Kant's Deontological Ethics

Question 1

What is a deontological theory ?

Answer 1

Actions are judged as right or wrong within themselves - they are non consequential theories
Actions should be performed for its own sake not for the results they should have

De-ontology comes from the Greek word for obligation and refers to the notion of duties

Question 2

Which 7 things do you need to mention BRIEFLY when opening a deontological ethics essay ?

Answer 2

Definition of deontological
Categorical and hypothetical imperatives
Free will of humans - autonomous VS heteronomous instincts
Maxims
1st formulation
2nd formulation
Perfect and imperfect duties

Question 3

2 key strengths of Kant’s deontological ethics

Answer 3

Absolute rules and philosophical rigour compared to the exceptions of rule U

Kant is called the “father of human rights” and promotes human dignity and respect for human beings

Question 4

What is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives

Why is this significant ?

Answer 4

Hypothetical imperatives depend on your desires with qualification
E.g. I ought to get up earlier so I have more time work

Categorical imperatives do not depend on your desires and do not require qualification as there are some things you morally should and shouldn’t do
E.g. I will not inflict needless suffering on others

This is significant as Kant argues that actions should follow the categorical imperative to be moral

Question 5

Outline how free will links in with Kant’s argument

Answer 5

We have a distinct capacity to have free will out of rationality which sets us apart from animals (contrary to utilitarianism which is criticised for being a doctrine for swine)

We are autonomous and animals are heteronomous (determined by their instincts)
Therefore humans have a unique capacity to choose “the good will” - the only thing that is good without qualification

Question 6

What are maxims?

Why are they important for Kant ?

Answer 6

Maxims are underlying rules for our actions that we act on consciously and unconsciously

Maxims are important for Kant as they solely determine whether an action is moral with no consideration of the consequences

Question 7

What is the first formulation of the categorical imperative?

Example!

Answer 7

Act in such a way where your maxim for action can be universalised without contradiction

This therefore encourages honesty.
If you make a lying promise with no intention of keeping it, you are effectively recommending this to everyone as we are part of a society that looks to eachother for morality
- if this was universalised, this would raise a contradiction as the very nature of a promise would be undermined, nobody would trust eachother to keep promises and they would become lose their value and become meaningless

Question 8

What is the second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative

Explanation

Example

Answer 8

Do not treat others merely as a means to an end

Kant argues that this undermines the essential dignity of human beings and there are just certain lines you cannot cross with human beings. This is prominently why Kant is seen as the father of human rights

Example - we should not torture someone for information as this is effectively objectifying human beings and using them merely as a means to an end

Question 9

What is the example of the calculating shopkeeper ?

How could this be used ?

Answer 9

If a child with no experience with money and unable to distinguish between different notes goes into a shop to purchase something and the shopkeeper gives him the right change out of a desire to promote her business as morally sound, despite the fact she could have made more money giving him the wrong change- this would not have moral worth

This is because she acted out of her own desire to achieve a good reputation. Not out of “the goodwill” as her intentions were qualified

Useful when talking of the goodwill or categorical / hypothetical imperative distinction

Question 10

What is the notion of perfect and imperfect duties ?

How does this strengthen Kant’s argument in regard to rule utilitarianism ?

Answer 10

Perfect duties are duties which admit no exceptions
You have a duty to not make lying promises , you have a duty to not commit suicide. If you universalised these maxims it would produce a contradiction

Imperfect duties may admit exceptions. They are things that you should do, just not all of the time I.e you have a duty not to let your talents go to waste
And you have a duty to promote the happiness of others. You can choose when you do this.

This strengthens Kant against rule u as it does not allow exceptions in the same way as you cannot deviate from the philosophically rigorous categorical imperatives however, there is freedom in when you choose to act morally in imperfect duties. Therefore everyday acts are not governed as strictly as with the utility calculus

Question 11

How is Kant philosophically rigorous ?

Answer 11

Strict rules for morality with no exceptions

Question 12

What is the criticism of kant that the consequences of actions determine their moral value

Answer 12

This criticises Kant’s sole focus on maxims for actions determining their moral worth with no consideration of the moral worth of consequences which seems counter intuitive
This is because some consequences seem obvious to consider when determining the moral worth of an action
For example if you were considering lying to save a life I.e. If there was axe murderer at the door looking for your friend who was upstairs, this act would be considered immoral despite the potential consequence of preventing misery and benefitting humanity. This is because if the maxim of lying was universalised, this would provide a contradiction and undermine the value of the truth.

It therefore seems that Kant opts for philosophical rigour over measures which would potentially stop human misery which seems counter intuitive and is not a sufficient to constitutive morality.

