Rs Ethics Kant

• Kant is a deontological thinker which means following rules to make a moral decision
• Kant argues in order to be moral we must use our reason and rationality to produce the summum bonnum (the supreme good)
• for Kant, a morally good action should arise from duty.
• Kant establishes specific duties that centre around freedom and other's freedom. However some duties contradict each other; duty to pursue the greater good may contradict with duty not to destroy
• analytic means the action revolves around the subject
• synthetic means the action revolves around reason
• Kant argues moral actions are priori and synthetic - comes from reason and doesn't focus on the subject
• The hypothetical Imperative commands behaviour for an end result. Kant doesn't agree with this since it is conditional not universal
• Categorical imperative commands actions done purely for duty, not for a result. Kant agrees since it is an universal approach
• Kant gives three formulations that should be used; Universal law of nature (is it universal), end in itself ( does it treat others well) and kingdom of ends ( is it for your duty)
• Kants Axe analogy: if an axe murderer asked you where your friend was, the moral thing to do would be to tell the truth, even if they would kill your friend. It is not ur responsibility if they die.
• 1. Universal law of nature means an act must be consistent. This can be controversial since humans are too complex to universalise. There are cognitive and situational factors that depend on something being moral. E.g. someone lying to a natzi where they are hiding a jew
• 2. the formula of end in itself means we must show regard for human life. This is a good principle since it promotes equality and fairness.
• 3. The kingdom of ends means every act must be driven from your duty in society. The kingdom of ends is a world we must imagine when searching for universal laws. This is a good principle since it promotes reason behind an action, however universal laws don't work in every situation
• Kant's three postulates of practical reason argues we must be free to make decisions, there must be an afterlife to achieve Summun Bonnum and god must exist to be a fair judge.
• strength: it is easy to follow fixed rules since it is absolutist
• strength: Pope Paul argues, not placing someone as a means to an end is logical.
• Strength: Plato would agree since it suggests we have an innate moral guide
• Weakness: Ross would argue it is an absolutist approach, it has fixed rules so doesn't take complexity of humans into account.
• Weakness: Pojman would argue that we have different levels of rationality or some may have mental illnesses so cannot make a moral universal decision
• Weakness: Constant argues, if we can't lie then society would become impossible. No one has the right to a truth that harms others