Kantian ethics

• Deontological ethics - following the rules & law
• Kant lived 1724-1804
• Kant was a Christian but did not think morality was dictated by god
• Morality is outside of god , independent of his commands
• Pillars of Kantain ethics

  Deontological - duty

  Good will - intention

  Universal rules/law

  Categorical imperative
• Kantian ethics provides an alternative approach to moral decision making, focusing on following rules and laws as the basis for morality, known as deontological ethics.
• Kant says that good will is the only "pure" good in the world. People's good will is the source of all moral good. The good will purely be to carry out moral duty, NOT to reach a particular end
• Moral actions should not have a telos
• Reason tells us how to morally behave. Stick to intention and good will to act rationally
• Rationality 


  What makes rational sense
• God is purely rational
• Humans also have animal like desires 😡
• desires tell us how to behave immorally 😡😡
• Desires lead to a desired telos which is not how to form a morally good action 😞
• Fulfilling our duty 


  Doing the right thing because we know it's the right thing
• If something is in accordance with duty Kant says that it is immoral ❌
• If something is solely out of duty, Kant sees this as morally good ✅
• According to Kantian ethics

  Good will = moral act
• The enlightenment era was a time of development in politics & philosophy, people began to question if the church was the best source of authority
• Moral behaviour (Kantian ethics)


  Actions that if everyone followed at the same time the world would function well
• Fulfilling our duty 


  Doing the right thing because we know it's the right thing. Acting out of reverence for the law.
• Universal law


  Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction
• In other words universal law means only following the rules which you would want everyone to follow in all circumstances
• Hypothetical imperative 


  Depending on the circumstance. rely on hidden conditions or desires
• Categorical imperative 


  No hidden conditions or desires
• Formula of humanity

  Act so you only treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other (yourself or others) never simply as a means but always at the same time , as an end. (Don't use humans as if they have object-like purposes)
• In other words formula of humanity means don't forget that humans have value and dignity and should always be treated as such
• Humans have a point for everything. At the end, everything is for humans, even animals.
• Humans have intrinsic worth (dignity)
• Humans have dignity due to having rational good will.
• The highest categorical imperative is to fulfil out duty. Others things can be categorical imperative if they fulfil our duty
• Steps to finding the highest categorical imperative?

  Step 1: what is the maxim?

  Step 2: is the maxim worth following?

  • Can you conceive a world with this maxim as a law?

  Step 3: can you rationally will that this maxim will be a universal law?

  Step 4: Does this maxim uphold the humanity formula?

  -If no to any of these steps you have a duty do not act on this maxim

  -if yes to this maxim then it's morally permissable & may constitute part of the categorical imperative
• For an act to be a moral one it needs to be partnered with the good will (intention) to carry out one's duty
• For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception.A contradiction in conception is something that is self-contradictory. If stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument against it. In fact, the very concept of ownership wouldn’t make sense – as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do.
• contradiction in will – i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not.

  
  

  Example: can we rationally will “not to help others in need”?

  
  

  There is no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone else. But we cannot rationally will it, says Kant. The reason for this is that sometimes we have goals .To will the ends, we must also will the means.We cannot rationally will such goals without also willing the help of others.
• An issue with Kantian ethics is clashing duties. There may be situations where two maxims are present and one must be broken.

  E.g: you've promised your friend you'll keep a secret, someone asks you about it. You either have to lie or break a promise.
• Universalizability doesn't equal morality (problem with kantian ethics)


  Just because a maxim can be universalised doesn't mean it's moral

  • Kant would argue you cannot modify maxims to fit a situation- that is cheating
• Kant would argue true clashing of duties is not possible and you must of made a mistake committing to one duty
• And issue with Kantian ethics is that some consequences are so significant we should consider breaking the rules.

  • Kant would argue it's our perfect duty to always follow the rules. If everyone followed the maxims, the rules would never need to be broken
• An issue with Kantian ethics is that Kant says that is only moral to act out of duty, and not becasue we actually care.

  • Kant would argue that if you act of duty, you can still enjoy what you do (as a bonus)