Kantian ethics Flashcards
What does Kant mean by a ‘good will’?
According to Kant, it is the only thing that is good without qualification and, irrespective of effects/consequences, is the source of all morality. The good will is one that is motivated by duty. For example, if you save someone’s life out of duty, not because you expect to be financially rewarded, then you have good will and your action has moral worth.
What is meant by a categorical imperative?
An unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances. It is not dependent on a person’s desires or any consequences, for example ‘you should keep your promises’.
What is meant by a hypothetical imperative?
A hypothetical imperative is a command you ought to follow if you wish to attain a certain goal. For example, if I want to be healthier, I should start going to the gym. Unlike categorical imperatives, they are not absolute since they are not universalisable as not everybody desires the end.
What is a perfect duty?
Perfect duties, which arise from contradictions in conception, are duties that we are morally obligated to fulfil in all situations, irrespective of our own goals. An example of this would be ‘do not kill’.
What is an imperfect duty?
Imperfect duties arise from contradictions in will, where we would not want to live in a world where a particular maxim had been universalised. For example, we would not want to live in a world where the maxim ‘I do not have to help the poor’ had been universalised. Therefore, we have an imperfect duty to help the poor at least some of the time.
What is the difference between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty?
Acting out of duty is an action which is done solely out of a sense of moral obligation, irrespective of whether it is in my interests, whereas acting in accordance with duty is an action which is done for some reason other than duty, such as acting in pursuit of one’s own self-interest. For example, if a shopkeeper gives somebody the correct change because it is the right thing to do, he is acting out of duty, but if he does so because it will make the customer more likely to return to his shop, he is acting in accordance with duty.
What is meant by a contradiction in conception?
Kant states that we should ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law without contradiction’. In other words, we cannot act in a way that would be self-defeating. For example, if we universalised the maxim ‘it is okay to break promises’, this would become self-defeating as nobody would trust promises. A contradiction in conception leads to a perfect duty (e.g. do not break promises).
What is meant by a contradiction in will?
There arises a contradiction in will if we could not rationally will for an action to be universalised. For example, although we could universalise the maxim ‘I will not help others in need, we would not want to live in a world where this is universalised as we would want to be able to rely on the help of others. Therefore, this leads to a contradiction in will.
Outline the first formulation of the categorical imperative (including the distinction between a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in will)
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is the ‘universality’ formulation which states that an action is permissible if it can be universalised. Kant states that we should ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law without contradiction’. There are two ways in which an action can fail this test: either by causing a contradiction in conception or a contradiction in will. A contradiction in conception arises when an action cannot be universalised without becoming self-defeating. For example, we cannot universalise the maxim, ‘it is okay for me to break promises’ as this would eventually be made redundant as people would no longer trust promises. A contradiction in will arises when we cannot rationally will for an action to be universalised. For example, we would not want to live in a world in which the maxim ‘I will not help others in need’ was universalised.
Outline the second formulation of the categorical imperative
The second formulation of the categorical imperative, known as the humanity formulation states that we should ‘act in such a way that you always treat humanity never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’. This means that we should not use people to achieve our own ends. For example, if we borrow money from somebody with no intention of paying it back, then we are using another person as a means to an end which is morally wrong. Our actions should always respect the autonomy of other people.
Explain the issue of clashing duties facing Kantian ethics
Kantian ethics is a deontological ethical theory, meaning that an action is moral if it is done out of duty. In Kantian ethics there are two types of duties: perfect duties which arise from a contradiction in conception and are absolute (e.g. do not lie) and imperfect duties which arise from a contradiction in will (e.g. help other people in need if I can). The issue of clashing duties in Kantian ethics is that there may be certain situations where:
The moral agent is morally required to act (or refrain from acting) according to two or more duties
The moral agent is able to act (or refrain from acting) according to each duty by itself
But, the moral agent is unable to act according to both (or all) the duties.
Therefore, the issue is that the agent cannot avoid doing something morally wrong.
Explain the issue in Kantian ethics that not all universalisable maxims are distinctly moral and not all non-universalisable maxims are immoral
According to Kant, an act which can be universalised is morally permissible. However, one criticism of this is that there are many trivial acts which can be universalised but do not seem to be distinctly moral, e.g. ‘I will chew my food 32 times before swallowing’. In addition, according to Kant, acts which cannot be universalised without a contradiction in conception lead to a perfect duty to not do them. However, there are some acts such as ‘I will always help the poor when I can afford to’ which are self-defeating as, if everybody did this, there would be no poor. Therefore, according to Kantian ethics, we have perfect duty not to help the poor. This is an issue because it shows that the way that Kantian ethics categorises moral actions is incompatible with our intuition.
Explain the issue in Kantian ethics that it is the consequences of actions which determine their moral value
As Kantian ethics is a deontological ethical theory, it is the intention (duty), not the consequences of an action which give it moral worth. However, in the famous axe man scenario it seems counterintuitive not to consider the consequences of telling the axe man where your friend is. The issue is that Kant is more concerned with focusing on our own ‘sphere of control’ and being rationally consistent than he does with any disastrous consequences. Additionally, in order to work out whether a maxim can be universalised without a contradiction in conception or will necessitates thinking about the consequences of the maxim, so Kantian ethics can also be criticised for being inconsistent here.
Explain the issue facing Kantian ethics that it ignores the value of certain motives
According to Kantian ethics, the only actions with have any moral worth are those done out of duty (purely because it is the right thing to do), not those done in accordance with duty (because there is some benefit in it for yourself). For example, parent A reads to their child at night because it is the right thing to do. They don’t particularly want to do so, but they are acting out of duty. Parent B reads to their child at night because they love them and want to spend time with them. According to Kantian ethics, parent A’s action is the only one with any moral value. This is an issue as it seems at odds with our intuition that certain motives such as love and friendship have moral worth.
Explain Foot’s argument that morality is a system of hypothetical rather than categorial imperatives
Moral commands are either categorical (you have to follow them) or hypothetical (you have to follow them if you see some reason to). Foot accepts that there are categorical imperatives, but denies Kant’s claim that it is irrational to disobey them. Her argument involves pointing to non-moral language that appears to involve categorical imperatives, but nobody thinks it is irrational or immoral to disobey. For example, rules of etiquette like ‘you should not eat with your mouth open’ aren’t stated conditionally on desires or outcome and thus are categorical, yet nobody thinks it is irrational to break the rules of etiquette. This raises a question of why it is irrational to disobey Kant’s categorical imperative. Foot concludes that moral judgements are only rationally binding if we accept them as our end (making them hypothetical), rather than categorical as Kant claims.
