Kantian ethics

• Kant's deontological approach

  • Has a deontological approach to ethics.
  • Moral value is not judged by the consequences of the act but by the act itself.
  • If a certain act is right, then it is right in all circumstances.
  • We are obliged to act morally and so obey the moral law irrelevant of the consequences.
• Kant - reason and morality

  • Knowledge of the objective moral law can be gained through reason.
  • An objective moral law is Kants idea of an eternal, unchanging moral system. It is a law which is always right that humans beings could accept as being reasonable ie. murder is wrong.
  • Human reason shows that we are rational beings and are able to work out what is right and wrong.
• Kant - good will

  • When we act, whether we achieve or not, what we intend with out actions is often beyond our control, so the morality of our actions doesn't depend on their outcome.
  • It is what we can control that is the will behind our actions.
  • In Kants search for an absolute rule, there has no be no 'ifs, buts or maybes' and no place for emotion.
  • A good action is only good when we act from a sense of good will.
• Kant - the important of duty

  • 'Do the right thing for the right reason'
  • The other good reason for doing the right thing is because of duty, if you had some other reason, you would not have acted morally.
  • 'Duty involves freely choosing the action'.
  • Good will + duty = moral action
• Kant - categorical imperatives

  • This is the idea that an action is intrinsically right irrespective of context or consequence.
  • Used to identify moral duties.
  • The action is so intrinsically right that it is something you must do regardless of circumstances.
• Categorical imperatives

  1. Law of nature - Only perform actions that can be made into universal law. A person performing an action must not carry it out unless they believe that in the same situation all people should act the same way.
  2. End in itself - Never exploit people or use them as a means to an end. A moral code must treat humans with respect. Humans are an end in themselves. 'Always treat people as an end in themselves; never as a means to an end.'
  3. Kingdom of ends - Everybody should act as though everyone has the same human rights as themselves. 
• Kants example of breaking a promise

  • Suppose you borrow money and promise to repay it but you know you will never be able to.
  • That action can only be right if you are prepared to let everybody else make promises they know they can't keep, which would make promises worthless.
• Schindlers list

  • Links to Kantian ethnics through the theme of moral duty.
  • Schindlers actions to save Jewish loves can be seen as a reflection of his moral duty and commitment to doing what is right, even in the face of danger.
• Summum bonum

  • Humans are obliged to carry out virtuous actions from a sense of duty, but not because they expect a reward.
  • We know from experience that whilst we carry out virtuous action there is no guarantee it will always lead to happiness.
  • However, it is logical for a virtuous action to be rewarded with happiness eventually.
  • This happiness is what Kant termed as the summer bonus/highest good.
  • it is the state where true virtue, duty and happiness come together.
  • The categorical imperative and the 3 postulates must be followed to achieve the summon bonum
• 3 postulates

  1. Freedom - an individual must be free to make their own choices.
  2. Immortality - accept that we have an afterlife and an immortal soul.
  3. God - God rewards with the summer bonus and moral law is evidence to prove that God exists.

  • It is received why we due and is often compared to heaven.
  • It is the end goal of the categorical imperative.
• Satre

  • Described a pupil torn between looking after his mother in France or going to England to fight. He doesn't know which duty to choose as they are conflicting.
  • There is difficulty forming maxims, if you are hiding someone who is being searched for, there are multiple maxims to universalise ie. 'don't tell lies' or 'do not expose others to violence'
• Hegel

  • Hegel criticised Kant as he believes that part of who we are depends on out interactions with other people.
  • We exist in deep connection with other people and therefore to an extent are responsible for each others actions.
  • Kant overlooks the fact that we exist in complex webs of social influence.
  • We are not atomised as radical individual people as Kant imagined us to be.
• Phillips Foot

  • Accepts that there are categorical imperatives but denies that Kants claim that is it irrational to disobey them.
  • Foot uses the rules of etiquette ie. 'you should eat with your mouth shut'.
  • This contains the imperative 'should' and it is stated conditionally on desires or outcomes, so it is a categorical imperative.
  • No one things it is irrational to break the rules of etiquette.
  • This raises the question of what it is irrational to disobey Kants categorical imperative.
  • We have no basis for claiming it irrational to violate the categorical imperative.
• Joseph Fletcher

  • Kantian ethics is too reliant on reason and forget the importance of emotions ie. love and sympathy.
  • Argues that acting out a sense of 'duty for duties sake' is cold and impersonal and that we cannot always deal in absolutes due to the individual situations.
  • Argues against Kants first categorical imperative concerning universalisation of rules.
  • Says 'love is the only universal' and some making a moral decision should be prepared to set aside rules it is seemed that love would be better served by doing so.
• Aquinas

  • Argues there are real and apparent goods.
  • Sometimes we think we are acting in the correct way but we aren't.
  • Example: giving a chocolate nut bar to someone without knowing they are allergic to nuts.
  • This shows Kant is too reliant on reason to act with goodwill and duty.
  • Reason isn't always correct.
• Mill

  • Argues Kant doesn't have an answer for the occasions where the consequence is so severe that it may be better to break a rule than allowing a bad thing to happen.
  • Kant relies on universal rules too much to allow the best thing to happen in severe situations.
  • As a weak rule utilitarian, Mill believes that rule based ethics aren't helpful and simply don't apply if it leads to the greatest good in exceptional circumstances.
  • Mill believed that general rules should be obeyed to benefit society, yet id the action is not achieving the greatest good, the rules can be broken to achieve it.
• Criticisms

  • Kantian morality is too narrow, ‘ethics’ is a broader account of how a person comes to be virtuous due to their emotional habits and personal relationships. Ie. imagine being in ill in hospital and a friend came to visit, but only came as they said it was their duty to. 
  • Unrealistic – Kant wants us to follow maxims as if they were universal rules, but just because we act his way, doesn’t mean that others will.
  • Every situation is unique – universal rules aren’t helpful in the real world where every situation is different.
• James Rachels - supporter

  • Argues that the system of consistent rule works for everyone as they know what their obligations are.
  • If people were allowed to break the system due to emotions ie. love, then the legal system would be a mess and no one will know what they ought to do.
  • Kants ethnics doesn't allow favouritism and is purely rational unlike utilitarianism or situation ethics and therefore means all people ought to act consistently.
• Prichard - supporter

  • Believes Kants categorical imperative tells us exactly what is right and wrong through a good moral system which even a child could understand, suggesting we ought to know how to act and treat others.
  • The categorical imperative states that we should act in conjunction with rules that we would want to be accepted universally.
  • It gives a clear sense of moral guidelines unlike hypothetical imperatives that rely on predicting consequences and may be biased since it relies on emotion.