Transcript Immanuel Kant: a matter of 'duty'

Kant’s Ethics of Duty
3 insights form the basis for Kant’s
Ethical Theory
• An action has moral worth if it is done for
the sake of duty. (DUTY)
• An action is morally correct if its maxim
can be willed as a universal law.
(UNIVERSALIZABILITY)
• We should always treat humanity, whether
in ourselves or other people, as an end in
itself and never merely as means to an
end. (RESPECT)
The Ethics of Duty
Acting for the sake of duty is:
• Acting without self-interest
• Acting without concern for
consequences
• Acting without inclination [downplays
the role of compassion]
Immanuel Kant: a matter of "duty"
Before Kant ethics focused on the
concept of "the good"
• Two questions were asked:
• What is "the good"?
• How do we attain it?
• There was no disagreement on the
above two points.
• The only puzzle was why didn't some
people aim at the good. [Plato said
"ignorance". Aristotle said “weakness of
will.”]
How Christianity changed ethics
• In the Christian view
• to act morally a person must see the act
is right (i.e., it is commanded by GOD)
and must do the act because they see it
is right.
• For Kant Reason, not God, is the
source of the moral law. We can
rephrase the above as:
• to act morally a person must see the act
is right (i.e., it is commanded by
REASON) and must do the act because
they see it is right.
The "good will" and duty...
• Kant believed that only a GOOD
WILL is morally valuable.
• A good will knows what its duty is
(that is, the good will knows what
reason commands it to do.)
• And the good will DOES the dutiful
act because the good will is dutiful.
The nature of the "good will"
• The will determines how our talents
and temperaments are used. It
affects [or conditions] everything
else we do.
• Kant argues that some qualities are
helpful to the good will, such as
moderation, self-control and "sober
reflexion", but they are not good in
themselves.
• Some talents & temperaments are a
MEANS to the end of a “good will” ,
but are not an end in themselves.
The "good will" and results
• The will is good through its willing
alone. Even if the good will cannot
carry out its intentions, it is good in
itself.
• According to Kant we should not
judge the good will by its
"fruitfulness".
• “fruitfulness” = the consequences of
its willing.
• The good will is to be judged by its
motive alone.
Reason as the source of
the moral law (reason "commands")
• Kant's premise: "nothing in nature is in
vain", therefore reason must have
some function.
• The functions of the preservation of life
or the gaining of happiness are better
performed by instinct. [examples?]
• Thus he concludes that Reason has
nothing to do with our actions, yet is a
practical power -- it influences our will.
• Kant concludes that the true function of
reason is to produce a will that is good.
The "Good Will" and Duty
What does it mean to act from duty?
• It is not enough that an act of a
certain kind be done:
• For example: You might, while lying,
accidentally tell the truth.
• It is not enough that the act is
INTENDED:
• For example: If you are moved by a
sudden feeling of pity, your act is still
without moral value.
An Act Must Be Done From Principle
• In order for an act to be done from
principle there must be a thoughtout rule.
• And you must perform the act
because you see it is an INSTANCE
of the rule.
• From slide 2: “to act morally a
person must see the act is right
(i.e., it is commanded by REASON)
and must do the act because they
see it is right. “
The Motive of Duty I
• Kant believed that the only motive
that makes an act morally valuable is
that of DUTY
• Kant believed that “inclinations” other
than duty, such as love for humanity,
are variable in nature, as is selfinterest.
• He also makes a distinction between
• Acting in conformity with duty (but
not for the right motive) and
• Acting from the MOTIVE of duty.
The Motive of Duty II
When is the motive of duty easiest to
see?
• When the dutiful action is not to your
advantage; that is, causes you pain or
loss.
• Kant argues that taking pleasure in
giving others happiness has no moral
worth.
Duty resides with the will, not with
feeling. Why? [related to the problems
with inclinations as a basis for ethics]
3 Propositions and the
Formal Principle of Duty
• 1st PROPOSITION: This proposition
concerns the nature of duty.
• We are to act FROM the motive of
duty, rather than from conformity with
duty. [We just finished discussing
this!]
• 2nd PROPOSITION is the Formal
Principle of Duty itself.
• The 3rd PROPOSITION: "Duty is the
necessity to act out of reverence for
the law.
2nd Proposition:
The Formal Principle of Duty
The moral worth of an action done from
duty is not in the "purpose to be
attained,” [i.e. consequences] but in the
maxim (or law) on which the action is
decided.
• Moral worth does not come from the
consequences of the action or from
achieving the purpose of the action
• The moral worth lies in the "principle of the
will" -- with "every material principle taken
away” [such as inclinations,
consequences, advantages.]
3rd Proposition:
Reverence for the Law
3rd PROPOSTION: "Duty is the necessity
to act out of reverence for the law.
