Lecture 4-5

Question 1

Bentham and mill think what about right and good

Answer 1

the relation between the right and the good— seen with both Bentham and mill— the action is right when it maximizes the good

Question 2

what is Kant’s basic idea about right and good

Answer 2

with Kant, the right is independent of the good; take example of lying; lying is wrong. Bentham and Mill say it could be good if it has good consequences. For Kant, lying is wrong no matter what, if lying has good or bad consequences it is still wrong.
The question is, How do we know what is right and what is wrong? For Kant, right and good are seperate.

Question 3

for consequentialists, what is the relationship between the right and the good

Answer 3

the right depends on the good

Question 4

for Kant (and other deontologists), what is the relationship between the right and good

Answer 4

the right is independent of the good

Question 5

what do classical utilitarianism think about consequences and motives

Answer 5

for bentham and mill, when we evaluate an action we should only consider the consequences of the actions

Question 6

what does Kant think about consequences and motives

Answer 6

what matters is the motive

Question 7

what kind of evaluation is Kant interested in

Answer 7

considers whether an action is morally praisworthy to not

Question 8

what is morally praiseworthy

Answer 8

for Kant, an action is morally praisworthy when it is done from duty (when the motive of the action is a sense of duty)

Question 9

give the thought experiment of morally praiseworthy

Answer 9

The dealer, the happy philanthropist, the sad philanthropist;

based on common moralities— that everyone has the same morals

The dealer has a duty, and the duty is to not overcharge inexperienced consumer. HE could overcharge and have It benefit his busines, but he doesnt acording to Kant because he is acting in conformity with duty; his action was moraly right but it was not moraly praisworth because we should not praise him for what he is doing

Happy philathropist— someone who is helping other people because he likes it, but it comes naurally so Kant argues he isnt morally praisworthy because he is not doing it because he has a sense of duty, he is doing it because he has a pleasure in doing it

Sad philantropist— doesnt take pleasure in helping others, but he does it because he lnows it is the right thing to do and has a sense of duty. To kant, he is the only one doing the right thing.

Question 10

what is an argument about Kant’s evaluation

Answer 10

moral luck

Question 11

what is meant by moral luck

Answer 11

Moral luck:
The happy philanthropist was juts born with a desire to help others; he was gifted with fortune and that he has moral luck.
The sad philanthropist has to strive to do the right thing because he was not born with moral luck.
Kant argues that the only thing that really matters is the motivation here, so when we consider if something is praiseworthy or nto, the only thing that matters is the motivation and not the consequences.

Question 12

what does kant completely disregard

Answer 12

consequences

Question 13

what so the starting point of determining duties

Answer 13

practical reason

Question 14

what is practical reason

Answer 14

the purpose of practical reason is to make us act in a way that is morally praiseworthy

Question 15

what is the argument for practical reason

Answer 15

an organ or faculty is always the best adapted for its purpose (e.g. the eye is best for seeing)
the purpose of reason cannot be happiness since it is ally adapted t it
(the more we use reason, the less happy we usually end up, so the purpose of reason is not happiness because it is badly adapted to it. )
reason is nevertheless a practical faculty

Question 16

the purpose of reason is what

Answer 16

to make us act in a morally praiseworthy way

Question 17

what are the commands of reason

Answer 17

called “imperatives” and they take the form of an “ought to…” (e.g., you ought not to lie)

Question 18

what are the two types of imperatives

Answer 18

hypothetical and categorical

Question 19

what is hypothetical imperitive

Answer 19

something we have to do given our desires or ends (e.g. you ought to eat 5 servings of fruits and vegetables if you want to be healthy, but if you dont want to be healthy you dont ought to do this)

Question 20

what is categorical imperative

Answer 20

something we have to do, no matter what our desires or ends are (e.f., you ought not to lie)

Question 21

moral imperatives are what

Answer 21

categorical

Question 22

what is categorical imperative

Answer 22

there are different formulas;

Question 23

what is the first formula of the categorial imperative

Answer 23

the formula of universal law

Question 24

what is universal law

Answer 24

derived from he formal principles of universality and non contradiction (idea that reason is universal, and is not contradictory. You cannot believe that the world does exist and the world doesnt exist at the same time. )
“act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” without contradiction

Question 25

steps of how to use the universal law formula

Answer 25

find the maxim of your actions
supposed everyone would star ding it
ask yourself; would there be a contradiction? If yes, which type of contradiction (contradiction in conception or contradiction in the will)?
if there is a contradiction it means it is morally impermissible to do the action (yo have a duty not to do it)

