Transcript Kant

Objectives: SWBAT



Identify Immanuel Kant
Analyze Kantian Rationality
Identify and discuss the Categorical Imperative
DEONTOLOGY
8.7 forensics April 29, 2014

The trolley problem
 Problem
one: Three people are tied to one end of the
track, one person on another junction.
 You can pull a lever and decide whether three or one
person dies, you have to choose – who dies?

Problem 2
You are standing on a bridge and three people are on the
tracks below about to be hit by a runaway trolley. You are
standing there with a large man, you could push him off the
bridge and stop the train, sacrificing him for the three
 What do you do?

Kantian Deontology

Deontology vs Teleology
 Teleological
 Morally
theories are goal oriented
right acts are things that bring about goodness
 Egoism
 Utilitarianism
 Deontological
 Rightness
theories are NOT goal oriented
and wrongness of an act aren’t determined by the
result but by their features
Deontology
6


The theory of duty or moral obligation.
Duty:
 Role-related
duty
 General duty

Obligation:
 Requirement
set on a person because of his/her identity.
Basic Kantian themes
7
1.
Personal autonomy:

2.
Respect:

3.
The moral person is a rational self-leglislator.
Persons should always be treated as an end, not a
means. ‘No persons should be used.’
Duty:

the moral action is one that we must do in accordance
with a certain principle, not because of its good
consequence.
Immanuel Kant




1724-1804
German Enlightenment
Critique of Pure Reason
Poses the question: what is the
fundamental source of morality?
 What
is it about people’s actions
that make the susceptible to
evaluation as right/ wrong?
Kant’s philosophy:

What can I know?


What ought I do?


Critique of Pure Reason
(1781)
Groundwork for the
Metaphysic of Morals
(1785); Critique of
Practical Reason (1788)
What can I hope for?

Critique of Judgment
(1790); Religion within the
Limits of Reason Alone
(1793)
Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)
9
Kant’s Rationalism

The following are not classified as right or wrong:
 Actions
of plants and inanimate objects
 Actions performed by animals out of instinct
 Actions performed by humans involuntarily

Kant’s conclusion:
 The
source of morality is:
 The
ability for humans to make RATIONAL DECISIONS
 Free will
Phenomena and Noumena
11

Phenomena:
 things
as they appear to us; empirical and therefore
changeable.

Noumena:
 things-in-themselves,
which can’t be known by the use of
senses.

Kant argues that if there is such a thing as moral
reality, it must be founded on the noumena, and this
is because…
The moral law is in its character
absolute, and it can allow no exception.
And empirical knowledge simply cannot
establish such a law.
12
The moral worth
13

On Kant’s view, the moral worth of an action is not
determined by its consequences because:
1. It is possible that someone does something out of evil
intention, but ends up bringing good consequences to
society.
2. It is also possible that someone does something out of good
intention, but ends up bringing about bad consequences.
3. The consequences of an action are not under our control.
4. We can only control our motives when acting as a moral
person.
5. Therefore the moral worth of an action is given by our good
will.
DEONTOLOGY
8.7 forensics April 30, 2014
Kant’s Rationalism

Morality applies to all rational beings, so its source
can not solely be pleasure or desire
 Morality
would apply to non-emotional beings the
same as it would emotional beings

Nothing but rationality can dictate what the rules of
morality are
Kant on goodness



Moral and Ethical goodness differ from other types
of goodness
Other types of goodness are dependent on needs
or desires: moral goodness is not
The only thing that is morally good is GOOD WILL.
17

The right motive can be a motive out of either:
 self-interest,
 sympathy
(natural inclination), or
 a sense of duty (the voice of conscience).

Only the final motive will count on Kant’s view.
Hypothetical Vs categorical
imperatives
18

Hypothetical imperative:
 What
I ought to do if some conditions hold.
 E.g., Maxim: I ought to attend the lecture if I want to
pass my examination.

