Philosophy online exam
viena1992
kants_moral_philosophy1.pptx“Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative”
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Kant’s Moral Theory Is a Form of DEONTOLOGY
A deontological theory of ethics stresses a person’s duty to do the morally correct thing regardless of consequences.
For deontological ethics, acts are morally obligatory whether their consequences are good or bad for human beings.
Because of lack of consideration of consequences, a deontological theory is nonconsequentialist.
Morality seems to consist in various law-like principles, obligations, that limit our freedom “I want…” (desire) versus “I ought…” (duty)
Kant will show, however, that these moral duties issue from our truly impartial rational desires, and so are expressions of our freedom
The “Morally Good Will” (person of good character, integrity) is one who recognizes the moral law as his/her own self-imposed limitations on individual freedom for the sake of respecting the freedom of all persons
Human beings have moral dignity because of this power of reason to regulate their behavior – unlike mere animals, we don’t just “have desires” or impulses and act on them, we also have AUTONOMY (the capacity for self-governance)
Morality is an expression of that autonomy, it is “self-governance”
Some Guiding Concepts
Nature and Rationality
Kant notes that “everything in nature works according to laws.” However, humans differ from other parts of nature in that humans alone can according to principles.
Thus, Kant recognizes the rationality of human beings.
Humans are rational in having a “conception of laws,” or principles.
Our rationality enables us to understand the correctness of moral laws such as “keep your promises,” and to know the difference between right and wrong.
Free Agency/Autonomy
Human beings are also free agents, that is, we have free will, or can freely choose between options, including moral options. That is, we can freely choose to do right or wrong.
Because of our rationality, we can understand the difference between right and wrong. And, because of our rationality, we can understand moral laws which it is our duty to accept as binding.
Our freedom to choose means then that we are capable of freely acting on this knowledge. That is we can freely choose to do what is proper.
Reason and Agency
Knowing how to act morally requires reason. Thus we must be able to deduce and understand the principles of correct moral behavior.
Having understood what is the right thing to do, we then act in a morally correct way when we freely choose to act according to the moral law which reason has recognized to be correct.
Kant calls our ability to act according to principles, or our capacity to use our free will to do the right thing, practical reason.
Thus, for Kant, the will puts to use or practice the principles of reason insofar as they concern moral behavior.
Rationality and Desire
Kant recognizes that people are not only rational agents but we also have desires and appetites.
However, as a rational agent, a person can choose to do what is right in spite of the influence of desires and appetites.
When desires and appetites, or what Kant calls “subjective conditions,” would lead a person not to do the morally correct thing, or when morality and desire conflict, the moral person acts according to reason to do the right thing, in spite of the influences of their desires and appetites.
Moral Worth
For Kant, a person of moral worth does the right thing, and does so in spite of the influence of desire and appetite which may lead her to do the wrong thing.
And, for Kant, moral worth is the most important attribute which a person can have.
Moral worth is more important and more admirable than such “talents of the mind” as “intelligence, wit, and judgment” and is more important than such “qualities of temperament” as “courage, resolution, and perseverance.”
For Kant, “these gifts of nature” - intelligence, courage, and so forth - may also become bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them is not good.”
The Good Will
“There is no possibility of anything at all in the world, or indeed even out of it, that can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.”
The good will is a will that chooses to act simply
because it recognizes an action as the right thing to do
(because it recognizes an action as a duty).
The good will is a rational, free will that acts according
to the proper moral motive.
The Good Will II
The only thing good without qualification
What a Good Will Isn’t:
Talents of the Mind
Intelligence, wit or judgment
Qualities of Temperament
Courage, resoluteness and perseverance
Gifts of Fortune
Power, riches, honor, health and happiness
10
The Good Will III
A good will is necessary to make sure that what Kant calls “gifts of fortune,” such as wealth and power, do not lead us astray as moral beings.
Even things which are thought to be “good in many respects,” such as “self-control and calm deliberation,” “have no intrinsic unconditional value, but always presuppose a good will.”
Not only are such things not absolutely good, as a good will is, but they can be put to bad use if not backed by a good will. Thus we may admire qualities such as self-control and calm deliberation, but, if not backed by a good will they “may become extremely bad.” For instance, Kant says that “the coolness of a villain makes him far more dangerous” [than he would have been had he lacked the self-control and calm deliberation that coolness implies].
