kantian deontological ethics

Question 1

good will and duty

Answer 1

• to have good will is to be motivated by duty
• an action is only good when a person acts from a sense of good will
• emotions are subjective and therefore not moral
• good will + duty = moral action
• duties include not: committing suicide, lusting, being greedy/drunk and lying
• we should do our duty because it is our duty
• you have a duty to follow moral law (which is summarised by the catagorical imperative)

Question 2

what is our duty

Answer 2

• what is morally right?
• what does good will, will?
• how can good will be good in itself?
• it must be something about the maxims it adopts but it can’t be what the maxims aim at
• since the good will is only good without qualification

Question 3

hypothetical imperative

Answer 3

• a command to act to achieve a desired result
• always begins with if
• goal oriented
• if the action would be good simply as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical

Question 4

the two types of maxims

Answer 4

• categorical
• hypothetical

Question 5

the summum bonum

Answer 5

• Kant uses it to mean the highest happiness
• it is received in the afterlife and is a reward for acting out of one’s duty, as long as one has acted autonomously
• the summum bonum is a happy, fulfilled state of mind
• Kant said that the summum bonum is a necessary reward as otherwise it would be irrational to act morally (it ensures justice is served for those who acted morally/dutifully)
• to achieve the summum bonum, the categorical imperative has to be followed in order to have known what your duty is and then to have been acted on
• the reward is not give to those who preformed good actions for any other reason

Question 6

the three postulates

Answer 6

1. there is a god
2. we have immortality
3. there is the possibility of freedom

Question 7

1. there is a god

Answer 7

• only a divine being could have the knowledge required to reward the dutiful
• the summum bonum could only be given by a wholly good being (god is omnibenevolnet)
• this reward could only be given by a being with the power to do so
• Kant argues the innate moral law also acts as proof of god’s existence as he claims it is the best and only rational reason to accept the the truth of god’s existence

Question 8

2. we have immorality

Answer 8

• there must be an immortal soul because the reward of highest happiness could not possibly be obtained in a moral life (as such a joy could not be experienced in this physical world)
• a reward would only really make sense when we have finished making moral decisions
• the summum bonum is therefore awarded to the immortal soul in the afterlife and for that reason many have compared the summum bonum to heaven

Question 9

3. there is the possibility of freedom

Answer 9

• to obtain the summum bonum, you must have acted freely or a reward would not be appropriate
• therefore, freedom must be possible
• someone who acts morally but not freely can’t obtain the summum bonum
• this is one reason why you should not lie or undermine the autonomy of others and to not use others as a means to an end

Question 10

catagorical imperative

Answer 10

• tells everyone what to do (applies to all things)
• does not depend on a goal
• absolute moral obligation
• moral laws are catagorical

Question 11

the ways to test whether a maxim passes the categorical imperative

Answer 11

• contradiction in conception
• contradiction in will

Question 12

contradiction in conception

Answer 12

• for a law to be universal, it must not result in contradiction in conception (which is something that is self-contradictory)
• if a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a duty not to follow that maxim as it is always wrong

Question 13

contradiction in conception example

Answer 13

• is ‘you should steal’ a universally applicable maxim?
• if stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument against it
• the concept of ownership wouldn’t make sense as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do
• therefore, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, there is no concept of private property
• and if there is no such thing as private property, then stealing is impossible
• therefore, Kant would say, the maxim ‘you should steal’ leads to a contradiction in conception
• and consequently, stealing is not morally permissible

Question 14

contradiction in will

Answer 14

• assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, it then must be asked whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will (can rationally will a maxim or not)
• eg can we rationally will ‘not to help others in need?’
• there is no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone else
• but Kant says we can’t rationally will it because we have goals (ends) that cannot be achieved without the help of others
• to will the ends, we must also will the means, therefore we can’t rationally will the goals without willing the help of others (means)
• however, not all goals require the help of others
• therefore, Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty (sometimes it is wrong to follow the maxim ‘not to help others in need’)

Question 15

formula of universal law

Answer 15

‘act only in accordance with that maxim through which you at the same time can will that it became a universal law’

Question 16

Kant’s three formulations

Answer 16

1. formula of the law of nature
2. formula of the end in itself
3. formula of the kingdom of ends

Question 17

1. formula of the law of nature

Answer 17

• whereby a maxim can be established as a universal law
• for an action to be morally valid, the person performing the action must not carry it out unless they believe that: in the same situation, all people should act in the same way
• Kant tests the morality of an action by imagining how it would be if it were generally practiced and you were in the receiving end

Question 18

formula of the law of nature example

Answer 18

• if a sinister looking man carrying an axe knocked on your door and asked where your best friend was, would it be morally acceptable to tell a lie?
  1. come up with a maxim: I will lie to the sinister axe man who asked where my best friend was
  2. universalise it: all people should lie to the sinister axe man who asked where their best friend was
  3. is it logically possible for everyone to act like this: yes
  4. do you want everyone to act in this way: no
• Kant says this is because telling the truth is an absolute duty
• you can’t universalise always lying because that would diminish the value of the truth
• if you lied and this led to the axe man finding your friend, that would be in your conscience
• if you tell the truth, the consequences are not

