Kants deontological ethics

Question 1

whats deontology

Answer 1

comes from the greek word ‘deon’ meaning duty, and claims that actions are right or wrong within themselves, not depending on their consequences.

Question 2

whats good will

Answer 2

the only measure of if an action is good is if it’s performed out of good will, which is the source of all good, good without qualification and ensures when we’re acting, we’re only doing it for the sake of good and not any other motive. therefore its the only thing that’s intrinsically good

Question 3

whats an example of good will

Answer 3

if you donate a kidney to save someones life because you expect praise and some kind of financial reward, this action has no moral worth as you’re acting out of selfishness and not for the sake of duty, but if you recognise your duty to save a life and act because of this duty, then that action does have moral worth regardless of the desired outcome

Question 4

whats duty

Answer 4

deontology is the study of duty - we all have a duty to follow moral law which is summarised by the categorical imperative

Question 5

whats a maxim

Answer 5

personal rule or general principle that underlies an action e.g i will read all books assigned to a class because i want to achieve in that class

Question 6

whats the categorical imperative

Answer 6

kant’s term for the universalisable moral command that’s consistent with rationality and isnt based on desires

Question 7

whats the first formulation of the categorical imperative

Answer 7

act only according to that maxim that you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

Question 8

whats the contradiction in conception

Answer 8

way to test if a maxim can be followed universally - a law leads to a contradiction in conception if it’s self-contradictory for everyone to follow it

Question 9

whats an example of a maxim that cant be universalised

Answer 9

‘Its OK to steal’ if applied universally - you could take whatever you wanted whenever,but then the concept of ownership wouldnt exist because everyone would have the same rights to things as the owner did
-but if this concept doesnt exist, then stealing wouldnt be possible as you cant steal something if it doesnt belong to anyone in the first place
-so if its always okay to steal, then it wouldnt be possible to steal
-so the maxim ‘its ok to steal’ leads to a contradiction in conception when applied universally. therefore you have perfect duty not to follow it

Question 10

whats the contradiction in will

Answer 10

when a maxim fails as a universal law because we cannot rationally will such a maxim in the world

Question 11

whats an example of a contradiction in will

Answer 11

theres no contradiction in conception on the maxim ‘never help others in need’ as although a world like this may be unpleasant, its not self-contradictory. however there’s times when we’re in need for others help so we cant will ‘never help others in need’ as it contradicts our own desire to get help from others when we need it therefore we have an imperfect duty not to follow it

Question 12

whats a perfect duty

Answer 12

duties we must always fulfill and have no choice over when or how e.g do not kill

Question 13

whats an imperfect duty

Answer 13

duties which we have some choice of when we fulfill them and no specific person can demand we fulfill one towards them e.g develop ones talents

Question 14

what is the difference between acting out of duty and acting in accordance with duty

Answer 14

acting out of duty- following a rule motivated by the intention to hold that rule
acting in accordance with duty - commit to the exterior of duty but not necessarily because the intention is in keeping with this.

Question 15

whats the formulation of humanity

Answer 15

act in such a way that you always treat humanity, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end

Question 16

whats an example for the formulation of humanity

Answer 16

if you were to trick someone into marrying you to get their money, this would be using them as a means to an end. youre treating them as a means to make money, when instead you should always treat people as ends in themselves. by withholding your true intentions, youre preventing the other person from rationally pursuing their own ends (e.g to find a loving partner).

