moral agent who can rationally evaluate the categorical imperative. But is a human being who does not function rationally a person in a fully ethical sense?