Can one truly universalise actions without consideration of hypothetical outcomes Flashcards
(9 cards)
INTRODUCTION
- Introduce Kantian ethics
- Explain that Kant sought universability
- What was the key method
- Whagt will the essay examine
- LOA
• Introduce Kantian ethics as a deontological theory developed in response to Enlightenment concerns about religious conflict and moral subjectivity.
• Explain that Kant sought a universal system of ethics grounded in pure reason, not contingent on religious belief or emotion.
• The key method of Kantian morality is the categorical imperative, which determines moral laws based on universalizability, not consequences.
• However, the essay will examine whether it is truly possible to universalise actions without regard to hypothetical outcomes, given real-life moral complexity.
Thesis/Line of argument: While Kant’s attempt to universalise morality independently of consequences has intellectual clarity and rigour, it fails in practice—true moral reasoning must consider hypothetical outcomes to be workable and humane.
PARAGRAPH 1 – Kantian Deontology and the Categorical Imperative (AO1 + AO2)
AO1: The Basis of Kant’s Moral System
• Kant rejects morality based on subjective goals or hypothetical imperatives (e.g. “If you want to be liked, don’t lie”).
• Instead, he proposes categorical imperatives: unconditional moral commands that apply in all situations.
• The first formulation: act only according to maxims you can will as universal law.
• E.g., if everyone lied, trust would collapse, and lying would become impossible.
• Similarly, universalised stealing undermines property, so cannot be morally permissible.
• The second formulation: treat all people as ends, not mere means—respecting their autonomy.
• The third formulation: act as if you are a legislator in a kingdom of ends.
• Kant’s system demands moral actions be rational, universal, and independent of outcome.
PARAGRAPH 1 – Kantian Deontology and the Categorical Imperative (AO1 + AO2)
A02
AO2: Strengths of Kant’s Theory
• By removing emotions and outcomes, Kant aims to avoid moral relativism and subjective inconsistency.
• His model reflects the Enlightenment ideal of moral objectivity and dignity for all rational agents.
• Kantian ethics thus offers an appealing moral clarity, immune to the corrupting influence of personal desires or situational pressures.
AO2: Critique – The Limits of Pure Universalisation
• Clashing Duties: Sartre’s example of the soldier torn between family duty and national duty shows that universal rules can conflict.
• Kant’s claim that imperfect duties can always be reconciled (e.g. finding someone else to care for a parent) fails when no such option exists.
• If “ought implies can,” then universalisation cannot tell us what to do when both duties are universalisable but not simultaneously possible.
• Therefore, Kant’s framework collapses in real-world moral dilemmas, undermining his goal to create a practical ethical guide.
• Emotion and Moral Motivation: Michael Stocker and Bernard Williams argue Kant neglects the ethical value of emotion-based motivation.
• A friend who visits out of duty, rather than care, lacks moral warmth; Williams calls this “one thought too many.”
• Kant’s rejection of emotions as morally valuable is implausibly cold and dehumanising.
• While Kant defends the stability of reason over the unreliability of emotions, Aristotle’s view—that reason can cultivate moral emotions (e.g. love, compassion)—is more psychologically accurate.
PARAGRAPH 1 – Kantian Deontology and the Categorical Imperative (AO1 + AO2)
Conclusion
• Universalisation without regard to emotional or practical context often becomes rigid and morally alienating.
• Kant’s commitment to abstract reason undermines the human complexity of moral life.
• A workable ethics must acknowledge that even universal rules sometimes need interpretation in light of emotions and conflicting duties.
Paragraph 2
PARAGRAPH 2 – Consequences and the Limits of Ignoring Hypotheticals (AO1 + AO2)
PARAGRAPH 2 – Consequences and the Limits of Ignoring Hypotheticals (AO1 + AO2)
AO1: Kant’s Rejection of Consequences
• Kant explicitly rejects consequentialist reasoning, arguing we can’t control outcomes and so shouldn’t base morality on them.
• The rightness of an action lies in its rational form, not in its result.
• His famous example: one must not lie, even to a murderer at the door seeking their victim.
• Lying would be morally wrong because it cannot be universalised, even if it might save a life.
PARAGRAPH 2 – Consequences and the Limits of Ignoring Hypotheticals (AO1 + AO2)
AO2: Critique – Unrealistic and Morally Problematic
AO2: Critique – Unrealistic and Morally Problematic
• Benjamin Constant’s example reveals how this principle violates moral intuitions.
• If a Nazi asks whether we are hiding Jews, most people intuitively believe lying is the moral act.
• Kant’s response—that we could accidentally direct the murderer to their victim by lying—relies on a fallacious all-or-nothing view of control.
• Peter Singer’s concept of ‘reasonable expectation’ shows we can’t predict consequences perfectly, but we can judge them probabilistically and act accordingly.
• E.g., it is far more likely that lying will protect the hidden person, so it is ethically rational to lie.
• Ignoring consequences in such cases produces morally absurd outcomes, violating both common sense and compassion.
AO2: Evaluation – Consequences Cannot Be Ignored
• While Kant rightly points out the risks of calculating outcomes, this does not justify total rejection.
• We have a moral obligation to consider foreseeable outcomes, especially when lives are at stake.
• Moderate consequentialism does not require perfect prediction, just rational foresight.
• Kant’s moral absolutism fails to engage with moral risk, which is unavoidable in real ethical decisions.
• Ultimately, ethics must balance universal principles with situational awareness—pure universalisation is morally and practically insufficient.
Conclusion
• Kant’s vision of moral universalism was revolutionary, providing an impartial and rational basis for ethics.
• However, his exclusion of hypothetical outcomes, emotions, and situational nuance renders his system both incomplete and unworkable.
• Moral reasoning that refuses to account for practical consequences risks leading to inhumane results and logical contradictions.
LOA
• Therefore, one cannot truly universalise moral actions without consideration of hypothetical outcomes.
• A robust ethical system must synthesise universal principles with practical reasoning and emotional intelligence to function in the real world.
