Philosophy

• Good will


  The intention to do the right thing - has no limitations - pure good
• Morally good action


  Motivated by the good will
• No action/consequence is intrinsically good only intentions can be intrinsically good
• Maxim (action)


  Subjective (for me) principle of volition—> objective (for all rational beings) principle of volition
• Maxim is morally permissible


  Yes: morally permissible action / No: not permissible - i have the duty to do the opposite
• Acting out of duty


  My action is motivated solely by respect for the moral law - an action is good
• Acting in accordance with duty

  The action is motivated by other things than duty (inclinations) - it may be the same action but does not have the same moral value because only motivations have moral value
• We cannot ever do the right thing if we are enjoying what we are doing
• Father playing with child


  • Kant would claim is that a father who plays with his child because he likes playing with his child is not actually doing the right thing. Only a father who plays with his child despite disliking the activity is acting morally
• Hypothetical imperatives


  Based on pleasure, command that is conditional on a certain goal. E.g. if you want good grades, you should study hard
• Categorical imperatives


  Commands that are universal - non goal orientated and moral, they are universal and describe what all rational agents would do if they were perfectly rational, they are dictated by reason and describe what is morally right
• Second formulation


  In order to act morally, I must act in such a way that I treat others never solely as means to my ends but also as ends in themselves, I must recognise them as rational wills with moral freedom like me, because they are rational wills with their own autonomy, I should not mislead them into making decisions that are not in their interest, I should also not stop them pursuing their own goals
• The second formulation is supposed to produce exactly the same moral rules as the First Formulation, but to be more intuitively appealing
• Distinction between ends and means

  Kant asserts that human actions are motivated by goals, as rational beings, social interactions inevitably involve others, even in solitary activities, it's acknowledged by Kant that individuals may use others as means to achieve their ends, such as when making a purchase from a shopkeeper, however, Kant emphasizes the impermissibility of treating others solely as means to an end, advocating for considering their will and treating them as ends in themselves, actions are deemed permissible as long as others are treated to some extent as ends in themselves, though the extent remains ambiguous
• First formulation


  Categorical Imperative is the decision making procedure which Kant claims can generate absolute moral duties for all rational beings, in order to decide whether or not an action is morally permissible, I should first strip away all specific details from the maxim of that action, and then consider whether or not that maxim could be universally adopted by all rational beings, if it can, then it is morally permissible for me to do that action, if it can't, then it is impermissible, and I have a duty to do the opposite
• Universalisability


  Kant thinks we have to imagine a situation in which every rational being obeyed the maxim in question, if this imaginary situation is coherent, and does not generate any contradictions, then it is permissible, maxims fail is two ways - contradiction in conception: if the maxim were universalised, it would create a self-contradictory situation, contradiction in will: If the maxim were universalised, it would require us to aim for or desire two self contradictory things