ETHICS: Kantian deontological ethics Flashcards
The distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty - What is acting out of duty?
Acting out of duty - being motivated by ‘the good will’
‘The good will’ is being motivated by duty i.e. doing something because you have a duty to do it.
‘The good will’ is the only thing that is good ‘without qualification’, and so is the only thing that can give an action moral worth because it is not reliant on anything external to the agent, and means that it is good regardless of any consequences that come about as a result of the action.
The distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty - What is acting in accordance with duty?
Being motivated by anything other than ‘the good will’.
Because acting in accordance with duty means not being motivated by ‘the good will’, it means that it has no moral value, despite being the fulfilment of a duty.
This is because it is reliant on external factors - things that you will which are not willed purely as a result of being a rational being.
What is an example of acting out of duty?
Kant would say a shopkeeper has a duty to give correct change to her customers (this is because there is a categorical imperative to do so).
If the shopkeeper does this solely for duty’s sake then this is out of duty and is a morally good action.
What is an example of acting in accordance with duty?
Kant would say a shopkeeper has a duty to give correct change to her customers (this is because there is a categorical imperative to do so).
If the shopkeeper does this because they think having a reputation for treating customers fairly will improve their business then she is acting in accordance with duty, and this action has no moral worth.
This doesn’t necessarily mean it is morally wrong, just that it is not morally right.
The distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty - What are similarities between the two?
Both acting out of duty and acting in accordance with duty involve acting consistently with duty.
According to Kant, there are duties that all moral agents must follow, because reason demonstrates they apply to everyone categorically (categorical imperatives).
So both acting out of and in accordance with duty involve doing that which you have a duty to do.
What is the gist of Kant’s account of what is meant by a ‘good will’?
Wanting to do the right thing is the most valuable thing of all.
What are the key claims of Kant’s account of what is meant by a ‘good will’?
A good will - wanting to do the right thing because it’s the right thing - is the highest good for Kant.
It is the only thing that is good ‘without qualification’ i.e. always good
It is the source of all moral worth - actions can only be good if done with a good will.
It is good regardless of the consequences of any actions that might result.
Acting with a good will ultimately means wanting to do something because it’s your duty.
What is the gist for the distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives?
Hypothetical imperatives = commands that only apply to you if you want something (e.g. you should revise if you want to pass).
Categorical imperatives = commands that apply regardless of what you want and so apply to everyone (e.g. do not lie).
What are the key claims for the distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives?
An imperative is a command e.g. You ought to …
For Kant, there are two different types of command that can govern our actions: hypothetical and categorical imperatives
A hypothetical imperative is a command that applies to you on the condition that you want something. They have the form If you want X, you ought to do Y
A categorical imperative is a command that applies to you regardless of what you want. They have the form You ought to do X.
For Kant, morality consists of categorical imperatives only
What are examples of hypothetical imperatives?
A command that applies to you only if you want a certain ‘end’ (or ‘goal’). They are ‘oughts’ that only apply on the assumption, or ‘hypothesis’, that you want something. They have the form ‘you ought to X if you want Y’.
You ought to go to work if you want to keep your job
You must revise if you want to pass the test
Don’t just eat sweets if you want to be healthy
What are examples of categorical imperatives?
A command that applies to you regardless of what you want - it applies ‘categorically’. They have the form ‘you ought to X (regardless of what you want)’.
You must not steal
Do not lie
You ought to help other people in need
Unlike hypothetical imperatives, these commands apply to you regardless of what you want.
Even if you stop caring, or never cared, about people in need, the command to help them still applies to you.
What type of theory is Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative?
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is part of Kant’s deontological ethics.
It is attempting to map out a process for telling which actions you are morally obliged to do, and which you morally obliged not to do.
It also distinguishes between moral rules without exceptions, and moral rules with exceptions.
We can work out a priori that we have particular duties to do or not do certain actions based on whether they can successfully be made universal.
What are the key claims of Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative?
Acting morally consists of acting based on categorical imperatives. These are imperatives that must be followed by all moral agents.
Moral agents have rationality, and so determine which imperatives apply to them categorically (i.e. in all cases) rather than hypothetically (i.e. in certain circumstances, if they will a particular end).
In order to determine whether or not you have a categorical imperative to do/not do something, you can test it using the first formulation.
“Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”.
The first step of the first formulation is to turn the action into a universalised maxim - to work out the logical consequences of everyone performing this action, as categorical imperatives apply to all moral agents regardless of circumstance.
If universalising this maxim results in a contradiction, then there is a categorical imperative to not perform this action.
This could be a contradiction of conception, in which the consequences of universalising the action are logically incoherent.
This results in a perfect duty, which must be followed without any exceptions, because it is completely illogical to universalise it.
This could be a contradiction of will, in which the consequences of universalising the action would be logically coherent, but would contradict other ends that you will.
This results in an imperfect duty, which must be followed sometimes and to some extent (i.e. there are exceptions).
This is because it is generally illogical to universalise it, but there are circumstances in which you may or may not be able to follow it as a moral agent.
If universalising the maxim results in no contradictions, it may either be a hypothetical imperative or have no relevant imperative at all.
If it is a hypothetical imperative reason may still require you to perform it, but this will be contingent on the ends that you will.
There is also a second formulation that it must pass.
Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative - Why do you need to turn an action into a universalized maxim? (1st step of 1st formulation)
To work out the logical consequences of everyone performing this action, as categorical imperatives apply to all moral agents regardless of circumstance.
Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative - What is a contradiction in conception?
The consequences of universalising the action are logically incoherent.
Results in a perfect duty that must be followed without any exceptions. This is because it is completely illogical to universalise it..