Question 19

2. formula of the end in itself

Answer 19

• whereby people are treated as ends in themselves and not means to an end
• a moral code must treat humans with respect and not just as a means to an ends
• humans must be the end in themselves
• to tread someone as an end for Kant meant keeping the view that people have a life of their own and deserve justice/fair treatment

Question 20

3. formula of the kingdom of ends

Answer 20

• whereby society of rationality is established in which people treat each other as ends and not means
• the kingdom of ends is a society made of people, all of whom are entitled to be treated as ends not means
• the formula of the kingdom of ends enjoins us to follow those rules that we would make us legislating members of such a kingdom
• it requires us to work out a set of rules that we would legislate if we were doing so from a certain ideal point of view
• Kant uses formula 1 and 2 by saying that everyone should act as though everyone else has the same human rights as themselves

Question 21

not all universal maxims are moral
(objection)

Answer 21

• Kant argues that ignoring a perfect duty leads to a contradiction in conception
• in the stealing example, the concept of private property wouldn’t exist if stealing was universally permissible
• but by slightly changing the maxim, this is avoided and stealing is justified
• eg instead of the maxim being ‘to steal’, the maxim could be ‘to steal from people with nine letters in their name’
• both of these maxims can be universalised without undermining the concept of private property as they would apply rarely enough to not have a concept breakdown
• this shows that just because a maxim can be universalised, that does not mean it is inherently good or moral
• by defining maxims cleverly, we can justify any course of action

Question 22

not all universal maxims are moral
(response)

Answer 22

• Kant would likely argue that modifying your maxim in this way is cheating
• because the extra conditions (eg the number of letters in a person’s name) are irrelevant to this situation
• the categorical imperative is concerned with the actual maxim I am acting on and not an arbitrary one I just made up

Question 23

ignores consequences

Answer 23

• there is a strong intuition that consequences are important in regards to moral decision making
• this intuition can be drawn out by considering ethical dilemmas, eg the trolley problem:
• is it right to kill one person to save five people? Kant says no
• but what about 100 people?
• surely, if the consequences are significant enough should we consider breaking certain rule

Another example is stealing. Many people would have the utilitarian intuition that it’s morally acceptable to steal
- this seems to draw out absurd and morally questionable results from following rules too strictly

Question 24

ignores other valuable motivations
(objection)

Answer 24

• being motivated by duty is the only motivation that has moral worth
• eg imagine a close friend is ill in hospital and you pay them a visit because you genuinely like them and want to make sure they’re ok
• Kant says the motivation (concern for your friend) has no moral value
• however, if you didn’t really care about your friend but went to visit purely out of duty, this would have moral value according to Kant
• this seems ridiculous
• Kant seems to be saying we should want to help people because of duty, not because we genuinely care

Question 25

ignores other valuable motivations response

Answer 25

• Kant would respond by making a distinction between acting for the sake of duty and acting in accordance with duty
• there is nothing wrong with being motivated by motivations such as love, but we shouldn’t choose how to act because of them
• instead, we should always act out of duty, but if what we want to do anyway is in accordance with duty then that’s a bonus

Question 26

conflicts between duties
(objection)

Answer 26

• Kant argues that it is never acceptable to violate our duties
• eg what if you were in a situation where this was unavoidable
• Kant would say we have a duty to never lie
• but what happens if you make a promise to someone but then find yourself in a situation where the only way to keep that promise is by telling a lie?
• whatever choice you make you will seemingly violate one of your duties

Question 27

conflict between duties (response)

Answer 27

• Kant says that a true conflict of duties is impossible
• our moral duties are objective and rational
• therefore, it is inconceivable that they could conflict with one another
• if it appears that there is a conflict in our duties, he says, it must mean we have made a mistake somewhere in formulating them
• you can’t rationally will a maxim to become a universal law if it conflicts with another law you rationally will – that would be contradictory

Question 28

foot: morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives

Answer 28

• Foot argues that moral laws are not categorical in the way kant thinks, there is no categorical reason to follow them; instead morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives
• the motivation for the hypothetical imperative is that the desires provide a rational reason to why we should act according to these imperatives
• the reason to act in accordance with the categorical imperative is less clear (if there is no desire to follow it, then should i)
• kant would say that following moral laws is a matter of rationality and that reason tells us we should follow the categorical imperative
• foot argues that we should see morality as a system of hypothetical rather than categorical, imperatives
• there is nothing irrational about disobeying the categorical imperative if you never accepted it in the first place
• the categorical imperative does not itself provide any rational reason to follow it

Question 29

strengths of Kantian ethics

Answer 29

• it is universal, everyone is treated equally and given equal value
• human life is given particular value
• you have particular rules to follow
• it promotes good will, which is beneficial for society
• there are no references to the future or to consequences, which cannot be known