Does Kantian Ethics provide a helpful method of moral-decision making Flashcards
(10 cards)
Introduction
- Context
- Thesis
- LOA
• Context: Immanuel Kant developed his ethical theory during the Enlightenment, aiming to base morality on universal reason rather than conflicting religious doctrines.
• Thesis: Kantian ethics provides a rational, principled framework for decision-making grounded in duty and universality. However, its rejection of consequences and emotional motivations, and its inability to resolve conflicting duties, significantly weakens its practical helpfulness.
• Line of argument: While Kant’s system offers clarity and consistency, its rigid absolutism makes it unhelpful in real-world moral dilemmas. Thus, it is ultimately an unhelpful method for moral decision-making.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1: Kant’s Rational Framework and Universality – Strength or Weakness?
Paragraph 1: Kant’s Rational Framework and Universality – Strength or Weakness?
AO1: Structure and Appeal of Kantian Ethics
• Kant reacted to the issue of religious conflict by grounding morality in reason, not faith.
• Inspired by Newtonian science, he believed universal moral laws could be found using reason.
• Categorical imperative: Only genuine moral commands are unconditional – e.g., “You should not lie.”
• These contrast with hypothetical imperatives, which are based on desires and outcomes (e.g., “If you want Y, do X”).
Three formulations:
1. Universalisability – Act only if the maxim can be universalised.
• Lying and stealing fail this test (they undermine trust/property).
- Humanity as an end – Never treat others as a means only.
- Kingdom of Ends – Act as if you were legislating for an ideal moral community.
• Moral worth comes from acting out of duty, not emotions or desires.
Kant argues ethics requires three postulates: God, freedom, and immortality – necessary to make sense of moral responsibility and the reward of the virtuous.
Paragraph 1: Kant’s Rational Framework and Universality – Strength or Weakness?
A02
• Strength: Kant offers a clear, logical moral framework, treating all persons with dignity (Formulation 2). His rejection of subjective feelings creates consistency.
• Problem: Too rigid and abstract. Real life often requires sensitivity to context, which Kant’s universalisability test ignores.
• Clashing duties: As Sartre highlights, some duties conflict (e.g., soldier torn between country and sick parent).
• Kant claims conflicts only happen between imperfect duties (e.g., beneficence), which allow for discretion.
• Evaluation: This defence fails in cases where both duties cannot be fulfilled, even imperfect ones (e.g., no one to care for parent, no war role at home).
• This undermines Kant’s own claim that “ought implies can.”
Paragraph 1: Kant’s Rational Framework and Universality – Strength or Weakness?
Conclusion
Though principled, Kantian ethics struggles to guide action when duties conflict, which seriously limits its helpfulness in moral decision-making.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2: Kant’s Rejection of Emotion and Consequences – Helpful or Problematic?
Paragraph 2: Kant’s Rejection of Emotion and Consequences – Helpful or Problematic?
AO1: Emotions and Consequences in Kantian Ethics
• Kant insists moral actions must be motivated by duty alone, not sympathy, love, or compassion.
• Michael Stocker: A friend who visits you in hospital solely out of duty lacks the warmth of genuine friendship.
• Bernard Williams: Kantian ethics requires “one thought too many” – over-rationalising what should come naturally.
• Kant argues emotions are unreliable and fleeting. Reason, by contrast, provides stable moral motivation.
• Barbara Herman: Emotions may lead to right actions, but only by luck.
• Kant also rejects consequentialism: We are only morally responsible for intentions, not outcomes.
• In the murderer at the door scenario (Benjamin Constant), Kant insists we must tell the truth.
• We can’t control outcomes, so we can’t be judged morally by them.
Paragraph 2: Kant’s Rejection of Emotion and Consequences – Helpful or Problematic?
AO2: Evaluation
Emotion critique:
• While Kant rightly cautions against relying on fickle emotions, virtue ethics (e.g., Aristotle) shows emotions can be rationally cultivated (e.g., friendliness, love).
• Emotion is not the opposite of reason – it can be the product of rational training. Thus, Kant underestimates the moral value of emotion.
• Consequences critique:
Kant’s rejection of consequences contradicts moral intuition: in some situations, the right action seems obviously to lie (e.g., lying to Nazis to protect Jews).
• Kant says consequences are too uncertain, but Singer argues we can act based on reasonable expectations.
• We may not fully control outcomes, but we are still responsible to a degree. Kant’s total rejection of consequences is implausible.
Paragraph 2: Kant’s Rejection of Emotion and Consequences – Helpful or Problematic?
Conclusion
Kant’s attempt to insulate ethics from emotion and consequences strips it of human relevance and fails to accommodate real-life moral reasoning.
Conclusion
- Summary
- Critical judgement
- LOA
Summary: Kantian ethics provides a noble vision of universal moral law grounded in reason, and its emphasis on duty and the dignity of persons is admirable.
Critical judgement: However, its failure to deal with moral conflict, its rejection of consequences, and its suspicion of emotion make it unworkable in complex, real-life moral scenarios.
Line of argument: While Kantian ethics may provide a helpful theoretical framework for moral decision-making, its practical unhelpfulness outweighs its strengths. Ethics must consider emotion, relationships, and consequences – areas where Kant’s theory is too limited.
