Kantean Ethics

Seite 1

- moral value is not judged by the consequences of the act but by the act itself - deontological approach

- objective moral law and knowledge of this law can be gained through reason (enlightenment period)

- ideas are based on the idea of good will which is the highest form of good

- when we act with good will then we act with the intention of being moral

- Kant saw morality as an end in itself

- he saw reason as the guiding force behind duty and morality itself

Duty

- deontological approach (moral value is judged by the act itself not the consequences - concerned with duties)

- identifies morality as duty

- it is each persons responsibility to act through duty

- it is a universal obligation and conveys willing obedience to universal maxims and the laws derived from these

- acting out of a desire to be moral

- only our duty to do things we ought if we can actually do them

- the will id free and independent which makes morality meaningful

- you have to be free to make a genuine moral choice

Rules to determine whether an act is moral i.e. what formulates the categorical imperative

1. Universal law - can it still be good if it is applied to everyone e.g. suicide would it be a good idea for healthy people bullied into a state of despair to commit suicide

2. Treat human beings as ends not as means to an end e.g. a dam would be morally wrong

3. Act on the assumption that all will act in the same way - the universal kingdom of ends (all members of a society desire the same good)

Categorical Imperative - intrinsic authority as they are absolute maxims

- the categorical imperative (the idea that an action is intrinsically right irrespective of context or consequence) or the idea that human beings are duty-bound to do whatever the circumstances, it is a command that must be obeyed

Hypothetical Imperative

- unlike the categorical imperative as it doesn't possess this binding force on people irrespective of their interests

- the hypothetical imperative something humans beings ought to do , to achieve a certain end, it depends on circumstances and desires

- it is conditional on the practicality of the aim e.g. if the agent does not want the aim as it is not feasible then it is not morally binding, hypothetical imperatives cannot be universalised either such as the cancelling of huge debts in order to help poor countries like Africa

Social, cultural and political Background

- Kant's way of thought was inspired by the enlightenment period in the 16th century which elevates reason above authority (i.e. God's authority

Strengths

- clarity - it is simple to follow, you know it's an absolute - "Everyone who is ideally rational will legislate the same universal principle" Pojman

- it emphasises the importance of each person, everyone is equally valued in their own right therefore consistent

- it is applied universally and is therefore impartial. If a certain act is right, then it is right in all circumstances therefore demonstrates rigidity, such as lying it cannot be adopted universally as it would be self-defeating

- it treats people as ends rather than means to an end therefore it is against exploitation of people - such as justice towards an individual is safeguarded by the universal and impartial character of the categorical imperative

- His theory prevents individuals from assuming that what is morally good for them is what brings them pleasure or benefit but instead thinking what will be good for everyone

- speceist - differentiated from animals by our reason and it is our reason that gives us dignity therefore animals can't be given the same dignity or rights

- the categorical imperative can guide human ethical action irrespective of context

Weaknesses

- It does not accept exceptions and so is not flexible enough - what happens if two duties conflict e.g. such as a situation where you are with your child and you see someone being attacked do you confront the attacker? or stand away to protect your child and yourself?

- eradicates bias towards family or friends which can affect decision making therefore no place for love and personal relationships

- Kant believes that all humans have genuine free-will but at the same time he argues that we are all bound and obligated to obey universal moral law

- we do not all have the same temperaments or desires and that consequently we do not all find same situations intolerable e.g. thieves might well prefer stealing to be universalised

- obligation is superior to other motives like love and compassion

- he would argue that Jesus' actions were morally wrong as he used himself as a means to an end through bringing about his own suffering and death so that humanity's sins could be freed - believers would disagree with this interpretation as Kant only sees the very negative side we should be eternally grateful to Jesus and furthermore his death was part of God's plan therefore Kant denounces God for acting morally wrong therefore what we might have seen as the most intrinsic moral action from Jesus Kant would argue was immoral

Modern scholars

W D Ross

- he argues that duties shouldn't be taken as absolute but as duties which allow exceptions

- refers to these duties as 'prima facie' which are instinctive/obvious and intuit however it is not always obvious what to do about it and how to achieve it

- but these duties can be overridden by a more compelling duty

- e.g. never take a human life is an underlying duty that must be obeyed however if it is outweighed by a more compelling obligation such as never take a human life except in self defence

- such obligations only arise in the situation in which you find yourself where we can make our own judgements

- prima facie duties include promise keeping, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, non-malefience

Strengths

- it is more flexible and allows more room for subjective interpretation of what duties are important i different situations

- it allows partial treatment of friends and family therefore is more realistic and accessible as it permits emotional attachment

Weaknesses

- when there are conflicting duties he doesn't have a solution but sates its your own judgement

- it leaves what is one's duty open to subjective interpretation rather than recognising there are objective rights in certain situations

- can't be universally applied like Kant's and so it is not a straight forward or easy to follow. No set rules like the categorical imperative

Thomas Nagel

- distinguishes between agent-relative and agent-neutral reasons for moral action

Set text

- only beings capable of rational thought have the ability to understand these laws and act with this understanding in mind

- will is simply reason engaged practically in the world]

- Kant argues that reason is not the only thing guiding will but also subjective conditions of our current state affairs