Kantian ethics

-maxims: fixed rules that must always apply-summum bonum: where to do good brings happiness for all, meaning we must think of what our actions mean for others

principle of autonomy, rejects heteronomy that simply accepts the rules laid down by others, as all morality must stem from personal reason

to will the good, to do what must be done and to reject morality on the basis of outcomes as they are this is not to be forced into certain actions but to prioritise one's duty through free will

only the good will is truly good:- all supposedly good things such as intelligence may be used for evil thus are not inherently good, good will is the only good thing in itselfthis is why morality should rely on good will and duty alone, not the rules of anyone else as they none else is inherently good

The hypothetical imperative- as people have different goals in life eg careers, different steps and decisions are required.'if....then...'only once the 'If' is established can the imperative be established-morality is different however, one must always strive to be good

The principle of Universalisation-the first form-that we should only act in a way that we should always follow as a law of conduct and in a way that others should follow-the (narrow set of) examples of actions that are thus immoral: deception, theft, suicide, laziness, charity, cruelty to animals

Formula of the end in itself-the second form -all people should always be treated as ends never as a means to an end-eg the businessman who uses employees only as a means to amass profits and wealth, paying them as little as possible and using them only as tools of labour, vs the business that works as a means to employ people also for their sake, to earn a living wage etc and to generate a greater good in society and the economy

'The kingdom of ends'- the third form, a reminder of the previous two-forbids the assumption that others will only act selfishly and the moralities that abide by this assumption (such as egoism)

immortality is required for the ultimate justice for those who do good but are not rewarded in life and to allow for endless improvement

kant seeks to not begin w/ religion but nevertheless implies God humans are inherently rational creatures and to give ultimate divine justice for hose who inevitably suffer doing the right thing

-Alasdair Macintyre argues the principle of universability is problematic bc it can be used to justify anything by making it so specific it may apply to anything and never occur again- what about things we do that shouldn't be required of other ppl, such as marriage, or putting one's shoes on a certain way-not all actions can be universalised or absolutely good (Aquinas) eg paying debt to a country that attacks your own, an action which should be good but ultimately brings about harm

issue w/ it being deontological:-cannot ignore the consequences of our actions in name of moral duty, eg if a serial killer arrives asking for the location of your friend. on the one hand, you never lie bc it is not universable, but telling the truth directly jeopardises their life

Should one only be doing the right thing out of duty in cold dogmatism as giving with pleasure would not be truly virtuous, which ignores the human nature to do good out of sympathy or generosity eg christian teaching 'God loveth a cheerful giver'Aristotle argues in his virtue ethics that it is essential to do the right thing with the right attitude and intent ie with love

presupposes the universe is a rational entity in which good will ultimately be rewardedvshould this undermine the theory in that it is still ultimately a sacrifice of oneself for the summum bonum as this notion of divine justice may not be required but used to justify and encourage that which the theory dictates

Cited and supported by many other ethical practices such as temple and fletcher's situation ethics

Resource summary

	Created by d b almost 7 years ago