Robot Druggie

KANTIAN ETHICS Section I.1 KANTIAN CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE ...................................................................... 2 Section I.2 OUTLINE FOR KANTIAN ARGUMENTS ....................................................................... 6

Immanuel Kant (German philosopher, (1724-1804) In the first week of notes I stated that philosophy is questioning. A preoccupation with questioning usually means you think you can figure out some answers. Trying to reason out our biggest questions suggests strong belief in the power of reason, so reason is important to philosophy. Imagine a person who is all brain, always thinking, always rational, calm, unemotional, truly reasonable- the rational being, a Kantian. Reason or Rationality, this was his greatest passion in life

BACKGROUND FOR KANTIAN ETHICS David HUME (British philosopher 1711-1776) Hume was a skeptic, he questioned everything. He maintained we have no good reason to believe the sun will come up tomorrow. In ethics Hume maintained that there is absolutely no fact we could learn about the world or about ourselves that could tell us what we ought to do or what we should value. Nothing about the way the world is can tell what we ought do. This is known as the problem of is-ought derivation: one cannot derive an ought from an is. Kantian ethics is an attempt to prove Hume wrong. Kant provides an is- ought derivation

KANTIAN IS-OUGHT DERIVATION His task is to find some truth or fact that could tell us what we ought to do But Kant agrees, there is no fact out there in the world that could tell us what we ought value or what is good and right. So maybe the truth about ethics are not out there in the world. Maybe the truth is in us, or about us. For Kant, what is the big truth about us that counts? Reason or Rationality is the big truth about us that counts. How to get to ought? He thinks about it quite a bit, this is his life, and there is another truth to consider. What does the word ought really mean?. Ought means a rule you must follow.

Section I.1 KANTIAN CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE • Categorical means no exceptions • Imperative means command, absolute must • Categorical Imperative : is an absolute must with no exceptions

Since Kant is so into reason, the categorical imperative is a rule of logic & non-contradiction. So he states: The greatest moral good can be nothing else than the conception of law in itself. Here we should think of law as rule, something binding. He does not mean law in the sense of legal courts. Notice what he has done here. He takes the concept of ought and supplies a definition of the word ought as a rule that has to be followed, absolutely no exceptions and he says, well, that is what we ought to follow: rules that no rational person could disagree with. The very idea of the definition of a rule or law is the ought he derives. The truth he derives it from? The definition of a word can be thought of as a quasi-fact, a truth that does not come from experience but instead comes from logical meaning, but is a truth, an is nonetheless. clever.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE, VERSION 1 Act so that the maxim for what you do you could will as a universal rule. What he is saying in this Version 1 is that what you use as a guide for your morality has to be something that is not just special to you but something that you would expect everyone to follow too and that they would agree to follow. The most incontrovertible rules are those of logic, and of the rules of logic, non-contradiction is the first and foremost rule.

In this VERSION 1, the words he uses are much more important than they might seem when you first read it. Here is a breakdown of the important elements: MAXIM- act so that the maxim for what you do A maxim is a rule, a guide. He is saying that each moral action should be guided by a generalizable rule.

UNIVERSAL RULE- act so that the maxim for what you do you could will as a universal rule. You do not get to have one set of morals or ethics for yourself and expect others to follow a different set of rules. You do not get to follow one set of rules today and another set another time. The moral rule has to be stronger than something that changes for different people or different times. The strongest rules we have are the rules of logic or reason. All other rules use the rules of logic. Central to this notion of a universal rule is the basic test of whether or not the rule might involve a contradiction. In other words, would the rule always be logical, always make sense? So, we ask, could we make this a rule always and forever? Would applying it always and forever give us nonsense or not?

EXAMPLE If murder is okay in one case, could you make it a universal rule? That means everyone would murder everyone, always. But that is not possible. There would not be anyone around to keep it up. So murder as a universal rule is a logical impossibility. That means murder is unethical. If you apply the rule to all places and all times, would it be contradictory in its very essence? If it is contradictory, it is logically impossible. It violates the rule of all rules: it violates simple logic, and so it is unethical. EXAMPLE If everyone lied all the time, then we would all know they always mean the opposite of what they say, so nobody could lie, because every time someone lied (and everyone would lie all the time. (Everyone would lie universally) then we would understand that they just mean the opposite of what they say. So really, you could not make lying a universal rule, logically, it is impossible.

WILL act so that the maxim for what you do you could will. You have to be able to want this maxim to apply. It has to be a maxim that rational or civilized human beings could agree to.

EXAMPLE Sadism & Masochism in the bedroom. If everyone was into kinky dominatrix sex, this would not involve a contradiction per se, but you could not get most rational persons to agree to it.

