AO2

Question 1

6x reasons KE provides a helpful method of moral decision making

Answer 1

1. duty as an idea is better than depending on our inclinations (what we want to/ feel like doing) as inclinations are led by our emotions, which change. we are also less prone to personal bias if duty is our key principle.
2. rational (logical) ethics, gives humans responsibility and believes in human ability to reason and work things out to reach answers.
3. he’s right that consequences cannot be predicted. systems such as SE and utilitarianism require us to make predictions about the future results. yet we cannot be held responsible for things out of out control.
4. principle of universal law is a useful law that has similarities with principles of other religious faiths (not doing things you wouldn’t wish to be done to you).
5. KE values persons. in addition to respecting their rationality, his principle of treating persons as ends is helpful in practical ethics and, in contrast to the utilitarians, ensures every human being is significant.
6. KE can be seen as secular, the principles can be applied by people of all faiths and people of no faith.

Question 2

5x reasons KE doesn’t provide a helpful method of moral decision making

Answer 2

1. while there is clarity about kants rules, as with any absolutist system, there is inflexibility to the situation. e.g. lying is morally wrong, even if you were facing a murderer seeking the location of his victim. in this case it’s inarguable that doing your duty is immoral.
2. outcome of a situation is ignored. although it’s not always in out control, outcomes can be foreseeable or predictable. to choose to do something that obeys a moral rule but will almost certainly lead to increased misery or suffering seems like the wrong decision.
3. kant gives no clear guidance on what to do when duties clash. in the murderer example, we can universalise telling the truth, but we can also universalise trying to save a life. yet we cannot do both of these CIs, and kant gives us no way of deciding between the conflicting duties.
4. good theoretical solution to many moral issues; his kingdom of ends shows his aim to make moral rules for an ideal world. ethics is about how the world ought to be. yet this ignores reality, life is complicated and in the real world KE solutions and ideas can often appear impractical.
5. the principle of universal law does not necessarily show us our moral duties. non moral maxims can logically be universalised (e.g. everyone should sing the national anthem on wednesday) but at the same time it is clear such maxims aren’t ‘moral duties.’ similarly, just because we cannot universalise something doesn’t mean it’s immoral (e.g. cant all eat nuts due to some people having allergies), it doesn’t suggest we can’t do such actions.

Question 3

4x reasons an ethical judgement about something being good, bad, right, or wrong can be based on extent to which duty is best served

Answer 3

1. duty is rational and objective, so doesn’t change due to circumstances. it’s better than depending on our inclinations (what we want to/ feel like doing) as inclinations are led by our emotions, which change. we are also less prone to personal bias/ favouritism if duty is our key principle.
2. the concept of duty rightly involves giving to each person the things that we owe in terms of how we treat them. thus it allows us to respect persons.
3. rational (logical) ethics, gives humans responsibility and believes in human ability to reason and work things out to reach answers.
4. if justice was based on emotions, or emotional connections between a judge and the defendant/ accuser, and not a consistent fair application of law, we’d say justice was corrupted.

Question 4

6x reasons an ethical judgement about something being good, bad, right, or wrong cannot be based on extent to which duty is best served

Answer 4

1. morality seems based on intention to do duty, but it’s not always possible to separate intentions from ends, as they are closely linked.
2. danger of conflating/ combining duty with obedience to authority.
3. kant gives no clear guidance on what to do when duties clash. satre described pupil torn between looking after mother or fighting in war with the quote ‘i find myself drawn into a vicious cycle.’ in the murderer example, we can universalise telling the truth, but we can also universalise trying to save a life. yet we cannot do both of these CIs, and kant gives us no way of deciding between the conflicting duties.
4. actions undertaken from a sense of love and compassion are deemed immoral when prioritising duty, yet the two are important human motivations. it severs morality from everyday life and emotion.
5. benjamin constant said if we can’t lie then society becomes impossible. we need to be able to tell white lies, or lies for good reasons to help society function. no one has a right to a truth that harms others.
6. duty may lead lead to an outcome where people get hurt and you feel guilty.

Question 5

x reasons KE is too abstract to be applicable to practical moral decision making

Answer 5

1. kant provides a powerful idealised concept of morality, with attention to the worth of humanity, held high above all other things, and with a strong sense of universal rules untainted by human emotion. yet these come with practical challenges, it requires a practical approach to life where a person has learnt to separate themselves from their emotions when making decisions under emotional pressure. kant may be accused of being unrealistic about expectations he places on people, considering human beings are imperfect.
2. kant requires us to focus on principles. when thinking about a particular individual who may be in acute need, kant wants us to remember the principle of the universal laws of nature, the kingdom of ends, and to treat people as ends in themselves. this is an idealised view of life. there may be too few emergency relief supplies for a natural disaster, how does one decide which villagers to save? when faced with such no win situations, kant seems unhelpful. life is not as perfect as the situations kant is applicable in at all times.
3. when thinking about a particular individual who may be in acute need, hospitals have to decide how to use limited resources for the greatest benefit and this can mean deciding to ration or prioritise expensive treatments that are only occasionally successful. but to provide such for everyone would take away resources for more reliable treatments. with fixed resources, you would struggle to use the idea of kant to drive decision making.