Question 26

give the lying promise example

Answer 26

Ex. 1
Imagine a man is in toruble and needs money, he is wondering if he shuld ask for money and say he will pay it back even thoigh he knows he wont be able to pay it back;
find maxim of action (when I think in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I never can do so)
imagine everyone does it
would there be a contradiction? (because reason cannot commend something contradictory— this means that yes, there is a contradiction in conception. What does this mean? Well, if everone started to do lying promises, it would make no sense to make promises. The meaning of a promise is lost, so it becomes contradictory to even imagine a world where this happens, The point is; can you imagine a world where this happens? If there is a contradiction, that means it is forbidden morally and then we have a duty not to do it)

Question 27

give the “not helping others” example

Answer 27

Imagine a selfish man that doent want to help others;
the maxim of his action; I will never help others when I see that they are in need and that I could help them
Supposed everyon does this
is there a contradiction? Kant says yes but not the same kind as before… here we CAN imagine that this would happen but there is till a contradiction; a contradiction in the will.
Contradiction in the will— just means that you will something and the oposite (you will to stay in bed and you will not to stay in bed; I will x, I will not x) here, the “x” is I will others to help me and I will others not to help me
The selfish man wants to pursue his own means, but everyone needs the help of others. If everyone never helps others, then it is willed that others will not help him either.

Question 28

what are the 2 types of duties

Answer 28

perfect and imperfect duties

Question 29

what does the perfect duty have a contradiction in

Answer 29

a contradiction in conception means that we have a perfect, strict or inflexible duty (the duty not to lie is an example of this. )

Question 30

what does the imperfect duty have a contradiction

Answer 30

a contradiction in the will means that we have an imperfect duty (helping others is an example of this )

Question 31

how are imperfect and perfect duties related

Answer 31

if you have to choose between the two (helping someone or not lying, you MUSt pick the Perfect duty because you can always help your friend later)

Question 32

what is the second formula

Answer 32

the formula of humanity

Question 33

what is the formula of humanity derived from

Answer 33

when we use this formula, we are supposed to arrive at same conclusion as first formula; so it is derived from the formula of universal law

Question 34

what does the formula of humanity mean/say

Answer 34

what does this mean? WHen you call a cab, you use the taxi driver as a means to get to a destination; the questions is do you also treat him as an end?
WHat does it mean to treat someone as an end? You treat them as an end if they conscent to doing the thing in the end. If he agrees to drive you, he also becomes an end.
Another example; you ask a freidn for help to do homework; you use your friend as a means to do homework; but the simple fact that you ask him (for his concent, to see if it is part of his own ends to help you do your homeowkr) then he is used as an end as well

“So act as to treat humanity, wether in your own person or int hat of any other, in every case at the same time as an end, never as a means”

Question 35

give the lying promise example of the formula of humanity

Answer 35

you borrow money an tell the person in question that you will pay it back but you know you wont be able to pay it back; are you treating them as a means or also as an end? Kant says we ar etreating them as a means only bv thry cannot conscent to do it (to loan you money) simply because they dont have all the information. SO what they are consenting to is givong the money with you goving it back later, but they do not conscent to giving you money without you giving it back; so it is morally forbidden and you hve a duty not to do it

Question 36

give the example of not helping others in relation to the law of humanity

Answer 36

“when not helping others, we fail to “Harmonizinf positively with humanity as an end in itself”

The selfish person doesnt want to help others; kant says that when we treat someone as an end we dont have to just consent, we also have to promote their actions. So this is what Kant means when he said the above quote. If a person decides not to help you you cannot force them to help you.
To harmonize negatively is to not respect them as an end, only as a means. Harmonizing postively means that we have to do the opposite and treat them as a means and an end

it is wrong to not help others because you do not treat them as an end in themselves

Question 37

who criticized Kant

Answer 37

Benjamin Constant

Question 38

what is the nazi case

Answer 38

a criticism of kant

Imagine a friend is being chased by a murderer and wants to hide in your house, you say yes obviously, a little while later the murderer comes to your house and asks if the friend is in your huse
Here there is a conflict; you have a duty not to lye, and the duty to help your friend. SO what should you do?
You are supposed to not lie to the murderer as it has priority; however we can all say that shouldn’t happen.
Nazi case is basically the same scenario.

in the case where there is a conflict between 2 dates (the duty not to lie and the duty to help others)
the duty not to li is a perfect or absolute duty, thus it has priority
Most people are not wiling to endorse that conclusion

Question 39

what alternate conclusion do people use

Answer 39

Prima Facie

Question 40

what is Prima Facie

Answer 40

Prima Facie duties; duties that we have at first sight, duties that outweigh other duties. This is a way to avoid the problem (not for Kant obviously, but or most other contemporary philosophers)