Pape.r Assignment #2: Deontology

2022/10/17 13:11 Summary of Kant's Deontology: Fal22 PHIL 007 #71108 CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

https://canvas.pasadena.edu/courses/1125818/pages/summary-of-kants-deontology?module_item_id=14715057 1/3

Summary of Kant's Deontology Overview of Kant's Approach A theme that runs through Kant's moral theory is that morality makes demands on us that are independent of our desires. For example, you should not steal, even if you really want that new laptop that you can't afford. You should not murder, even if you're really angry at that person you want to kill. When Kant speaks of moral law as categorical imperatives, what he means is that moral laws are not suggestions for what we should do if we have certain desires, but rather commands for what we should do regardless of our desires. Moral laws bind us to do what is right, setting parameters for what is or is not morally permissible, regardless of what culture says or how you feel about the matter.

Principle of Universalizability (or the Universal Law Formulation) If moral law is not dependent on desires, then how is moral law determined? According to Kant, moral law is determined by reason. Begin by considering what a law is: it is a command that applies to all capable of responding to that law. In other words, laws are by their nature universal. For example, a scientific law, say the Newtonian law that states that force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma). Such a law is not a law only when objects feel like following the law or if objects are under some restricted set of circumstances. The law dictates how all objects with mass are to move in any circumstance. Similarly, moral laws are laws that dictate how rational beings should behave, independent of how those beings might feel at a given moment.

If moral laws are universal in this way, then they do not emit of exceptions, since laws apply to all in all circumstances. The principle of universalizability is a way for us to identify what the moral laws are by considering what we as rational beings would agree to if what we planned to do for the reason we have (i.e. a maxim: the intent and action plan that we set forth for ourselves in deciding what to do, for example, if I was planning on stealing to make money, then my maxim is "I will steal [action plan] to make money [intent]") is to be allowed for all other rational beings. For example, if I wanted to steal to make some money for myself, I need to ask the question: would I want everyone else to also be allowed to act on this intent. Clearly, I would not want others to also steal to make money because if they did, they would simply steal from me, in which case, my own goals of making money are frustrated by others stealing from me. It is, in other words, irrational for me to act on my maxim when I consider allowing others to do the same.

We can run through the same process with any maxim. Go ahead and try for the following maxims:

2022/10/17 13:11 Summary of Kant's Deontology: Fal22 PHIL 007 #71108 CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

https://canvas.pasadena.edu/courses/1125818/pages/summary-of-kants-deontology?module_item_id=14715057 2/3

1. I will lie and promise to pay back a loan though I plan not to so that I can buy all the things I want.

2. I will not help others who are in need so that I can get everything that I want. 3. I will kill someone I am angry with so that I feel better.

Which of these cases do you not want your maxim to be universalized (i.e. made into a law)?

Principle of Humanity (or the Humanity Formulation) For Kant, there were many ways to learn what the moral law demands. Principle of Universalizability is one method, but the Principle of Humanity is another. According to the Principle of Humanity, we must treat humanity always as a end and never as a mere means. To better understand this principle, we need to define a few key concepts:

1. Humanity, for Kant, refers to all rational beings, which includes humans, but may include other rational beings we may encounter (maybe aliens, or artificial intelligence, or superintelligent rhinos).

2. To treat someone as an end is to treat one as a rational being, as someone who has the ability to think rationally and make their own decisions. Taking away someone else's decision-making power, for instance by enslaving them or by not allowing them to voice their views, is to not treat one as a rational being.

3. To treat someone as a mere means is to treat someone as a means to an end, or as an instrument for attaining something else. For example, if I use your head like a hammer for nailing, then I am using you (a rational being) as a tool to get what I want (hang pictures on the wall using nails).

Now to be clear, we can use one another to attain our own goals, and in fact, we do so all the time. For instance, I use my plumber to get leaks in my home fixed and the plumber is using me to make a living. However, what Kant is essentially saying is that we cannot treat one another as nothing more than an instrument for getting what we want; we need to also always treat one another as a fellow rational being. If I took away my plumber's rational capacity, either by lying to him or enslaving him, then I am treating the plumber nothing more than a means to an end. However, if the plumber and I mutually agree to a contract without any deception, then we are treating each other as rational beings who can make informed decisions for themselves, and so even if we are using each other, we are still treating each other as rational beings, and so following the moral law.

To practice, consider the maxims mentioned earlier and see if you can decide what the Principle of Humanity would say about the matter. (According to Kant, you should come to the same conclusions, but is that correct?)

1. I will lie and promise to pay back a loan though I plan not to so that I can buy all the things I want.

2. I will not help others who are in need so that I can get everything that I want.

2022/10/17 13:11 Summary of Kant's Deontology: Fal22 PHIL 007 #71108 CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS

https://canvas.pasadena.edu/courses/1125818/pages/summary-of-kants-deontology?module_item_id=14715057 3/3

3. I will kill someone I am angry with so that I feel better.