Lecture 7

Question 1

what do both kant and korsgaard (author) agree on

Answer 1

reason is the source of moral obligations

Question 2

what do Kant and korsgaard disagree on

Answer 2

reason (our rational nature) is the object of moral obligations

Question 3

what does Korsgaard say in response to kant’s “reason (our rational nature) is the object of moral obligations “

Answer 3

both our rational and animal natures are the object of moral obligations

Question 4

what is Kant’s theory of action

Answer 4

an action always entails both an incentive and a principle
the instinctive and rational way to act
moral obligations follow from this rational way to act
since animals are not rational, they don’t have moral obligations

Question 5

for Kant, an action always entails 2 things, what are they

Answer 5

incentive and principle

Question 6

what is incentives

Answer 6

motivationally loaded; the dog would see the meat as desirable (representation of the meat as desirable)

Question 7

what is principle

Answer 7

the desposition to act; the dog for example has a certain desposition to act. he is inclined to eat the meat when he finds it desirable. (desposition to eat the mean)

Question 8

what is the Instinctive way to act

Answer 8

to just go for it (the meat, when he had the desposition to eat the meat he just goes for it.)

Question 9

what is the rational way to act

Answer 9

human being for example may have the same components as the dog (desire and desposition to eat the meat) but the human would ask themselves if it is a good thing o eat the meat (the capacity to reflect on the grounds of your actions)

Question 10

only those that have the ability to __________________ have the abiity to produce moral obligations

Answer 10

only those that have the ability to evaluate their actions have the abiity to produce moral obligations

Question 11

to Kant: do we have a moral obligation only to humans? or to animals as well?

Answer 11

Kant says that moral obligation shave to be reciprocal in order for it to have meaning ; your obligation only has the value f the other has the same. I have an obligation not to kill you only if you have the same obligation not to kill me. If you want to kill me, then the social contract is gone and n moral obligations are to be followed/are there

Question 12

what is Kant;s theory of value

Answer 12

when we pursue something, we confer value upon it
value does not exist independently of our choices; it is not out there in th work
this means we are a source of value
when we pursue something, we also take ourselves to matter. In other words, we choose ourselves as an end. This is what it means to be an end-in-itself
by the same token, we confer upon ourselves a specific kind of value: Intrinsic value

Question 13

what does moral realism say

Answer 13

exactly the opposite of kant’s thory of value

It says that we percieve the value of things and then pursue it (basically it has value even before we pursue it)

Question 14

kant basically says what about value

Answer 14

things only have value because we pursue them/care about them/desire them. Value is entirely dependent on human beings valuing them, the thing in itself does not have value until we make it have value.

Question 15

to kant, we only have moral obligations to ends-in-themselves, to those beings with intrinsic worth or to rational beings; what does this mean

Answer 15

when we pursue things (education, relationship,s etc) because we care about ourselves. In a way, we are our own end, we are an end in ourselves. Notice what this means for value; in we are an end in ourselves we are both the source and object of value and this makes us intrinsicly valuable.
end in itself = intrinsically valuable

Question 16

who do we have moral obligations to, according to kant

Answer 16

we do not have a moral obligation for things without intrinsic value; e.g. a table has no intrinsic duty so we have no moral oblugation to it.
only things that can make rational choices are things wehave moral obligations to

Question 17

what does korsgaard argue to kant about animals and moral obligations

Answer 17

we have intrinsic duties to animals

Question 18

what is meant by we have intrinsic duties to animals

Answer 18

we have an obligation “to cultivate feelings that are conductive to morality,” and for that reason, we have to treat animals kindly, not torture them, etc

Question 19

explain how we treat computers in relation to the duties

Answer 19

This does not mean we can do whatever we want with animals. Take your computer as an example; in itself it is not an end in itself and it has no intrinsic value— but we cannot do whatever we want with it. You care about your computuer, and I have a duty to you so I will not do anything I want with your computer (destroy it for example) the duty I have to your computer derives from my duty to you.

Question 20

how does the duty we have to ourselves extend to how we treat animals (according to kant)

Answer 20

The duty we have to ourselves— obligation to cultivate feeling that are conductive to morality. We have to cultivate kindness and generosity to make us act in a way that is morally good. Because we have this duty, Kant argues we have to treat animals in a kind way. We cannot do whatever we want with them; we see animals as a practice feild. We try to practice our moral feelings on animals. The duty comes from ourselves (the duty we have to ourselves) and so we have to treat the animals kindly. Kant says that we can kill them quickly and without pain, cannot torture them, can force them to work but cannot exaust them.

Question 21

why does korsgaard not agree with Kant on indirect duties?

Answer 21

Korsgaard does not like the idea of indirect duties; she wants to say that we have an obligation to animals, because we have an obliatin to rational AND animal nature. she says that animals nature IS an end in itself

Question 22

what is Korsgaard’s criticism

Answer 22

she says that animal nature IS an end in itself and for that reason it has intrinsic value. And so, if it is an end in itself, we have an obligation to animal nature.
She uses Aristotles metaphyics as proof )a bit strange— according to aristotle, a thing or object is matter arranged in a way to allow it to do something, or to serve a purpose/function. Here, she tries to define was animals are.
An entity is matter organized so as to serve a purpose/function.
What is the purpose of the specific thing?You determine it.
An animal— a living thing, living things have a specific purpose of nutrition and reproduction, animals use perception and voluntary motion to fufil these motions (remember, something is good when it helps it to fufil the function sofor animals) food sleep water etc would be the natural good of an animal because they help the animal fufil its function it is good only because animals pursue itand they give value to these things because they pursue it, thus animals are an end in themselves and they have intrinsic value, since they have intrinsic value we have a moral obligation to them.
Notice the distinction we must make; the moral and amoral good — when animals create values like such, they create a sort of amoral good and this is why they do not have moral obligation because it is the only thing they can do. Humans can create moral goods and this is why they have an obligation and not animals.

Question 23

in three points, give Korsgaard’s criticism

Answer 23

we have to distinguish our rational and our animal nature
our animal nature is also an end-in-itseld, and it has intrinsic worth
thus, we have a moral obligation to our animal nature as well