1. Immanuel Kant Deontological Ethics
 “Always recognize that
human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end.”
Immanuel Kant Deontological Ethics
“Do what is right, though the world may perish”
“So act that your
principle of action
might safely be made a law
for the whole world.”
“Do your Duty!”
“What’s my Duty?”
“What’s my Highest Duty?”

2. Refute Aristotle’s Case! Define Kant’s Basis of Morality.
Life of Reason ≠ Happy Life
Categorical Imperatives > Counsels of Prudence
Happiness Cannot Ground Morality
Define Kant’s Basis of Morality.
Good Will Is the Basis of Morality
It is Good In Itself (without qualification)
Virtue is Good Only By A Good Will
What Makes A Will Good?
Obeys Moral Law For Its Own Sake
Recognizes: Free Will (Choice) > Consequences
Follows the Categorical Imperative

3. A. Historical Background
Kant was raised Christian
Kant formed his moral theory during the Enlightenment
Time of distrust of religious authority
His theory is based on reason alone, not revelation
Kant rejected many of Aristotle’s arguments about the “telos” of the human being

4. Aristotle’s Basis for Moral Good
Humans have a telos (purpose, goal)
The telos for humans is to be happy (happiness)
The best way for humans to achieve the telos of happiness is to live a life of virtue
Virtue participates in the moral good
Living a life of virtue cultivates a virtuous character; virtuous character chooses virtuous actions.

5. B. Kant’s Case Against Aristotle
The life of reason is not necessarily a happy one.
Why not? Can you provide examples?
2. “Categorical Imperatives” are superior to “Counsels of Prudence” (Aristotle’s Position)
What is the difference?
Happiness cannot be the foundation of morality!

6. Humans are gifted with reason (discernment, will, objectivity)
The life of reason is not necessarily a happy one. Why not? Can you provide examples?
(If) Man is given choices by NATURE in order to pursue or obtain Happiness…
(Then) NATURE gave man the wrong capacities/tools to pursue or obtain Happiness.
Humans are not base creatures that respond only to stimuli, instinct, gut feelings.
Humans are gifted with reason (discernment, will, objectivity)
Ex. If NATURE “wanted” man to be solely and ultimately happy, NATURE would not have given man reason or free will.
Ex. Man makes bad choices using free will; results in misery.
Ex. Much wisdom yields much grief.
Ex. Ignorance IS NOT bliss.

7. Similar prudent advice as we find in the Hypothetical Imperative.
“Counsels of Prudence” vs. “Categorical Imperatives” What is the difference?
Aristotle is simply providing prudent advice for Happiness and the Moral Good.
Similar prudent advice as we find in the Hypothetical Imperative.
Ex. If you desire ___, then you ought to do ___.
Kant sees it as wise counsel, not a moral rule or law.
More subjective than (a) moral law(s).
Not guaranteed to contribute or participate in moral good.
Kant believes in Categorical Imperatives
Commands that must be followed…by everyone…in every similar situation.
Moral rules, laws, absolutes for The Good
Proper reason will make these evident.
More objective rules or laws that contribute or participate in moral good.

8. Happiness cannot be the foundation of morality. Why not
Happiness cannot be the foundation of morality Why not? Can you provide examples?
Happiness is not necessarily GOOD in itself!
It is too subjective; relative to human emotions (not reason)
Kant says “Sometimes doing the moral good (following moral law) will not create happiness (for agent, for others).
Ex. Evil people report to be happy; they can pursue happiness through evil and thus become more evil.
Ex. Happiness come is varieties; it is personal and subjective. If this is so, do all forms of happiness lead to The Good?
Ex. My “duty” prescribes my roles and responsibilities. I may not like what I am asked to do (personal morality), but my “duty” dictates the GOOD and I must adhere to it (ethics). A surgeon is required to operate on a criminal, without bias, in spite of her personal feelings about him.

9. C. A Good Will Is The Basis of Morality From the Text
“…a good will is the only thing in the world that can be regarded as good without qualification”
“good without qualification” means:
A “good will” is always good in itself, regardless of what might follow from it.
Example: Courage is not good without qualification or not good in itself…it is good if it is held and manifest by a person with a good will.
Courage, intelligence, wealth, health and every other potentially good thing are only good if possessed by a person of good will
Kant: We don’t want virtue, we prefer the good will.
It is the only thing of intrinsic worth anywhere in the cosmos

10. C. A Good Will Is The Basis of Morality Simplified…
Why is it better than “Happiness”?
Happiness can enhance wickedness; happiness is corruptible (virtues, too)
Once cultivated, a Good Will is good in itself – and the only good thing in the world
It does not need qualification (justification, consequence)
Happiness and Virtues are good or bad depending on the person who possesses / exercises them.
Good Will is always good by its nature
A Good Will cannot be evil because it is aligned with the moral law and its intention is to follow the moral law.

