Mind Map by annamiddleton, updated more than 1 year ago
Created by annamiddleton over 9 years ago

Resource summary

  1. Certain actions are wrong and right in themselves (regardless of consequences). Rule based and absolutist. Rules: Deontological constraints. Moral laws apply universally, in all situations and are binding on all moral agents.
    1. Hypothetical imperative: Tells us how to achieve a particular end/result - what to do to fulfill our wishes. Categorical imperative: an end in itself; we ought to act a certain way regardless of our wishes. Moral commands are categorical imperatives as they are an expression of our absolute and unconditional duty to behave always in a certain way. If moral rules were hypothetical they might not lead to universality; 'be kind to people if you want to make friends' only applies if you want to make friends.
      1. Categorical imperative can be established a priori through human reason. Unconditionally binding for all moral agents. 1) Principle of Universalisability 'act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law'. 2) The formula of the End in Itself 'act always that you trat humanity, whether your own person or that of another, never as a means only but always as an end'. 3) The formula for Kingdom of Ends; every action should be undertaken as if the individual agent were 'a law making member of a kingdom of ends;.
        1. Cannot simply conform to categorical imperative; right action must have the correct motivation. Moral actions are performed out of a sense of duty. So the Moral status of actions ought to be judged solely in terms of their nature and their motivation, rather than consequences. They are in the future, we can't control the future, so we are only responsible for what we do.
        2. 1) TWO CENTRAL IDEAS WITHIN DEONTOLOGY SEEM PLAUSIBLE. Moral commands = universally binding captures absolute nature that many believe morality to have; we should respect what is good and right, and prevents morality from being abused. Categorical imperative - everyone is equally valuable.
          1. 2) AH BUT WAIT WHAT IS THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNIVERSALISABILITY AND MORALITY? Lots of maxims can be universalised that are not duties. Never hold a fork in your left hand is universalisable but not a moral duty. How do we decide which universalised mazims are moral duties and which are not? On what basis?
            1. 3) MOTIVES VS CONSEQUENCES. The consequences of our actions are out of our control, and it seems wrong to morally condemn someone who did the right thing, even if it leads to a decrease in happiness. Focusing on an action itself and the motivations seems to be the most reliable way of making an informed judgement.
              1. 4) CONFLICTS OF DUTY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSEQUENCES. Kant says no duties clash, but what if a fat chick asks you if she looks hot in a bodycon dress? Honesty vs Kindness here. No way of getting out of 'moral dilemmas'/ & To ignore the consequences of one's actions can be rash, inconsiderate, and occasionally immoral. The consequences of our actions are at least relevant, morally speaking, even if they are not the sole criteria.
                1. 5) SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF JUSTICE. The second formulation of the categorical imperative does ensure that each individual's rights are respected. Humans (as rational agents) have intrinsic worth and so cannot be treated as a means to an end. This seems to solve the problem of justice faced by utilitarianism.
                  1. 6) DEONTOLOGY COULD MAKE THE WORLD A WORSE PLACE. Sticking to moral rules with no flexibility seems excessive; Kant's own example of an axe murderer at your door - surely telling the truth isn't morally right? Kant would say tell the truth, because lying cannot be universalised and you can't be certain of the outcome. To lie would be to compromise your moral integrity.
                    1. 7) THE INTEGRITY OF THE MORAL AGENT. Kant's theory is based on avoiding morally bad actions. An agent's integrity is preserved if they are not forced to do something morally wrong (lie in the case of the axe murderer). Jim & the Indians - agent's integrity is preserved because they are not forced to kill (which is morally wrong). Deontology's strength is that it does not force agents to perform actions that seem to be wrong just because the circumstances might make this a desirable action for some other reason, and it therefore protects the integrity of the individual.
                      1. 8) ACTS AND OMISSIONS: Are we not responsible for what we do not do as well as what we do? Is there really a morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die? Then in the axe murderer scenario, the integrity of the moral agent is not preserved by telling the truth but rather damaged by failing to protect an innocent person. This only accepts if we accept the moral relevancy of consequences, but this intuition is in fact a plausible one.
                        1. 9) INCLINATIONS AND DUTIES. Kant makes a sharp distinction between inclination and duty. Inclinations are subjective, so undesirable that our feelings etc. are allowed to guide our moral judgments. Kant provides a rational, universally binding basis for moral action. Kant is right that right and wrong should be dictated by reason, and once this has been deduced, we should follow the moral law because this is our moral duty, and for no other reason.
                          1. 10) PROBLEM OF MOTIVATION. Kant believes that human beings are capable of being motivated purely on the basis of reason. However, Hume suggests the only thing that can possibly motivate us to act is feelings and desires; our sentiments. A plausible moral theory would take this into considerations. The impersonality of Deontology makes it incapable of providing any meaningful guidance. If emotions are irrelevant, then so are emotions that have moral dimensions (guilt/compassion). If an action is motivated by compassion than this counts in favour of the action being morally good. Kant would disagree; only duty is a respectable and truly moral motivator. Giving to charity out of compassion is not truly moral because it's an emotion, and not duty. Although the motivation of actions does seem morally significant, it seems that Kant's inflexibility about what motications can be moral is a limitation of this theory.
          Show full summary Hide full summary


          Environmental Ethics
          Jason Edwards-Suarez
          Breakdown of Philosophy
          Who did what now?...Ancient Greek edition
          Chris Clark
          Reason and Experience Plans
          The Cosmological Argument
          Summer Pearce
          AS Philosophy Exam Questions
          Summer Pearce
          Philosophy of Art
          "The knower's perspective is essential in the pursuit of knowledge." To what extent do you agree?
          Religious Experience
          The Ontological Argument
          Chapter 6: Freedom vs. Determinism Practice Quiz
          Kristen Gardner