Categorical imperative:
 What
I ought to do unconditionally.
 E.g., Maxim: I ought not to murder no matter what goal
I have.
Kant on Goodness

He believes that an act has NO moral value unless it
is done for the sake of morality alone……
One merchant doesn’t cheat his customers because it is
the right thing to do.
 Another merchant doesn’t cheat his customers because it
would hurt his business in the long run.
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MORALITY OF
THE TWO MERCHANTS?

Kant’s Maxims

Capacity for rational choice is the cornerstone of
morality
 Making
a rational choice involves:
 Having
awareness of the situation you are in
 Deliberating about your possible choices
 Selecting one of those choices as the right one
 Self-governance
 These
rules are called Maxims
The categorical imperative


Act only according to that maxim whereby you can,
at the same time, will it should become a universal law
Explained
 Every
voluntary action or deliberate act creates a
maxim
 To determine whether or not an act is right, we must
consider what would happen if EVERYONE ALWAYS
acted on that maxim
One Kant’s view, all moral imperatives are
categorical imperatives.
They are universally valid and have equal
forces to EQUALLY FREE and
RATIONAL AGENTS.
23
Case Study: Tennessee




Is the intent of the bill moral in your mind?
What are the negative consequences according to
the bill’s detractors?
What are other negative consequences that you
think may arise?
If this law became a CATEGORICAL IMPARATIVE, is
that a world that would function well?
Hypothetical Vs categorical
imperatives
25

Hypothetical imperative:
 What
I ought to do if some conditions hold.
 E.g., Maxim: I ought to attend the lecture if I want to
pass my examination.

Categorical imperative:
 What
I ought to do unconditionally.
 E.g., Maxim: I ought not to murder no matter what goal
I have.
Two formulations of the categorical
imperative
26
1.
2.
Act only on that maxim that you can will as a
universal law.
Always treat humanity, whether your own person
or that of another, never simply as a means but
always at the same time as an end.
One Kant’s view, all moral imperatives are
categorical imperatives.
They are universally valid and have equal
forces to EQUALLY FREE and
RATIONAL AGENTS.
27
An example: why lying is wrong
28


If we use consequences as the basis of moral
worth, sometimes lying is right because it makes
a lot of people happy.
But the maxim that supports lying cannot pass
the ‘universality test’ and the ‘humanity test’.
Lying is wrong because:
29
1.
2.
If everybody lies, then words lose its function to
express truth. The principle of lying therefore
cannot be universalized.
Lying can be successful only if we use other
people’s ignorance. But in this case we are
treating them only as a means to our ends.
Freedom and the kingdom of ends
30



Given that all rational beings are equal, a kingdom comprising
those beings must not favour any party or treat the other as
inferior.
It follows that in the kingdom of ends everybody should be
equally free and should not be a means to other people’s end.
The law thus set up is a contract between free and rational
agents.
Morality is thus a matter of social
contract made between free and
rational agents.
31
Motivational problems
32

Why should I obey to the moral law?
 Answer:
Because I want to be a wholly free
(autonomous) person who acts on the principle that I
find most reasonable.

Why should I respect other persons?
 Answer:
equal.
This is simply because rational persons are
Freedom or equality?
33

Is autonomy or equality the fundamental value in
ethics? What if they conflict each other?
 Answer:
In principle they do not conflict each other,
because both are built up in the idea of reason.
 But in practice…?
Conflicts of duties
34


If duty A conflicts with duty B, how can they be
universalized?
Example:
I
have a universal duty not to kill the Fat man.
 I also have a universal duty to save the five workers.
 What should I do?
Non-rational beings
35


The moral law is set up by rational agents who mutually
respect each other. Non-rational beings such as animals are
not protected by that law because they don’t have this sense of
responsibility.
If we have a duty not to be cruel to animals, it cannot be for
their sake, but for the reason that we will hurt our own
rationality in doing so (that we will develop a bad personality
in this practice).
Some questions to consider
36

If I am a Kantian, should I support:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Participatory democracy?
Representative (market) democracy?
Capitalism?
Revolutionary Marxism?
Confucian ethics?
Anarchism?