11. (So…)What Makes A Will Good (
(So…)What Makes A Will Good (?) “If my WILL is to be GOOD, then I must…”

12. (So…)What Makes A Will Good (
(So…)What Makes A Will Good (?) “If my WILL is to be GOOD, then I must…”
Obey the Moral Law for its own sake!
Requires:
a) Recognizing Moral Law(s)
b) Asking: “What is my duty with respect to the Moral Law?”
Avoid the Motivation of Consequences (and other distractors)
a) Focus on the Intention and the Object that follows. These are under your control!
b) Avoid the influence of Emotions
c) Avoid the influence of religion/revelations
d) Avoid pleasure/happiness as an intention and a consequence
Follow the Categorical Imperative, i.e. its Formulations.
a) FUL : Formula of Universalizability, or Universal Law
b) FH: Formula of Humanity, or FME (Formula of Means and Ends); FEI (Formula of Ends in Itself)
FUL:Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
FH: Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means. (FH)

13. D. (So…)What Makes A Will Good (?)
The end of the moral life and purpose of our reason and will
is to acquire a “good will”…
Obeying the moral law “for the sake of the moral law itself” – a choice!
Through reason, man acknowledges that there is moral law
It exists for the sake of “order” and “good”
Our obligation or duty is to align ourselves with it (will and intention); and then follow or act on it.
Example: Lloyd vs Clarence (see text)

14. D. (So…)What Makes A Will Good (?)
The end of the moral life and purpose of our reason and
will is to acquire a “good will”…
2. Good consequences do not make an action good…so man’s concern is to align his will with the moral law and his intention must be to uphold the moral law.
Intention and the act that follows, is more important than the consequence.
An act of good will must precede consequence!

15. D. (So…)What Makes A Will Good (?)
The end of the moral life and purpose of our reason
and will is to acquire a “good will”…
3. A good will is one that follows the “categorical imperative”. These are two ways to demonstrate this:
The formula of 3a. Universal Law
The formula of 3b. The End in Itself

16. 3a. Universal Law
Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. (FUL)
So act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature. (FLN)
D. What Makes A Will Good

17. 3b. The End in Itself
Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means. (FH)
Act in accordance with maxims of a universally legislative member for a merely possible realm of ends. (FRE)
D. What Makes A Will Good

18. E. Kantian Ethics and Christianity
Similarities
Differences
Recognize existence of Moral Laws / Rules / Absolutes
Formula of Universal Law
Act in ways that you could foresee your action being a rule that everyone could live by
Formula of Means and End
Always treat others as ends in themselves, never as means
Jesus’ Golden Rule
Treat others as you would like to be treated
Man is created with reason, free will and dignity
Man is and END in itself; never a means to an end
Do not recognize the same source of Moral Laws / Rules / Absolutes
Reason vs. Revelation
Kantian: Reason > emotions
Jesus: Emotion (love) > reason
Question of Inspirational Power
Kant: Motivates the conscience
Jesus: Motivates the heart (and conscience)
Consent
Kant: willful consent can help improve moral quality of act
In a situation, can a rational person fully consent?
XN: The mere presence of “consent” cannot render an action “morally good”

19. So Far…Day 1 Kant’s Ethics are based solely on Reason, not Revelation
He did not cite religious (or any other) authority
Kant says that to do one’s moral duty is to follow moral rules (what is right, acceptable)
Moral rules are always absolute commands
These commands (ought to) apply to everyone, all the time!
This moral philosophy aims to be more than simply “DO YOUR JOB” or “FULFILL YOUR ROLE”
Against Aristotle, he claims:
The life of reason is not necessarily a happy one; sometimes the good does not always lead to happiness; sometimes our ability to reason can betray us
Aristotle offers more “counsels of prudence”, or helpful guidelines on how to become happy.
Happiness cannot be the foundation of morality – is happiness always good in itself?
Happiness of evil people?
The only truly good thing in the world without qualification is the “Good Will”.
It is always good in itself regardless of what might follow from it.
Virtues are only good insofar as they come from a good will. These are morally neutral. A good will shines by its own light,
What makes a Will good?
Obeying moral law for its own sake: identifying and following ever increasing moral duty, obligations, standards
Don’t be fooled by good consequences – they are not the measure! Measure your action against the moral law (what is right).
The decision to act is the only thing that is truly under control of the will.
Following the “CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE”

20. So Far…Day 2 The Categorical Imperative
Universal Law: Act in ways such that your action could become a law for all people everywhere.
Your action could only be moral IF your reason for doing it could be a reason that everyone could have
End In Itself: Treat others as though they are ends and never as means to another end.
An “End” has intrinsic value
A “Means” is merely an instrument, expendable
To use someone as a means is to involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent.
This person would not rationally choose this for him/herself.
Compared to Christian Teachings…
Similarity:
Formula of Universal Law & Golden Rule
Human beings have a privileged place in the natural world
Reason and Will = Dignity and Respect
Animals are not self-conscious and are merely means to an end. That end is man.
Incompatibility:
Kant says Reason is source of moral principles; Christianity says (Divine) Revelation is the source, and Reason is merely a means toward understanding it
Kant: any act is permissible between consenting adults; The mere presence of “consent” cannot render an action “morally good”
Kantian Ethics bears no benefits of faith
Kantian Ethics bears no example of virtue, heroism, compassion or sacrifice as found in the person of Jesus – who more than he submits to the moral law for its own sake!
Kantian Ethics moves the conscience; Jesus moves the heart.