Kant's Deontological Theories

• Briefly summarise in points Kant's deontological ethics

  • the only thing thats good without qualification is good will
  • Good will means acting for the sake of duty
  • You have a duty to follow the moral law
  • Moral laws are universal
  • You can tell a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative

  The categorical imperative two tests:

  • contradiction in conception
  • contradiction in will

  
  

  • Do not treat humans as means to an end ( the humanity formula)
• Meaning of The Good Will


  Acting for the sake of duty, for example if you save someones life because you recognise you have a duty to do it, then that is of moral worth. Not if you save someones life expecting to be rewarded
• What is the categorical imperative

  Categorical imperative is the moral law, and gives two ways to test whether a maxim passes the categorical imperative: contradiction in conception and contradiction in will, the third formula for categorical imperative is humanity formula
• Test 1: Contradiction in conception


  For a law to be universal, it must not result in contradiction in conception (in simple words, it musn't be contradictory). Apply a maxim like "you should steal" to this test, but it would fail because it would lead to everyone just stealing then the point of ownership would be non applicable anymore and stealing wouldn't be possible because property would be for everyone
• Test 2: Contradiction in Will


  Contradiction in will is asking the question, can we rationally will this to happen. E.g rationally will "not to help others in need". A world where people don't help each other isn't contradictory but we cannot rationally will it because there are times where we will need someone to help us. The reason for this is because sometimes we have goals (ends) which require the help (means). To will the ends, we must will the means. This is an imperfect duty because we don't always need help
• Test 3 : Humanity Formula


  Kant says that we should never treat people as means to an end. Basically dont use people. e.g dont marry someone just to take their money then divorce them.

  By deceiving them, you undermine the rational agency of the other party and achieving their own ends (i.e finding a loving partner)
• Problem 1 for Kant's ethics : Not all universal maxims are moral (vice versa)


  If I tweak a non universal maxim to make it universal (e.g change my maxim "to steal" to "steal from people with 8 syllables in their name), i can universalise that because it wouldn't diminish the idea of private property
• Possible response for Problem 1

  Adding extra conditions would be considered cheating because of the extra conditions as these are moral irrelevant to the situation. Categorical imperative is concerned with the actual maxim being acted on, not an arbitrary one
• Problem 2 for Kant's ethics : Ignores Consequences


  Kant's ethics completely disregards consequences like utilitarianism. If you were to ask Kant, is stealing okay even in some circumstances like your family is starving to death, Kant would say no and say we have a perfect duty not to steal. Kant's ethics is too rigid to applicable to society
• Problem 3 for Kants ethics : Ignores other valuable motivations

  Kant says acting out of duty has moral worth, but if we wanted to go visit a friend in the hospital out of love, that does not have moral worth. Rather if i instead went because I know i have to (even if i dont want to) that has more moral worth.
• Possible response to Ignores other valuable motivation

  Kant states that doing that is acting out of accordance however we shouldn't let this take priority over acting out of duty. If we act out of duty and in accordance then that is a bonus.
• Problem 4 for Kants ethics : Conflicts between duties


  Kant argues its never okay to violate our duties. But what if a situation comes where we are forced to violate a duty e.g Kant says "to never lie", but what if we lie to protect a promise? Both violate a duty
• Possible response to : Conflicts between duties

  Kant would say that if there is conflict between two of your duties, you clearly have formulated them wrong as this would cause contradiction in conception, making it non universal
• Hypothetical imperatives


  e.g. "I should leave now IF I want to catch the train on time"
• Hypothetical imperatives

  
  

  qualified by an if statement
• Categorical imperatives

  
  

  Not qualified by an if statement; they apply universally
• Foot's argument


  • Morality isn't categorical, it's hypothetical
  • We shouldn't follow Kant because he doesn't give a reason behind these laws e.g "why shouldn't we steal?"
  • There's nothing wrong with not following the categorical imperative as it doesn't provide a rational reason to follow it
  • Instead, it should be "you shouldn't steal if you don't want to upset the person you're stealing from"
• Summarisation of Kant's Deontological Ethics

  • Kant believes the Good Will is acting for sake of duty
  • You have a duty to follow moral law
  • Categorical Imperatives : three tests
  • Not all universal maxims are moral
  • Ignores consequences
  • Other valuable motivations
  • conflicts between duties
  • Foot: hypothetical imperative