• If we act for the sake of the OBJECT of
our actions we can only act in terms of
inclination. [examples?]
• Kant is moving towards the notion of the
moral law as COMMANDED
We must act from the IDEA OF THE LAW
ITSELF
• This is only possible for a rational being
• And this doesn't wait for a "result."
The "Categorical Imperative"
The Categorical Imperative is the
means by which we determine
what the moral law is.
It states:
"I ought never to act except in such a
way that I can also will that my maxim
should become a universal law.”
It means:
• that we have to be willing for others to
use the same moral law that we are
using.
The Discussion-I:
Is it prudent, or is it right to make
a false promise?
• Kant is making the argument that
looking at the consequences of an
action won't help us decide
between
• prudence [consequences] and
• duty as the justification for a
“false promise”.
The Discussion - II:
Is it prudent, or is it right to make
a false promise?
• If we try to justify a lying promise on
the basis of being prudent, we aren’t
always able to see the
consequences.
• It is also possible that if people lose
confidence in us, what will happen
will be more disadvantageous than
what will happen now. [magistrate &
mob]
Discussion- III:
Does a "lying promise" accord with duty?
• Kant argues that truth for the sake
of duty contains the moral law:
• (In the case of prudence you must
look to see what the effects will be
and doing this does not contain
the moral law.)
Discussion- IV:
Does a "lying promise" accord with duty?
• You must ask whether you can
universalize your maxim. Can you?
• You can will to lie, but you cannot
will a universal law of lying. Why
not?
• So we reject the "lying promise", not
because of the consequences, but
because it cannot be enacted as a
universal law.
Universalizability
& the “Categorical Imperative”
The example of Lying: If we will it to be a
universal law -- we lose the advantage
from our lying. Consider the matter of
Consistency - lying loses 2 ways here
1. If we imagine the consequences of
everyone
lying we cannot consistently will that
everyone adopt this maxim.
2. OR: I cannot consistently will that I lie and
you don’t!
The requirement of Impartiality & Fairness
means that we cannot make an exception
of ourselves.
Formulating maxims
To formulate a maxim correctly you must:
• Be sure the act description is formulated
carefully so it is relevant. Get the right
description.
• Be sure that the maxim has sufficient
generality.
• Be sure it can pass the “categorical
imperative” test.
The maxim needs to be related to the
1. motivating reasons of the agent,
2. to the act itself and
3. to a universal system of reasons.
The Second Formulation of the
“Categorical Imperative”
We should respect all human beings
impartially.
• Because human beings exist as “ends in
themselves” we should never use them as
“mere means.”
• Kant’s argument is based on our rationality.
[This is what sets us aside from those things
that are what he calls “objects of inclination.”]
• The 2 formulations of the “Categorical
Imperative” are basically the same according
to Kant. How so?
Think: What is the connection between acting
on a universal moral maxim and respecting
all human beings impartially?
Using others as “mere means” : What
does it mean?
Whether we are using a person as a
“mere means” can be hard to determine
as our motives are often mixed, but a
“mere means” situation may involve the
following characteristics:
• deception about true motives
• profiting at another person’s expense
• undermining a person’s chance to make an
informed choice [tied to deception]
• violating certain other maxims we have
A Brief Summary
• The moral law is commanded by reason.
• What makes an action morally right is
that you have a moral maxim that you
can universalize.
• It is also wrong to treat people as “mere
means”
• Kant focuses on universality and
impartiality
• And these are conditions that are
necessary for people to be treated
“freely & equally” -- i.e. with RESPECT
Kant: Pro & Con
Pro:
• It is admirable to act from duty
• Morality should be evenhanded
• The Importance of respect for other
persons
Con:
• Maintains the split between duty and
inclination
• Ignores the role of the emotions in
morality
• Ignores the place for consequences in
morality
What ways are available to resolve moral
problems?
1. Evaluate the consequences of the
alternatives. [UTILITARIANISM]
2. Believe that the right action will flow from
our having formed good moral habits
[ARISTOTLE]
3. Act from the correct motive [KANT]
• MOTIVES: can be based in feeling or
reason
• Kant believes that REASON makes more
stable, universal &impartial decisions
possible
KANT Summary
• We are to act on the basis of duty [what
reason commands]
• It is the good will that reason creates that
enables us to do this.
• Our reverence for the moral law will help us
find what our duty is.
• Instead of looking at consequences use the
following principles.
• Can you universalize your moral maxim?
• Are you using a person as a “mere means”?
Ask yourself …
What do Kant’s 2 principles ensure about
the decision we make ? That it is -• STABLE [reason not emotion; also not
consequences]
• UNIVERSAL [everyone could use your
maxim]
• IMPARTIAL [reason & universalizability]
• OBJECTIVE [reason & no emotion]