PHIL WEEK 2 IN CLASS activity
Cooper2021
2-2.pptxBusiness Ethics Summer 2022 (1) Week 2, Lecture 2
Chaeyoung Paek
In today’s class…
We’ll look at Kantian ethics as the last part of the “ethics” part of this class.
There will be an in-class activity at the end of this class.
The Kantian Theory of Value
The Kantian Theory of Value
Wills are the kinds of things that can be morally good or bad; a will is good to the degree that it motivates the agent to act only out of respect for the law of reason.
Will: faculty of mind that makes you act or drives you to act. (“When there’s a will, there’s a way.”)
Reason: practical reasoning that leads us to act in a certain way.
“The law of reason” refers to the categorical imperative.
The Categorical Imperative is the law that any rational agent should follow in their practical reasoning.
The Kantian Criterion of Morally Permissible Action
The Kantian Criterion of Morally Permissible Action
An act X is morally permissible if and only if, in performing X, the agent satisfies the Categorical Imperative.
There are 2 versions of the Categorical Imperative; the Universal Law Ver. & the Humanity as Ends Ver.
The Categorical Imperative: 2 Versions
The Universal Law Version
You should only act in accordance with a maxim that you can, at the same time, consistently will it to be a universal law.
≈ Our intuition behind “What if everybody did that?”
(ex) Throwing garbage on the street
The Categorical Imperative: 2 Versions
The Humanity as Ends Version
Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means.
≈ “Treat everyone as ends in themselves, not as your means.”
(ex) Instagram Influencers
The Categorical Imperative: 2 Versions
One important thing: The Categorical Imperative is an absolute law, not conditional law.
It is not a conditional law that you ought to obey under a certain condition.
It is something that you ought to follow under any circumstances.
One weird thing
: According to Kant, the Universal Law Version = the Humanity as Ends Version (??)
- We’re going to understand this claim in the following way: if one action is permissible according to the Universal Law Ver. of the Categorical Imperative, then it is also permissible according to the Humanity as Ends Ver. & vice versa.
The Categorical Imperative: the Universal Law
“You should only act in accordance with a maxim that you can, at the same time, consistently will it to be a universal law.”
In order to satisfy the Universal Law Ver. of the Categorical Imperative, you have to go through the following practical reasoning before you act.
There’s a maxim behind our reasoning about what to do in a given context. Extract that maxim from your reasoning.
- The form of the maxim: <I will [X], in order to [Y].>
2. See if that maxim passes the Universalizability Test.
- The Universalizability Test:
It must be such that the agent could act on that maxim and achieve her goal even if everyone else in the world acted on that maxim.
It must be such that the agent can want it to be the case that everyone in the world acts on that maxim.
The Categorical Imperative: the Universal Law
(EX) Parking my car wherever I want to
1. Extract the maxim
Goal = Making parking easier for me / Act = park my car wherever I want to
Maxim = I will [park my car wherever I want to], in order to [make parking easier for me].
2. The Universalizability Test
If everyone follows the maxim, can I achieve my goal by acting on the maxim?
- No!
(2) Can I want it to be the case that everyone acts on this maxim?
No!
The Categorical Imperative: the Universal Law
Additional Test: Is the act in question morally permissible, according to the Humanity as Ends Version of the Categorical Imperative?
(In other words: Am I treating other people as ends themselves, not as my means, when I park my car wherever I want to in order to make parking convenient for me?)
- No!
Conclusion: It is impermissible to park my car wherever I want to, in order to make parking convenient for me.
Exercise: Application
Go to ”2-2 In-class Activity” forum below the lecture video.
The discussion question will be visible once you click “Create Thread”, under the forum description.
Fill in your answers & click “Submit.”
This should take about 7 minutes; you now can look at other classmates’ answers (and respond to one, if you’d like!)
After 7 minutes, come back to the lecture video; we’ll look at the answer to the question together!
Application
“Frank constantly cheats on his wife. She recently grew suspicious of him, but he figured that telling his wife the truth won’t do him any good. His wife might want to leave him even though he doesn’t want to; and he hates confrontation of any kind. So Frank decides to lie to his wife that he is not cheating on her in order to keep his peace of mind.”
Maxim: “I will [lie to my wife] in order to [keep my peace of mind].”
The Universalizability Test: No/No
Humanity as Ends law: Impermissible
Objections
Consistent Evil: Evil things that we can consistently will them to be universal laws
Inconsistent Trivialities: Morally okay things that we cannot consistently will them to be universal laws
Sly Universalizer: Highly specific maxim that will only be applied to one person at a specific context
Treating yourself as means: Acceptable cases of “treating yourself as means” become impermissible
Objection #1: Consistent Evil
(EX) Nazi: “I will kill jews whenever I’m able to in order to get rid of jews!”
Maxim: I will [kill jews whenever I can] in order to [get rid of jews].
The Universalizability Test
(1) If everyone follows the maxim, can Nazis achieve their goal by acting on the maxim?
Yes
(2) Can Nazis want it to be the case that everyone acts on this maxim?
Yes
Conclusion: It is permissible to kill jews whenever I can, in order to get rid of jews???
Objection #2: Inconsistent Trivialities
(EX) Rush Hour: “I’ll take the back road home when it’s rush hour so I can avoid traffic!”
Maxim: I will [take the back road home when it’s rush hour] in order to [beat the traffic].
The Universalizability Test
(1) If everyone follows the maxim, can I achieve my goal by acting on the maxim?
No
(2) Can I want it to be the case that everyone acts on this maxim?
No
Conclusion: It is impermissible to take the back road home when it’s rush hour???
Objection #3: Sly Universalizer
(EX) Chris + Buying all the available cooking oil
Maxim: I will [let Chris and only Chris buy all the cooking oil in Hampshire county at 3 PM on 11/3/2020], in order to [make Chris and only Chris get what he wants at 3 PM on 11/3/2020].
The Universalizability Test
(1) If everyone follows the maxim, can Chris achieve his goal by acting on the maxim?
Yes!
(2) Can Chris want it to be the case that everyone acts on this maxim?
Yes
Conclusion: It’s permissible to let Chris and only Chris buy all the hand sanitizers in Target at 3 PM on 11/3/2020???
Objection #4: Treating yourself as means
(EX) Julia + liver transplant for her estranged mother
“Julia’s mother is sick with hepatitis C; they have been estranged for a while mainly because her mother did not want to maintain their relationship. But her mother suddenly called Julia and said she needed a liver transplant; she specifically wants Julia to be a donor. Every evidence Julia has shows that her mother is just using her to get better and will go back to ignoring her after the transplant. But since Julia believes all the hassle is worth to save a life, she agrees to go through the transplant process.”
Objection #4: Treating yourself as means
Q. Is it okay for Julia to go through the liver transplant process in order to save her mother?
According to Kant, it is impermissible for Julia to do this.
Julia’s mother is using Julia as her means, not as ends in herself.
So if Julia agrees to go through the transplant process, she is using herself as means for other people; but you shouldn’t treat anyone as means, including yourself!
Exercise: An application
Click ”2-2 In-class Activity” below the lecture video.
Click “Write Submission”; fill in your answers & click “Submit.”
This should take about 5 minutes, but feel free to take more/less time as needed.
For the next class…
Read Duska, “Business Ethics: Oxymoron or Good Business?”