The Good Will IV
For Kant, a good will is not good because of what it brings about or helps to bring about, but because it is good in itself.
A good will, considered by itself as it is in itself, is much more admirable than anything which it brings about.
For instance, the good will which brings about happiness is much more deserving of respect than is the happiness which it produces.
The Good Will V
Even if a good will accomplishes nothing, it is still to be admired as something which “has its whole value in itself.”
So whether a good will is useful in producing results or not, it is still of the utmost goodness in itself.
For Kant, “a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, but is good in itself.”
The value of a good will then lies entirely in itself and not in what it produces.
MORALITY AND CONSEQUENCES I
Kant says that “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect.”
Thus, unlike any consequentialist theory, Kant says that it is incorrect to look for the moral worth of an action in its effects.
The reason for this is that expected effects of actions, such as improving one’s own condition, as in egoism, or increasing the happiness of everyone likely to be effected by the action, as in utilitarianism, Kant says “could have been brought about by other causes.” And, if that were the case, then “there would have been no need of the will of a rational being.”
MORALITY AND CONSEQUENCES II
Recall that, for Kant, it is in this will “alone that the supreme and unconditional good can be found.”
And if that is where the supreme and unconditional good is to be found, then it is not to be found in the consequences of an action, whether those consequences mean a better life for oneself, as in egoism, or in a better life for everyone affected by the action, as in utilitarianism.
To that end, Kant says: “The pre-eminent good which we call moral can therefore consist in nothing else than the conception of law in itself, which certainly is possible only in a rational being, in so far as this conception, and not the expected effect, determines the will.”
MORALITY AND CONSEQUENCES III
Thus, for Kant, the moral person does what is right because it is right, and does not do right because he or she is considering the likely effects of doing right for himself or for anyone likely to be effected by the action.
For Kant, the goodness of a good will “is a good which is already present in the person who acts accordingly [that is, a person who acts according to moral law], and we have not to wait for it to appear first in the result.”
The goodness of an act is not then judged by its consequences, as in a consequentialist theory, but is due to a good will, or willing to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
The Three Propositions of Morality
An action must be done from duty in order to have any moral worth.
An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim (rule) according to which the action is determined.
Duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the law.
17
Acting From Duty
What is it to ‘act from duty’? It is 1) to act, not just according to a law, but also for the sake of a law that transcends the individual (that is, for the sake of a formal principle, not a psychological principle, like the ‘warm heart’). 2) it is to act contrary to inclinations (desires, self-interests, personal benefits, profit, etc.). 3) It is to adopt an action because reason commands of us this course of action (not because
passions or compassions urge us on).
• What is a maxim? – A maxim is a brief articulation of an instruction that the individual follows in his action.
• What is Law? – Law is the set of imperatives prescribing moral actions. Moral Laws are always categorical, meaning that they are not up for discussion or negotiation. Metaphorically speaking, moral laws are as if carved in stone, like the Ten Commandments Moses brings down from Mount Sinai. However, the Ten Commandments are divine rules of conduct, while Kant’s categorical imperatives are rational rules of conduct.
• In order to illustrate his principle, ‘acting from duty,’ Kant gives us four different examples of action, where only the last has moral content. One is contrary to duty; two are in accordance with duty but are still performed because of self-interests; only the last is performed ‘from duty’ and ‘contrary to inclination.’ Only the last qualifies as truly moral. The four examples are the following:
1) Some actions are contrary to duty, and performed out of self-interest and inclination, like stealing, cheating, lying, etc. Obviously, they are not moral.
2) Other actions are performed according to duty, but because of some mediate self-interest. A person pays his taxes on time according to duty, but he knows that he thus avoid fines, and society gives him back various social benefits. He acts according to duty, but not from a duty free of self-interest, and is thus not a true moral subject.
3) Other actions are performed according to duty, but because of some immediate self-interest. If a man does not commit suicide, he acts according to duty, but if he loves his live, he also acts according to inclination. He never contemplated suicide since he is happy and everything is going well. Thus, he preserves his life according to duty, but not from a duty free of self-interest, and is thus not a true moral subject.
