Philosophy ethics questions
faisal.kanwan
ethics_330_final_review_powerpoint.pptx
Kantian Ethics
What makes an action good is not its consequences, but rather the motivation of the person who is doing the action.
For Kant, the ‘good without qualification’ = the will (not happiness)
Actions done from inclination = no moral worth/moral content
The only morally good action = the action done from the motive of duty
Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law
‘Now an action done from duty has to set aside altogether the influence of inclination, and along with inclination every object of the will; so there is nothing left able to determine the will except objectively the law and subjectively pure reverence for this practical law, and therefore the maxim of obeying this law even to the detriment of all my inclinations. Thus the moral worth of an action does not depend on the result expected from it, and so too does not depend on any principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected result.’
The moral law determines the good will
Kant says that since a moral action is not one motivated by inclination, and is also not one motivated by the thought of gain or benefit, the only thing left for the will is to act in accordance with moral law for the sake of it.
The moral law, or the categorical imperative: act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it be a universal law.
categorical = universal and without conditions/ imperative = a command to be followed
The categorical imperative is a UNIVERSALIZABILITY test.
‘Suppose I seek, however, to learn in the quickest way and yet unerringly how to solve the problem ‘does a lying promise accord with duty’? I have then to ask myself ‘Should I really be content that my maxim (the maxim of getting out of a valid both for myself and others) should hold as a universal law (one valid both for myself and others)? And could I really say to myself that everyone may make a false promise if he finds himself in a difficulty from which he can extricate himself in no other way? …. ’
‘… I then become aware at once that I can indeed will to lie, but I can by no means will a universal law of lying; for by such a law there could properly be no promises at all, since I would be futile to profess a will for future action to others who would not believe my profession or who, if they did so over-hastily, would pay me back in like coin, and consequently my maxim, as soon as it was made a universal law, would be bound to annul itself.’
A hypothetical imperative is connected with our subjective ends, as individuals.
The categorical imperative is connected with our objective ends, as rational agents.
‘Morality is not a system of hypothetical imperatives’.
Hypothetical imperatives = conditionally binding, depending on our ends or desires/
Categorical imperatives = unconditionally binding, no matter what our subjective ends or desires
For Kant, morality has to be based in something that is valid for all agents regardless of their desires.`
Perfect duties: COMPLETE. They hold for all agents in all their actions with all possible others. Kant also calls them strict, rigorous, or narrow duties
Also known as Duties of justice
Disobeying perfect duties leads to a contradiction in conception. It is a strict logical impossibility to disobey them
Imperfect duties: INCOMPLETE, INDETERMINATE. It is not possible to fulfil them to all possible agents at all possible times. They are meritorious and contingent.
Also known as Duties of charity
Disobeying imperfect duties leads to a contradiction in will. We can conceive of disobeying these duties, but we cannot will to disobey them without contradiction
Autonomy
The supreme condition of the will’s conformity with universal practical reason is the idea of the will of every rational being as a will which makes universal law.
1) The will as subject to the law
2) The will as author of the law
1 and 2 together = the will is subject to the law of which it itself is the author
Autonomy refers to a capacity, inherent in all rational agents, to act FREELY on the basis of reason and independently of our inclinations/desires.
Freedom IS when my will is determined autonomously, governed by a law I give myself
Freedom IS NOT following inclinations, desires, interests.
As humans, we are natural beings, but also free beings.
Morality lies in the realm of freedom
Categorical imperative = a law for the will of every rational being
This leads to ….
Making universal law = based on no interest/inclination = unconditional imperative = Autonomy
By contrast …
Heteronomy = when the will acts according to interest/inclination/desires.
