PSY work

A Duty to Disclose

A Kantian duty theorist would take the position that the duty to disclose is a moral obligation that admits to no exception. Rational individuals are owed full disclosure. Saying that consumers need to be protected from making choices is denying the moral dignity they are owed. The consequences of full disclosures are not relevant to the moral quality of the decision to provide full disclosure. Let’s see how 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant’s theory provides the underlying support for this position.

Kant, Free Will, and Choices

Kant took the notion of a will that is not subjected to a chain of predetermining causes, but that is purely rational, and made it the lynchpin of his moral system. He also accepted that there is a faculty of choice by which our desires and beliefs, the things that we experience ourselves having and that are caused by prior events, shape and cause the choices we make.

 

Do you think we can view human action both as being free and caused, or are these things mutually exclusive?

 

According to Kant, human action can be viewed from two perspectives:

 

1.   As part of a chain of causes and so, being determined by it

2.   As standing outside a chain of causes

 

The first perspective is the one we adopt when we try to explain why people do what they do. The second is the perspective we adopt when we reflect on whether an act is justifiable. For Kant, the assessment of an action as morally right concerns the justifiability of action, not the understanding of its causal history

Justifiability

Self-interest theory always stays within the realm of causal history. It does not achieve the function of justification. Kant thought the same thing is true of utilitarianism. The distinction between explanation and justification carries over to Kant’s distinction between acting in accordance to subjective maxims for action and acting in accordance with objective rules for action.

 

Subjective maxims for action are the kinds of things we take to be intentions for performing actions. They give us subjective factors that explain what we do. My desire for customers to come back and spend more money in my store is why I follow the maxim, “if you want repeat purchasers, you ought to label your products.” From this point of view, we are beings whose actions are caused by desires, which themselves are part of a causal chain of events. This is the perspective that is shared by the utilitarian moralist and those who believe in self-interest.

From Subjective Maxims to Objective “Ought” Statements II

The rational examination of subjective intentions for acting, or maxims, requires us to bracket all reference to subjective intentions or desires, including the anticipation of consequences, which play a role in the explanation of what we do. Subjective intentions are variable and rely on particular connections with this or that individual desire or anticipated consequence. A rational examination of reasons for action, on the contrary, seeks to establish “oughts” that are not subject to changeable circumstances.

 

Thus, for Kant, the statement of objective reasons for acting should include only the action under examination, rather than any reference to a desire or intention or consequence: “I ought to tell the truth" rather than “I ought to tell the truth because I want people to like me.” Or to take an example in connection with the illustration at the beginning of this module, “I ought to provide full disclosure,” rather than, “I ought to provide full disclosure because I want consumers to spend more money at my store.”