Answer 4 of 5 questions.About 3 pages total -- REQUIRE READING FROM POWER POINT --
usf1414
Q4.pptxDuties and Imperatives
The Ethics of Conflict
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Remained his whole life in Königsberg (eastern Prussia).
Famous for his three Critiques: of “pure reason,” “practical reason,” and “judgment”.
Proposes a duty-based, universal, “deontological” theory of ethics.
Thought of morality and nature, values and facts as distinct.
Moral Agency
Kant insists that it is only the presence of a “good will” that makes any act morally valuable.
He rejects rival theories that locate moral worth primarily in: a) virtue, b) happiness, or c) sympathy.
Kant’s position is called “deontological” (from the Greek deon, “what must be”) and focuses on absolute moral duties.
It is opposed, classically to utilitarian (more broadly consequentialist) theories of ethics, which focus on good results.
Four basic mental powers
According to Kant there are four basic human mental powers: sensibility, imagination, understanding, and reason.
Sensibility and imagination are, respectively, capacities to be affected by and to bring together impressions from physical objects.
Understanding is the capacity to use concepts to organize the sense impressions that reach the mind via the senses.
Reason, as distinct from the understanding, is the mind’s ability to be guided by abstract ideas such as goodness, freedom, and God.
Reason and human nature
Kant makes the traditional assumption of western philosophy: reason is both essential and unique to human beings.
Whereas “understanding” is the human capacity for knowledge of nature (science), “reason” is the human capacity for being moral.
Kant insists that the test of true morality is an individual’s ability to rise above self-interest for the sake of the rational moral community.
Reason is what makes each of us human, and being moral is the deliberate and consistent exercise of our rational capacity.
Morality resides “within”
Kant’s ethics is undoubtedly influenced by pietism: a religious movement within Lutheranism highlighting intense individual faith.
This influence may account to some degree for Kant’s idea that morality resides in individual good will and strict duty.
While Kant as an Enlightenment figure celebrated and added to scientific insights into nature, he saw morality a matter of humanity’s “inner” truth.
But this inner truth consists in everyone respecting and acting according to universal moral law. Kant strives to be the Newton of morality.
Hence the paradox: morality is individual conviction following universal law.
The solitary moral hero
Caspar David Friedrich, Wanderer Above a Sea of Fog (1818)
Questions
Why does Kant see the “good will” as the only source of pure moral worth?
Does Kant imply that an ethical agent should be unconcerned with human happiness?
What sense does it make to locate in human reason the capacity to be moral?
If morality is always a question of “good will,” how can we know when anyone is being truly moral?
Pure Practical Reason
Kant opposes empiricist explanations that insist morality is a product of human experience.
Strictly speaking, morality and its source in pure practical reason are not objects of knowledge.
Knowledge for Kant is a relation of the mind to the empirical world; ethics is really a self-relation.
The mind, for Kant, is not in the empirical world, but it can relate to this world in various ways (via perception, imagination, understanding).
The Categorical Imperative
“Laws of nature” are mechanical, “moral laws” involve the active consent of the moral agent; both types of law are necessarily binding.
Moral laws are not necessary in the sense of leaving moral agents no choice; instead, they constitute what it means to be a moral agent.
A law is “categorical” when it is followed for its intrinsic (not instrumental) value; the agent’s will is thus acting in a self-ruling or autonomous manner.
A law constitutes an “imperative” in the sense of being universally binding.
Formulations
“Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
“Act as though the maxim of your action were to become by you will a universal law of nature.”
Third Formulation
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”
Test Cases
1. Taking one’s own life due to pain or misery. Cannot be universalized.
2. Borrowing money that will not be repaid. Promise keeping is a basic duty.
3. Failing to develop a valuable capacity. It is a basic duty to develop useful powers.
4. Failing to aid others in distress. No one would will that they live without any aid and sympathy from others.
War and Terrorism
Joseph Boyle, “Just War and Terrorism”
Terrorism is acting to promote fear in order to realize policy change.
Terrorism is morally wrong because it involves harm to innocents.
Terrorism is, by definition, waged by non-state organizations.
Three conditions of for justly initiating any war: 1) proper authority, 2) just cause, 3) right intent.
Proper authorities are essentially legitimate nation states.
Just cause has shifted from punishment of others to self-defense.
Right intention is waging war solely to restore peaceful relations.
Just War Theory Applied to Terrorism
If a state has not acted aggressively to another state, it must consent to a foreign power’s desire to pursue terrorists within its territory.
Terrorist organizations cannot conform to just war requirements as they: 1) lack proper authority and 2) lack just cause (means of response).
Preventive actions against terrorist conform to just war theory when they relate to ongoing activities, but not simply potential capacity.
The aim or intent of combatting terrorism must relate specifically and exclusively to efforts to stop the terrorist acts.
Waging war against terrorists must be a last resort and always recognize that the ultimate goal is peaceful relations between parties.
Douglas Lackey, “Preventive Force”
“Preventive force” is force used against a person who might do evil; “preemptive force” is force used against a person who will do evil.
UN Charter authorizes only responsive force (in reaction to evil already done); international law allows for preemptive action.
Problem: Can we clearly distinguish preemptive and preventive force?
Any act can be divided into stages of development: 1) ideation, 2) mere preparations, 3) deciding, 4) substantial steps, 5) consummation.
The crucial transition is 2) to 3). To use preventive force at stage 2) is to act before a concrete decision to do harm has been reached.
Against Preventive Force
Preventive force derives from thinking the worst of one’s opponents; the problem with this is that is removes incentives for acting better.
On the presumption that the use of violence will involve harming innocents and should be a last resort, the evidence must be solid.
Freedom of speech requires that generalized sentiments of opposition not be regarded as proof of intent to harm innocents.
Morally objecting to the publicly held opinions of others is not sufficient grounds for using “preventive force.”
Charles Beitz, “Humanitarian Intervention”
Humanitarian intervention is the use of force by states to stop or prevent violations of human right by another state.
Both the legal and moral justification of such intervention is in question.
UN Charter (1946): 1) collectivized decision for war, 2) highlighted the responsibility of each nation state to protect human rights.
Two issues: 1) there is no international authority for acts, 2) permissibility versus moral obligation of acts against a sovereign state.
Following just war theory, invention must involve: 1) just purpose, 2) a legitimate authority, 3) last resort, 4) chance of success, 5) proportionality.
William Hawk, “Moral Presumption”
Hawk argues that there is currently a moral presumption for war, that is, an understanding that waging war is necessary for justice.
Using the example of the French village of Le Chambon and its pacifist pastor Andre Trocme, Hawk highlights non-violent resistance.
Factors vs killing others: 1) level of knowledge, 2) unintended consequences, 3) prejudice, 4) propaganda, 5) self-deception, 6) self-interest.
The burden of proof must be placed on those who advocate for war, rather than of those who call for the protection of peace.
Two types of pacifism: 1) anti-war pacificism, based on the known evils of war and 2) personal pacificism, rejects the very idea of “right killing.”
Questions Arising
Must humanitarian intervention be motivationally pure?
Must a policy of humanitarian intervention be even-handed or consistent?
Is humanitarian intervention the best use of scarce resources?
Examples of morally justified humanitarian intervention in the last twenty years?