Question 6

x reasons KE is not too abstract to be applicable to practical moral decision making

Answer 6

1. systems of ethics based on emotions could easily dissolve into justifications of selfish conduct, so perhaps principles and ideals are what should drive out conduct. perhaps kant is offering the system for creating rules that, once disseminated, will guide people.
2. moral theories that simply provide rules and not the system for making such are arguably less useful as new unexpected situations may present themselves.
3. moral theories that aren’t concerned with the development of the moral person may be less affective at creating a better society. kant sees ethics as development of a better world and people, not just individual decisions.

Question 7

6x reasons KE is so reliant on reason that it unduly rejects importance of other factors (sympathy, empathy, love) in moral decision making

Answer 7

1. there are limits to human reason. our minds experience the world through categories that we impose. we are unable to experience the ‘noumena’, and issues such as existence of God are beyond our ability to provide proof. there are valid objections to the powers of reason. thinkers such as Barth may argue that human reason is limited and we require God’s revelation to gain truth.
2. freud argues our moral thinking is the product of subconscious drives produced by our upbringing, this would make morality more instinctive than reasoned.
3. SE would reject the claim ethics should be based on duty and reason. if applied in the way kant has in mind, reason may not give us the right answers. agape love is a better motivation as far as fletcher in concerned.
4. emotions are a fundamental part of human experience and emotional connections seem to be among the most valuable things in life that get you through challenging times. kant seems to have removed emotional importance and in many situations, wouldn’t allow us to prioritise loved ones (e.g. no clear guidance on saving child before yourself in a plane crash).
5. feelings often motivate moral responses (a concern for the poor, compassion for someone in distress, or passion for a cause we feel strongly about). we may find ourselves with mixed motives if moral situations involve family, and acting rationally distances ourselves from these things feels quite difficult.
6. kant assumes that there is one fixed human nature and thus one way of reasoning. hence we should each, when using our reasoning, come to the same conclusions about what the CI are, in the same way we might reach the same conclusions about a maths question. this, evidentially, isn’t the case.

Question 8

x reasons KE is not too reliant on reason, and it recognises importance of other factors (sympathy, empathy, love) in moral decision making

Answer 8

1. morality does come within the sphere of reason. our moral duties are A priori synthetic; we are able to work them out using our reason. so, we should, if a disregard for other factors comes of this, that is necessary to note.
2. kant believes in autonomy. each of us has the power of reason within us. because of this, treating persons as an ends means we owe it to each other to respect the autonomy, allowing people to reason for themselves rather than imposing our ethical ideas.
3. kant would question whether emotive actions for others will lead us into immorality. perhaps we could become corrupt by favouring those we lie, or our feelings for someone could lead us astray. we might persue selfish aims to impress or to get favour.
4. morals are most important for their ability to get us to think beyond family and friendship loyalties, we should also focus on others. following emotion may worsen the world, as we aren’t helped as strangers in foreign land.
5. if justice was based on emotions, or emotional connections between a judge and the defendant/ accuser, and not a consistent fair application of law, we’d say justice was corrupted.

Question 9

x reasons the HI cannot be the imperative of morality (against HI/ for kant’s views)

Answer 9

1. you might have more respect for a person who acts out of duty than one who acts because they will be rewarded for it.
2. many people agree that some morals should be absolute, and the HI is no use because these judgements were not connected with morals and they were dependent on outcome.
3. there is no way to tell that acting in a certain way will achieve a certain result as consequences can’t easily be predicted as we cannot see into the future.

Question 10

x reasons the HI can be the imperative of morality (for HI/ against kant’s views)

Answer 10

1. many people would consider thinking about the result of an action as an important part of ethical decision making, and if the outcome hurts another person, most people would feel guilty.

Question 11

x reasons for CI 1 (formula of the law of nature)

Answer 11

1. his theory is consistent. this is because the absolutist nature of the ethics means that what it says will never change- no body is an exception which makes moral decision making easier.
2. principle of universal law is a useful law that has similarities with principles of other religious faiths (not doing things you wouldn’t wish to be done to you).

