Kant s Moral Theory. Chapter 5 ETCI page Ethics & Contemporary Issues Professor Douglas Olena

Transcription

1 Kant s Moral Theory Chapter 5 ETCI page Ethics & Contemporary Issues Professor Douglas Olena

2 A Brief Narrative of Kantian Moral Thought

3 Narrative of Kantian Moral Thought The only thing good without qualification is a good will. We define the good will as that in a person which does good, not by inclination or habit, but out of a sense of duty. Duty arises out of our recognition of the moral law as discovered in the natural law which we discover by reason. We perform duty not for the ensuing consequences but because it is the right thing to do. We discover what our duty is by means of the Categorical Imperative.

4 Narrative of Kantian Moral Thought The Categorical Imperative is a method of universalizing our prospective action to the entire human race. Secondly we must recognize that the Categorical Imperative is only one kind of imperative and it is based on the discovery by reason of the natural moral law. Hypothetical Imperatives should be seen as goal based rules leading to happiness.

5 Narrative of Kantian Moral Thought A second statement of the Categorical Imperative requires that we treat other people and ourselves as autonomous rational beings. Using the CI we make rules for ourselves to live by, making us citizens in a literal Commonwealth of Ends. We are both legislators and subject to our legislation. It is a community where these rules emerge as methods of interacting with each other in respect toward the independence and rationality of its members.

6 A Synopsis of Ideas From the Readings

7 What Gives an Act Moral Worth? 67 It is not the consequences of an act that give it moral worth. The consequences of our acts are not always in our control and things do not always turn out as we want. 67, 68 People have intrinsic value not just instrumental value.

8 What Is the Right Motive? 68 Kant believed that an act had moral worth only if the person performing it had a good will. He believed there was a right and a wrong thing to do, whether or not we knew or agreed about it. This was the moral law. Doing the right thing for the wrong motive had no moral worth.

9 What Is the Right Thing to Do? We must not only act out of the right motive but we must do the right thing. Motive Act Consequences Both the motive and the act are morally relevant.

10 What Is the Right Thing to Do? 69 Kant recognizes two kinds of obligations, what he calls imperatives. The first or hypothetical imperative is an obligation we have that leads to happiness, it is of instrumental value. These are avoidable or contingent. ex. The imperatives are dependent on what I want or my desires, like learning to ride a bicycle, or gaining power, or being punctual. If I want Y I have to do X

11 What Is the Right Thing to Do? 69 Kant recognizes two kinds of obligations, what he calls imperatives. The second or categorical imperative however, is an end in and of itself. An imperative of this kind makes a demand on me and is a moral obligation. I ought to do these whether or not I want to. They are unconditional or necessary.

12 What Is the Right Thing to Do? 69 Hypothetical oughts relate to goals we have as individuals, therefore relating to happiness, while Moral oughts stem from the ways in which we are alike as persons, for only persons are subject to morality. Moral oughts are categorical because they are unconditional and universally binding.

13 Categorical Imperative The categorical imperative is Kant s test for right or wrong. It can be formulated in a number of ways, more or less specific. The first most general formulation is this: Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law.

14 Categorical Imperative The first form requires universalizing one s contemplated action. Its scope is not limited to persons or society but also encompasses our relationship to our environment in any conceivable fashion. However, even the farthest reaching application of this formulation will affect humanity.

15 Categorical Imperative 70, 71 The second formulation is specific to our behavior toward ourselves and the rest of humanity as well as individual humans. Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.

16 Categorical Imperative 71 This formulation specifies two principles about persons that the first form does not. 1. Persons are autonomous. 2. Persons have intrinsic value or worth.

17 Different Formulations There are some interesting problems with Kant s theory that could be resolved by playing off the different formulations against each other.

18 Applying the Categorical Imperative 72 What determines the morality of an action is not whether its practice has good or bad consequences, but whether there would be anything contradictory in willing the practice as a universal law.

19 Duty 73 Duty can be described as the obligation to do whatever the categorical imperative has arrived at as an obligation. Kant s formulation of obligations often leads to the charge that he is an absolutist, not an objectivist. He often favors such rules as formulated by the Categorical Imperative, such as It is always wrong to make a lying promise. This is extended easily to Never Lie.

20 Duty: Problems With Absolutes 73 This leaves us in a quandary in come cases. The example of the murderer at the door is one such case. Kant wants us to tell the murder the truth about our friend who has sought refuge in our house. He suggests that once we have done that, we have fulfilled our obligation to the moral law.

21 Duty: Problems With Absolutes The example of the murderer at the door He suggests that even if we lie and say our friend is not here, that our friend may have left by the back door, making our statement true after a fashion. If the murderer then catches our friend because he left having believed us, we may be accused of leading the murderer to our friend and so be culpable as an accessory to the crime.

22 Duty: Problems With Absolutes The example of the murderer at the door However, if our friend didn t leave and we tell the truth to the murderer who subsequently finds our friend and kills him, Kant says we are not culpable because we fulfilled our duty.

23 Christine Korsgaard Christine Korsgaard offers a solution to this dilemma. The resolution to Kant s treatment of this dilemma lies between the first and second formulation of the CI. The supposed prohibition to lie to the murder rests with the second formulation of the CI where we are not permitted to treat the murderer as merely a means to an end. However, could we universalize a rule about lying to murderers on the basis of the first formulation of the CI?

24 Moral Equality and Impartiality 73 Kant s theory emphasizes the moral equality of all persons. Moral obligation and morality itself flow from our nature as persons as rational and autonomous. Another feature of Kant s moral philosophy is its spirit of impartiality.

25 Not All Duties Are the Same 74 Because of the nature and complexity of human nature, not all obligations are the same. According to Kant we have duties of two kinds. Perfect duties Imperfect duties

26 Not All Duties Are the Same 74 The perfect duties correspond to clear cases of moral obligation, like our duty to preserve life or our duty not to make a lying promise. Imperfect duties correspond to cases of moral obligation that are tempered by circumstance and respect for our own autonomy, like our duty to improve ourselves and a duty of beneficence.

27 Not All Duties Are the Same Perfect Duties are absolute obligations. Since we can never treat persons or our selves as means only, we are not permitted to kill ourselves. Since we can never universalize a maxim of a lying promise, yet can universalize a maxim of being truthful, we are obligated to tell the truth whatever the cost.

28 Not All Duties Are the Same Imperfect Duties are contingent obligations. Since the world would be better for us and others if we would make the best possible improvement in ourselves, we are obligated to do so. However if we are unable or unwilling because of circumstances we can not be held responsible. Since we are not obligated to help others in every case we will not be held responsible for not doing so. However, in our world, improvement of the species as a whole and each society can be had by these methods, so we should help each other.