5 pg philosophy paper On kant and mill

Kant Notes 2:

Categorical Imperative: 1.) freely come up with a maxim or intentional plan in your mind 2.) see if that maxim or plan can be applied to all people and at all times (universally), 3.) If your intentions, plans, or maxims are good, then there will never be a time that it cannot apply.

Example: 1.) I think lying is good 2.) cannot be applied everywhere because society would collapse 3.) my proposed plan to lie is not good

Categorical Imperative is based on the individual’s ability to freely think and act.

Categorical Imperative shows that we must respect everyone’s choices and reasoning process.

Each individual should be allowed to come up with their own life plans. If I think that I know better than another person and manipulate their lives, even for their own good (because I think the consequences would be good), I would be violating the categorical imperative.

Example: 1.) I think manipulating people is good 2.) manipulating people cannot be applied everywhere because humans would be objects and not moral subjects with freewill 3.) my proposed plan to manipulate is not good

Kant argues that consequences do not lead to justice or good morality. We can only judge a person based on their present wishes and reasoning. Future consequences that we think would be good do not make something good. People have to have pure and good intentions so that they can be judge by them.

This is why we use motive in the criminal justice system to determine greater responsibility and punishment.

What is intention? Can it be defined well? Can we have psychological explanations that lessen responsibility?

Death penalty for Kant respects individuals. Their actions lead to a categorical imperative that we must apply the same standard of punishment on them that they applied to their victims.

Intentions (Kant) vs. Consequences theories of Justice

Death Penalty, can use other circumstances and consequences to change punishment? Young children? Death penalty for the mentally handicapped? Time off for good behavior?

Would you pay a lot of money (bad consequences) for justice?

Terrorism should we treat people as objects (torture) (means to a [good] ends)? What if there is imminent danger? Should we use any means?

Ethics in war?

Consent is only based for not being used a means to an end (or as a mere object). Does consent truly lead to good actions and individual happiness?

Exploitation: Sexual Harassment

Self-harm? Drug policy?

Can the Government restrict your choices that harm you? Can do a preemptive limitation of your freedom in order to protect your freedom?

Exploitation: Reduced choice a limiting of autonomy.

Direct manipulation (treat others as a means to an end) limiting of autonomy and disrespect

Implicit threat limiting of autonomy and expectation of harm? How do you understand harm in Kant’s philosophy if it is based on retributive or reciprocal action.

Withholding of information to make informed decisions limiting of autonomy or should it be the consumers responsibility?

Treating people differently is that ranking them and treating them under different objectifying standards? Bigotry? Is this a form of disrespect and using of people not treating them as ends-in-themselves?

Remember: Kant’s form of justice (intentional) different from Consequential view of justice.

Consequentialist view of justice is that the probable good or bad results can excuse an action or justify it.

Positive Freedom vs. Negative Freedom: Which one does Kant endorse?

Kant advocates for autonomy or free self-rule as the basis for any moral action. However, doesn’t an individual require some basic forms of material goods and development to have agency?

Positive Freedom: all citizens have a claim on certain public goods so as to be minimally free and a moral agent.

This is a philosophy advocated by the Left.

Negative Freedom: only individual actions and the respect of their decisions can make a moral society. No other authority has the right to lay claim in the interests of freedom or public good to another person’s goods.