Kant - Section I | Flashcards

Question	Answer
Content of Ethics: You should understand: - The formula of the universal law and the formula of humanity formulations of the categorical imperative - the claim that they are equivalent. - understand how the CI 'test' works (various notions of contradiction) - objections to it (false positives, false negatives) - responses to this	Things to think about: - does the categorical imperative, in either of its formulations, provide adequate ethical guidance? - are the formulations really equivalent as Kant seemed to think?
The Normativity of Ethics You should understand: - Kant's claim that we are bound by the categorical imperative because it is our law que practically rational agents - that the categorical imperative is the law of free (autonomous) agents - noumenal/phenomenal distinction - Kant's reasons for thinking that we are entitled to think of ourselves as free.	Things to think about: - does Kant give us good reasons to think that we are free and hence subject to the categorical imperative?
Normativity The moral law is our law qua practically rational beings.	Content Practical rationalist has determinate content; allows for options and constraints.
In the Groundwork, Kant can be thought of as attempting to provide a unified account of the content and normativity of ethics by appeal to practical reason.	Kant is not concerned with listing particular duties; it is not a work in applied ethics. Kant thinks that Common Sense Morality is basically correct; he is seeking to establish the foundation of its correctness (content) and bindingness (normativity).
Section 1 of the Groundwork - Main Points Commences with: the search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality. Inter Alia - Kants sets out his view that ethics is an a priori discipline; an ethical investigation is to proceed independently of sensory experience.	Kant's reasons for rejecting a posteriori investigation: - can only tell us what is the case and not what ought to be the case. - cannot result in universal or necessary truths.
Kant analyses the everyday concept of the Good Will and the associated concept of Duty hence laying out what he takes to be implicit in our everyday ethical thought.	Result: Kant takes himself to show that the principle upon which the Good Will acts is the Categorical Imperative; (he does not take himself to have established its existence.)
Section I: 'It is impossible to think of anything in the world or beyond it that could be considered good without limitation except a good will.' This is intrinsic, necessary and non-instrumental.	In order to argue for this, Kant considers two candidates for things which are good without limitation...
1) Talents of Mind/Qualities of Character: Here Kant is arguing against Aristotelian view that the ultimate good is the exercise of the virtues (intelligence, courage). These are undoubtedly good and desirable for many purposes, but they can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will which is to make us of them is not good.	2) Gifts of Fortune: Wealth, position, happiness etc all lack special and unique value of the Good Will for much the same reasons; they can be put to evil purposes. Kant believes having a Good Will is a precondition for meriting happiness.
Given these, we may be forgiven for thinking that the value of the Good Will resides in its always being put to good use; it is unfailingly bringing good consequences. This however is NOT Kant's view.	A good will is not because of what it effects or accomplishes but only because of its volition. Even if the Good Will failed to carry out its purposes due to some misfortune, this would not detract from its value.
Its value does not reside in whether it brings about good results. Its value resides in its motivation.	It acts from the motive of duty; it acts on the basis of moral reaons as opposed to self-interested ones.
Duty There is a conceptual link between the concept of the Good Will and the concept of Acting from Duty. Kant attempts to uncover what principle underlies actions performed from the motive of duty. Thus he takes himself to be giving a first statement of the Supreme Principle of Morality.	Only actions performed from the motive of duty have moral worth. Thus these actions have a special moral value. To understand what acting from duty looks like, Kant considers alternative kinds of action which are in accordance with duty but not performed from the motive of it. They lack moral worth; (shopkeeper).
Friend of Humanity People that are so sympathetically attuned that without any other motive of vanity/self-interest they find an inner satisfaction in spreading joy. These have no true moral worth. Vs.	Philanthropist; this person would help others out of his own grief without any inclination, but simply from duty. Therefore they have genuine moral worth.
Only with actions performed from the motive of duty are agents acting out of a commitment to morality.They are acting because they ought to. This is the Supreme Principle of Morality at work.	Unlike dutiful action on the basis of inclination, a dutiful action performed from the motive of duty will be non-accidentally right.
A Common Misinterpretation Some have inferred from the examples that Kant thinks we should be trying to cultivate a character such that we do not want to do what we ought to do - this is not Kant's position.	Kant claims there is more to the benevolence case; an action from duty has its moral worth not in the purpose to be attained by it but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon.
Individuals may have the same purpose of helping others but their maxims can however be different. To understand this, we need to understand Kant's theory of motivation.	Kant thinks that we are subject to competing incentives which suggest (but not necessitate) causes of action. If I act upon a particular incentive, I make it my maxim to act upon this.
As rational beings Kant believes that we act upon reasons. This involves acting in accordance with principles. Maxims are subjective principles of volition.	Incentive: desire to help others. Maxim: 'I will help others for its own sake.'
Different sorts of maxims First order: I will perform action A in order to attain end E. Higher-Order: I will only act upon maxims that further my self-interest (could guide selection of first order maxims). When we act we do so in according with high-order maxims.	Kant thinks that the moral worth of an action from duty depends upon the maxim (subjective principle of volition) in accordance with which the agent acts.
Respect for Law Duty is the necessity of an action from respect for law. The respect for law equals a moral incentive. The individual who acts from duty, the second 'friend of man' acts because they conceive of their first-order maxim as a requirement; they conceive it as a law.	Hence, the higher-order maxim of the Good Will is: I will act only on maxims that can be conceived of as universal law(s).
Kant claims that the Good Will acts in accordance with this principle on the basis of respect for the law. The Law is the Objective Law of Practical Reason.	I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law - the maxim. The law = objective command of Practical Reason. Pure Respect = moral incentive
Main Points of Section 1 (Everyday ideas) - The value of GW lies in its volition - The GW acts from Duty - Only acts performed from duty have moral worth. - The moral worth of actions performed from duty resides in the maxim from which it is performed.	- Acting from duty involves respect for the law. - The maxim of the GW = I will only act on the maxims that can be willed as universal laws. - The Law = I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.
The Categorical Imperative apparently tells us why 'we should not make a lying promise' is a good moral rule. Upon the universal law of this maxim there would be no promises at all. It would destroy itself.	What Kant says in Section 1 he believes implicit in everyday thinking about the GW. The Categorical Imperative is congruent with various pieces of common sense morality such as that you should keep promises.

Next up

Kant - Section I

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Karina De-Bourne almost 10 years ago