4) Finally, there are actions, which are in accordance with duty, and moreover, are performed from duty contrary to inclination. These are true moral actions, whose maxims constitute the subject as moral.
An imperative is a command. "Close the door!" "Brush your teeth!" "Study hard!" "Don't forget to button your shirt." According to Kant, however, these commands are abbreviations.
"Close the door, so that your father can hear the game."
"Brush your teeth, so you don't get cavities."
"Study hard, so you can get a good job, and give your poor parents some peace."
"Don't forget to button your shirt, so your date doesn't think you're an idiot."
They are "hypothetical imperatives" -- Kant means that the commands depend upon the goals to be fulfilled. These are particular goals that depend upon personal situations, particular human goals and desires and dispositions. Hypothetical imperatives are commands that apply only in particular circumstances, for particular people who happen to have these desires, these goals.
The Categorical Imperative is universal and impartial -- universal because all people, in virtue of being rational, would act in precisely the same way, and impartial because their actions are not guided by their own biases or circumstnaces, but because they respect the dignity and autonomy of every human being and do not put their own personal ambitions above the respect that others deserve.
Notice that the above is NOT a description of how everybody does behave -- as an ethical theory, it is concerned to describe how people ought to behave.
Kant is not condemning hypothetical imperatives. In fact, he agrees that these are the sorts of imperatives that we live by are hypothetical in nature. But they are not moral. (They are not immoral -- they are non-moral.)
Imperatives
Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives
HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE
A hypothetical imperative is conditional.
That is, it depends on certain things, and concerns what needs to be done in order to attain an objective.
An imperative (a command of reason to act in a certain way) is hypothetical when it concerns an action which is good only as a means to something else.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
A categorical imperative is unconditional - ‘categorical’ means absolute, unqualified, or unconditional.
Kant’s categorical imperative is objectively necessary.
It concerns the necessity of a correct moral action itself without reference to any consequence of the action.
The Supreme Principle of Morality: The Categorical Imperative
CI’s derive their authority from within – from the rational impulse to obey the dictates of reason itself (as an expression of my autonomy)
CI’s command absolutely, unconditionally, “no ifs, ands or buts” (no strings attached)
CI’s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change
CI’s are used to determine specific moral duties (as contrasted with the hypothetical imperatives of practical behavior, which are used in advancing one’s own interest, or pursuing some end or purpose)
“Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to or not, whether anyone will notice, reward, praise, or blame you (or not).”
Formulations of the CI
Kant suggests four formulations of the Categorical Imperative :
The Principle of Universalizability: Act as if the maxim of your action were to
become through your will a universal law of nature.
2. The Principle of Respect for Persons: Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never
simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
3. The Principle of Autonomy: Act such that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims.
4. The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: Act as if you were through your maxims a
law-making member of a kingdom of ends.
Kant’s Examples
| Action and Agent | “Perfect” (or negative) duties (precisely-defined actions toward specified others) | “Imperfect” (or positive) duties (undetermined actions toward unspecified others) |
| Toward SELF | Suicide example | Cultivation of Talents |
| Toward OTHERS | Keeping promises; truth-telling | Beneficence (helping others in need) |
Using the CI to Test a Moral Act
To test a moral act one can ask: “What would happen if everyone did this?” Or, “Would it be okay for anyone to do this in the same or similar circumstances?”
If what I am about to do is morally correct then, for Kant, it would be morally correct for everyone to do the same thing in the same circumstances.
If an action is morally correct then it is universalizable, that is, it is good for everyone, everywhere, at any time.
“If not, then it must be rejected . . . because it cannot enter as a principle into a possible universal legislation” [cannot be a moral law applicable to everyone.]
Example 1 Perfect Duty to Others: Making False Promises
Could the rule ‘it is okay to break a promise,’ or ‘it is okay to make a false promise’ be universalized?
If so, that is, if it would be okay for everyone to make promises which they don’t intend to keep, then making false promises would fit the categorical imperative and so would be morally acceptable.
But can making false promises be universalized? To answer this we must ask what would happen, or what the consequences would be, of everyone making promises which they do not intend to keep.