When applying Kant you must always first look for whether universalizing the action would lead to a contradiction. You are entertaining the possibility of

applying your action as a universal rule that all humanity would always follow. Would this lead to a contradiction? If so, you have reduced this universalized action to an absurdity. Be very careful. Saying that we would not be happy or that the universalized possible action would lead to problems does not constitute a contradiction. You have to explain and show that If everyone did action x then nobody could do action x. This is called reducing to absurdity. You cannot say both that everyone would do it and nobody could do it. For Kant it is this reduction to absurdity that makes an action unethical. If you cannot logically universalize the action, then it is unethical. This means that if you want to give a really solid Kantian argument to prove something is unethical, then you must show that if everyone did it then nobody could.

KANTIAN CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE --VERSION 2 VERSION 2 treat all persons as ends and never merely as means

Going from Rule 1 to Rule 2: because Kant says there is only 1 Rule VERSION 1 Act so that the maxim for what you do you could will as a universal rule.

• Your willing what is rational is an end in itself • You cannot uphold your willing what is rational as an end in itself

while denying the rule of willing what is rational as an end in itself. Reason dictates that you cannot will as a universal rule an action that denies having a will to make rational choices

• Persons are beings with will to make rational choices • Persons are ends in themselves

therefore VERSION 2 Treat all persons as ends and never merely as means Basically, this says, do not only use people to get what you want. This version is the basis for Kantian discussion of rights. But it is important to recognize that persons are ends in themselves because they are rational beings. According to Kant being rational and having rational will (able to make rational choices) is the reason why we have moral rights. Greatest moral good can be nothing else than the conception of law in itself which is certainly only possible in a rational being So, do animals get moral rights? For Kant, no they do not. They should be treated well in general because mistreating them makes you less rational. He explains it something like this.

If you torture your pet hamster because you like to watch him squirm you are just not acting like a very rational person. Violence and meanness just become habits that make you less logical and rational. We ought to be good to irrational beings because treating them meanly reflects on our rational behavior. But these irrational beings have no ethical rights. Be careful, in business all people are being used as means to make money. The point is, you have to prove they are only being used to make money.

OTHER IMPORTANT KANTIAN QUOTES: Nothing can be called good without qualification except a good will Good will means doing things out of sense of duty to do the right thing.

Notice how for Kant what we do morally depends on why we do it, what is in our minds. We have to have the right attitude. We have to be doing it, not because we feel sorry for those who suffer, etc, but because we have a moral duty to act like rational beings.

Before you apply Kant to a case, it is important to realize that Kantian ethics applies tests to determine if an action is unethical. These tests do not determine when an action is ethical. Sometimes, a case will just not apply to Kantian ethics.

Section I.2 OUTLINE FOR KANTIAN ARGUMENTS Kantian Ethics is approached in terms of 3 tests, but you should follow the steps below, exactly in order, these steps or for Test 1 and then test 2. Beware of Step 9 (TEST 3), ask me first. 1. Give a general statement, a sentence, stating if the categorical imperative is violated

or not. 2. DEFINITION –CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (the definition for Kantian ethics): Act

so that the maxim for what you do you could will as a universal rule. 3. Apply the action as a universal rule that humanity would always follow. 4. Describe the world where this would be the case. 5. Is there/would there be a contradiction (like the examples of murder & lying)? 6. Explain in great detail, how or why; if everyone did the action, then absolutely

nobody could do the action. If there is a contradiction, stop here. You have proven the action is unethical according to Kant.

7. No contradiction? explain why no contradiction arises, then go to step 8

8. Show how or why most reasonable people would or would not agree that this action is the correct ethical action. Could all reasonable people agree to it?

But test 2 does not give a very strong argument, it relies on consensus rather than solid universal ethics.

DO NOT DO STEP 9! ASK ME BEFORE DOING STEP 9 9. Show that rational beings are only being used as a means to a goal.

It is very rare that you can make a good argument for step 9. In business we use people to get money. This is okay for Kant, everyone uses others. The point is are they only using people? But to claim this you cannot just say it, you have to be able to prove it. You cannot assume it is okay to make an accusation like this without proof. It is a very strong accusation, and in almost all cases, someone can show how you are wrong. To prove it you have to have a smoking gun, usually a document made available in the case that showed they were aware that people were going to die and did not care and in their decision these dying people were just dollar signs or numbers on a page. Tobacco companies in the 60s is an example. Computer companies rarely only use people, they usually think customers are important as people too. If you have proof otherwise for a case, then ask me and I will let you know if your proof suffices.