Question 12

x reasons against CI 1 (formula of the law of nature)

Answer 12

1. benjamin constant said if we can’t lie then society becomes impossible. we need to be able to tell white lies, or lies for good reasons to help society function. no one has a right to a truth that harms others.
2. no regard for the situation, not helpful or useful in the modern world. this ignores reality, life is complicated and in the real world KE solutions and ideas can often appear impractical.
3. the principle of universal law does not necessarily show us our moral duties. non moral maxims can logically be universalised (e.g. everyone should sing the national anthem on wednesday) but at the same time it is clear such maxims aren’t ‘moral duties.’ similarly, just because we cannot universalise something doesn’t mean it’s immoral (e.g. cant all eat nuts due to some people having allergies), it doesn’t suggest we can’t do such actions.
4. J.S.Mill highlights that by this, kant becomes consequentialist. when we decide whether or not a maxim can be universalised, we’re considering the effects that would result from universalising the maxim. yet kant was deontological and never wanted to take account of the effects.

Question 13

x reasons for CI 2 (formula of the end in itself)

Answer 13

1. egalitarian. treating people as ‘an end in themselves’ puts everyone on equal ground. it aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so, corrects the utilitarian assumption that the minority can suffer so long as the majority are happy.
2. honours respect and dignity, kant sees humans as being of intrinsic worth and dignity as they’re rational creatures. humans cannot be enslaved or exploited, this is the basis of the declaration of human rights.

Question 14

x reasons against CI 2 (formula of the end in itself)

Answer 14

1. when thinking about a particular individual who may be in acute need, hospitals have to decide how to use limited resources for the greatest benefit and this can mean deciding to ration or prioritise expensive treatments that are only occasionally successful. but to provide such for everyone would take away resources for more reliable treatments. with fixed resources, you would struggle to use the idea of kant to drive decision making.

Question 15

x reasons for CI 3 (formula of the kingdom of ends)

Answer 15

1. kant is offering the system for creating rules that, once disseminated, will guide people. moral theories that simply provide rules and not the system for making such are arguably less useful as new unexpected situations may present themselves. moral theories that aren’t concerned with the development of the moral person may be less affective at creating a better society. kant sees ethics as development of a better world and people, not just individual decisions.

Question 16

x reasons against CI 3 (formula of the kingdom of ends)

Answer 16

1. idealised view of life. there may be too few emergency relief supplies for a natural disaster, how does one decide which villagers to save? when faced with such no win situations, kant seems unhelpful. life is not as perfect as the situations kant is applicable in at all times.
2. it tells you what types of actions are good- universalisable ones that don’t treat people as a means to an end, but doesn’t tell you the right thing to do in particular situations. you must work this out and that requires a reasonable amount of intelligence. in a moral dilemma trying to work out what to do under stressful circumstances might not be practical.

Question 17

x reasons for 3 postulates and summum bonum (KE is ultimately reliant on God)

Answer 17

1. SB is a necessary reward otherwise it wouldn’t be rational to act morally e.g. hitler did terrible things but killed himself before receiving punishment, while morally good actions often go unrewarded and unnoticed e.g. heroes dying at war. existence of reward ensures justice is served for those who acted morally/ dutifully.
2. it gives us another reason to not undermine people’s autonomy, as we could be reducing, or eliminating, their opportunity of receiving SB by doing the right thing of their own free choice.

Question 18

5x reasons against 3 postulates and summum bonum (KE isn’t ultimately reliant on God)

Answer 18

1. not all good people get rewarded by SB, e.g. saving a life out of love but not duty, or telling a lie to protect someone’s feelings are seen as acts you shouldn’t have done, so you do not receive SB. these ideas are unrealistic. looking at the axe murder analogy that we cannot lie to, it’s intrinsically right to lie, and so the SB doesn’t cohere with what we know about the average human being.
2. God is meant to be omnibenevolent and just, a God who would discriminate against us on the grounds we haven’t done exactly what duty demands of us, doesn’t seem loving or fair at all.
3. if you do not accept the 3 postulates the SB becomes incoherent. no God= no being to decide who’s worthy of and deliver the SB. no immortality= no SB/ justice for acting morally, SB is nonsensical without an afterlife. there is no true freedom= determinism, decisions depend on culture, upbringing, education, financial circumstances, etc. it makes no sense to reward people based on decisions they couldn’t have made any differently.
4. Hume said ‘ought’ cannot be defined as is. just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean you ought to do it, there is no obligation as morality is not prescriptive. kant is wrong to argue that because we ought to aim for the SB, it must be achievable.
5. the idea you can know about the SB but not want it is unrealistic. it is nothing more than a motivational goal, an end (afterlife) to justify our means (e.g. being miserable acting out of duty). it makes the theory teleological. a kantian may argue you can want it but it mustn’t be the reason why we do things, but the problem is the same as it becomes the motivation for doing your duty. it makes the maxim ‘act on your duty’ sound like a HI, not a CI.

Question 19

x reasons we should take a deontological and absolutist approach to ethics. (kant is correct, consequences are irrelevant to the morality of an action)

Question 20

x reasons we should not take a deontological and absolutist approach to ethics. (kant is incorrect, consequences are relevant to the morality of an action)