Question 13

How might Kant reply to the criticism that the intuition that consequences of actions determine their moral value ?

2 further replies !!

Answer 13

Kant would try to respond to this by emphasising how by focusing on consequences which are empirical, everything seems to become relative and it is much more preferable to have moral a priori absolutes.
He would also say that in regard to the axe murderer, the killer would take all of the responsibility for that action, so by not lying to them and effectively enabling his murder, you would be morally sound and should have no responsibility over their actions.

Response 1 - raises the issue of MORAL NARCISSISM. Kant’s rigorous focus on individual acts dismiss the morality of potentially preventing immoral acts. Acts that could help others and prevent suffering would be dismissed in order to follow the categorical imperative and preserve personal moral rigour. It could therefor be said that Kant’s deontological ethics is morally narcissistic going against our instinct to help others.

Further, although Kant strongly emphasises his theory as deontological , it is arguably consequential in the sense that the first formulation of universalisability seems to account for consequences. It seems to consider outcomes for example - when you apply it you question potential consequences for it being universalised. If I was to lie I would consider the outcome of this on humanity. It could therefore be argued that Kant does judge the moral worth of acts on their consequences which undermines his position as a deontologist undermining the credibility of his argument.

Question 14

What is the criticism of Kant with moral narcissism

Answer 14

Kant’s rigorous focus on individual acts dismiss the morality of potentially preventing immoral acts. Acts that could help others and prevent suffering would be dismissed in order to follow the categorical imperative and preserve personal moral rigour. For example , it would be morally preferable for yourself to enable your friend to die with the axe murderer at the door example than to lie to him. It could therefor be said that Kant’s deontological ethics is morally narcissistic going against our instinct to help others.

Question 15

What is the criticism of Kant about immoral principles being universalised ?

Response

Answer 15

This criticism argues that a priori consistency is not enough to constitute moral acts.
It attacks Kant’s first formulation which couple potentially result in blatantly immoral acts being determined as moral if they don’t produce a logical inconsistency
For example , Eichmann, a prominent Nazi who orchestrated the holocaust argued that he followed Kant’s categorical imperative. It could be said that the maxim “kill all Jews because they were Jews” would not produce a logical contradiction when universalised. This first formulation is therefore not sufficient enough to constitute moral action

Reply -
Kant successfully undermines this criticism which is clearly limited in its consideration of Kantian ethics.
This maxim would certainly be considered immoral under Kant’s second categorical imperative as the Nazis were exterminating the Jews merely as a means to an end to create “the master race”. This criticism also misses the essential point of Kantian ethics which stresses the human dignity of human beings which the nazis greatly undermined. This criticism is therefore unsuccessful

Question 16

What is the criticism about the passionless fulfilment of duty ?
Reply ?
Evaluation ?

Answer 16

This criticism articulates that Kant’s emphasis on rigorously fulfilling duty is passionless and dismisses the human instinct to act out of desire.
For example , if you visited your friend in hospital purely out of duty, then this surely of less moral worth than someone who visits their friend to show that they care. Therefore it could be said that Kant’s dismissal of desire in favour of duty is inhumane and of less moral worth

Kant could reply to this saying that ‘duty’ here is misunderstood and that the human ability to maintain rationality would lead mature human beings to understand that morality is not just imposed from from outside but is internal. It would be part of your duty and moral to help your friend out of a duty to cheer them up rather than to tick something off a moral checklist.

However this response which seems to argue that desire can coincide with duty is unsuccessful as Kant too rigidly separated desire and duty. The idea that these two ideas can coincide in this case contradicts Kant’s articulation that truly moral acts should not depend on desires whatsoever. Kant is still vulnerable to the criticism

Question 17

What is the criticism about conflicts of duty ?

Response ?

Evaluation ?

Answer 17

Kant is criticised on the fact that perfect duties could clash / conflict eachother which would result in a perfect duty being dismissed.
For example , you may be faced with the necessity to steal to fulfil a promise. In this case , the maxims to not steal and not to break promises conflict eachother and choosing to do either one of these would involve dismissing a perfect duty. This is a problem for Kant as it seems impossible in this case to escape acting immorally

Response
Kant would say that the collision of perfect duties is “inconceivable” as a priori duties are always consistent. If you found yourself in a situation like the one illustrated, you must have misunderstood one of the duties I.e not realised that fulfilling a promise would entail stealing otherwise you would not have made the promise. As morality is a priori; there can be no direct clashing of duties

This response is convincing as it gets around the example presented by raising that there must have been a misunderstanding.