Kant’s answer is that promises would cease to mean anything. Thus we could never count on the promise of another, or could never be sure that a promise was serious and will be kept if ‘it is okay to make a false promise’ is a moral principle.
Prudence and Duty
If we looked at promise keeping as a hypothetical imperative which says: ‘If you want to be liked, then keep your promises,’ then it might be thought to be prudent to keep your promises given that objective.
Hypothetical imperatives, such as, ‘if you want a good grade, then study hard,’ are said to be prudential.
However, since a law which says that it is okay to break promises cannot be universalized, keeping promises is unconditional, and, as such, is something which we have a duty to do.
The categorical imperative is moral then rather than prudential.
Kant grants that it may in some cases be prudent for a person to break a promise, but the moral question is whether it can ever be right?
Example 2 Perfect Duty to Self: Suicide
Is suicide okay for a depressed person if he or she reasons as follows?
a) To stay alive would be far less good for me than bad. b) I love myself. c) Because I love myself I do not want to see myself suffer. d) Therefore, I ought to commit suicide to end my suffering.
Old Man in Sorrow
(On the Threshold of Eternity)
Vincent Van Gogh, 1890
Suicide
For Kant, the crucial thing for the morality of suicide is whether or not this reasoning to the correctness of suicide to end suffering from self-love “can become a universal law of nature.”
And he thinks that it cannot since, according to Kant, to commit suicide out of self-love is contradictory. It is contradictory because self-love is the very thing which motivates us to improve our lives.
However, the removal of life is not improvement of life, and so self-love which provided these contradictory options cannot be made “a universal law of nature, and consequently would be wholly inconsistent with the supreme principle of all duty.”
Example 3 Imperfect Duty to Self: Develop Your Talents
What if one is financially independent and is also exceptionally talented? What then does one owe, if anything, to one’s talent? Is it okay for a person “to indulge in pleasure rather than to take pains in enlarging and improving his happy natural capacities?”
Kant notes that it is possible for people - even an entire culture - to neglect their talents in fact, to devote their lives to idle amusement. But the moral question is, is it proper? Kant says that it is not, since it is not possible to will that the neglect of talent should become a universal law.
We cannot (or better yet would not) will that we ought to neglect our talents since it is by means of our talents that we develop and improve our lives, and this is what a rational being aims for.
That is, a rational person necessarily chooses to develop his/her abilities since they are necessary to live a qualitatively good life. Accordingly, one cannot at the same time will that they be neglected without contradicting the rational will itself.
Example 4 Imperfect Duty to Others: Helping Others
Kant says that the world might in fact be composed of people who mind their own business and take no interest in the lives of others.
However, he says that it is impossible to will this lack of concern for others. This is because there may be cases in which we need the help and consideration of others. But if we will it to be a universal law that no one should help anyone else, then we would thereby deprive ourselves of the very assistance which we require.
Thus in both willing it that no one should help anyone else, while desiring it ourselves when we are in need, we contradict ourselves.
Accordingly, it would be impossible to will a lack of concern for others to “have the universal validity of a law of nature.”
Prudence and Duty Again
Kant takes the above test cases to show “that if duty is a conception which is to have any import and real legislative authority for our actions, it can only be expressed in categorical, and not at all in hypothetical imperatives.”
Thus one does not say, if you want to be well-liked, then help others in need, which is a hypothetical imperative which might be thought prudent for a person to follow. Instead, we see that we ought to help others since a principle which maintains that we ought not to help others in need cannot be consistently universalized.
Helping others then fits the categorical imperative which pertains to the universalization of correct moral actions.
Perfect and Imperfect Duties Summary Ideas
When we breach a perfect duty we have a clear logical contradiction and we actively disrespect some person – ourselves or others. Negative Duties -- don’t murder; don’t lie; don’t steal, etc. A rational will understands that we must never do such things.
When we breach an imperfect duty, we may not be actively disrespecting self or others, but neither would we be actively respecting persons. Positive Duties– develop your talents, help others in need; we need to use the will to determine how and to what extent we should do these things.
For Kant, both types of duties are required for the moral life. Morality requires not simply refraining from doing bad things, but actively doing good as well.