Question 17

how can the example of marrying someone for money be morally okay

Answer 17

if you were to tell the other person your intentions, they can rationally decide if this fits their own ends and so marrying someone for money would be morally okay if both people are aware e.g if the other persons ends was just to get married to anyone, regardless of true love or not. then both people can rationally pursure their own ends

Question 18

whats the response to kant CI that not all universable maxims are morally good

Answer 18

the maxim ‘its ok to steal’ leads to a contradiction in conception when universalised - however if we adjust the maxim to ‘its ok to steal if you have brown hair and its a friday’ or ‘its ok to steal if the shop name begins with the letter b’, then both these can be universalised without a contradiction in conception as they’re so rare that the concept of private property wouldnt decline. using this, if we define maxims specifically it seems we can justify any course of action with the categorical imperative and so just because a maxim can be universalised, doesnt make it moral

Question 19

what is kant’s response to universable maxims not being morally good

Answer 19

adapting maxims like this doesn’t make sense for kant because the extra conditions added (colour of the hair, day of the week) arent relevant in this situation. the categorical imperative focuses on the actual maxim acted on, not a specific made up one

Question 20

whats the response to kants response - a maxim that can be universalised without contradiction

Answer 20

what if we take a true maxim of ‘its ok to steal to save your life’. there’s no unneccesary conditions added and if universalised it doesnt lead to a contradiction as it wouldnt be done by everyone because the majority of people dont need to steal with threat to their life therefore ownership wouldnt lose its meaning

Question 21

whats the argument against kant of ignoring consequences

Answer 21

it would seem that it’s morally acceptable that its ok to steal food if e.g its to save your starving familys life. however kant says stealing is always wrong and so in this situation, your family should starve to death. yet it seems consequences like this make it morally justifiable or even good to go against the categorical imperative. this shows that strictly following kant’s ethics can lead to morally absurd outcomes of ignoring the obvious greater good

Question 22

whats kant’s response that deontology ignores consequences

Answer 22

we still have moral duty to follow the categorical imperative even if they lead to undesired consequences like loss of life - good will is the only thing thats good without qualification and consequences arent, e.g happiness recieved from making others unhappy isn’t good, however the good will, choosing actions for the sake of duty, is always good and morality is not about consequences of our actions, but about following duty

Question 23

whats the response that acting for the sake of duty ignores other motivations

Answer 23

acting for the sake of duty is the only thing good without qualification and so motivated by duty is the source of moral worth - however imagine two fathers, father a who doesnt love his children but knows he has a duty to spend time with them and so acts according to that duty, father b loves his children and enjoys spending time with them, doing so regardless of it being his duty or not. kant would say father b isnt morally praiseworthy yet father a is, but surely this seems wrong in that its better to spend time with your family because you want to not because its your duty

Question 24

whats the conflict between duties argument against kant

Answer 24

kant argues our duties are neccesary and never to be violated, yet there’s cases where duties can clash - conflict in choosing what to do in a war as we may have a duty to fight for country but also have a duty to stay at home and care for our dependants - both are necessary and so unable to be resolved

Question 25

what’s phillipa foot’s idea of hypothetical imperatives

Answer 25

hypothetical imperatives are qualified by an ‘if’ statement e.g I should leave now if I want to catch the bus on time, you should study if you want to do well in the exam. these motivations are obvious - I want to catch the bus, I want to do well in my exam and these desires give a rational reason why I would act according to these imperatives

Question 26

what’s foot’s argument that theres no reason for categorical imperatives

Answer 26

reason for categorical imperatives isnt as clear - why shouldnt I steal or lie if I dont care or have any desire to folow these rules? kant argues following moral law is a matter of rationality and that reason alone is enough to follow them. but foot argues theres nothing irrational about not following them if never accepted in the first place and although we may feel moral force compelling us to not steal or lie,in reality theres no real reason to follow moral laws any more than there is to follow moral etiquettes

Question 27

how does foot argue that categorical imperatives should be treated as hypothetical

Answer 27

we should see morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives - you should’t steal if you don’t want to upset who youre stealing from
you shouldnt murder if you want to be a virtuous and just person

Question 28

kant 25 marker plan

Answer 28

intro - kant’s ethics fails

kants theory - its ok to steal leads to contradiction in conception
argument against - changing maxim (its ok to steal if u have brown hair)
kants response - this isnt a real maxim
response to response - its ok to steal maxim doesnt lead to contradiction

argument 2 - ignores consequences
response - consequences arent good without qualification
response to response - only following duty ignores other motivations

conclusion - kantian ethics fails