A lot of cases of experimenting on people without their consent
Stanford experiment, 1950s, done with volunteers--teachers who would administer electric shocks to learners when they gave the wrong answer.
Were instructed to increase the strength of the shock.
Supporters of this experiment argued that it was justifiable because their subjects had not been coerced but had volunteered.
Also: useful information was gained
Critics: volunteers not informed, they had not, strictly speaking, consented to the experiment.
[Question: Would this experiment be justified on UTILITARIAN GROUNDS?]
Nuremberg Code: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
Implied here: belief that persons are AUTONOMOUS and this AUTONOMY ought to be respected and protected even if this means that we cannot do certain types of research and cannot thereby find out valuable information.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: IMMANUEL KANT
Kant was born on April 22, 1724, in Konigsberg, Germany (now Kaliningrad, Russia).
In 1755 he earned his doctorate at the university and became a lecturer to university students, living on the small fees his students paid him.
He turned down offers from schools that would have taken him elsewhere, and finally the University of Konigsberg offered him the position of professor of logic and metaphysics.
Kant never married and he never traveled farther than 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Konigsberg.
He divided his time among lectures, writing, and daily walks.
Kant's most famous work was the 'Critique of Pure Reason' (published in German in 1781). In it he tried to set up the difference between things of the outside world and actions of the mind
His question was: Do our ideas conform the world or does the world conform to our ideas?
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
In his 'Critique of Practical Reason' (1788) he argued for a stern morality. His basic idea was in the form of a Categorical Imperative.
This meant that humans should act so well that their conduct could give rise to a universal law.
Kant died in Konigsberg on Feb. 12, 1804. His last words were Es ist gut, is good.
Kant was seeking something akin to the Copernican Turn in astronomy:
Just as Copernicus argued that the earth is not the center of the universe, Kant argued that we should no longer think of the human knower perceiving uninterpreted external objects.
Kant often regarded as the greatest modern philosopher.
KANT'S ETHICS: deontological ethics. Emphasis on determining our moral duty, our moral obligations, regardless of the CONSEQUENCES
67 WHAT GIVES AN ACT MORAL WORTH?
The three main questions Kant believed philosophy should address are:
What can I know?
What is real?
What ought I do?
Last Question is the concern of this class.
What gives an act moral worth?
Remember: CONSEQUENTIALISM v. DEONTOLOGY
For Kant NOT CONSEQUENTIALISM
What if we try to do the right thing and it turns out badly?
Question: can you think of an example?
Kant: we shouldn't be blamed for what is not in our control.
Criticism of CONSEQUENTIALISM: how can we know what the CONSEQUENCES will be?
Kant: our MOTIVES are more under our control.
We are responsible for our MOTIVES: why we do a particular action.
What MOVES us to act!
For Kant: consequentialism has things backwards.
Purpose of human beings to produce happy states of affairs:
This is our USE VALUE
INSTRUMENTAL view of morality: Kant opposes this!
Kant: we rational beings||person are ends in ourselves.
WE have the highest intrinsic value.
68 WHAT IS THE RIGHT MOTIVE?
How do we get to the right motive?
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals
Nothing is good unconditionally except a purely good will.
Everything else needs a good will to make it good.
We should do what is right, simply because it is right.
We must act out of DUTY: out of RESPECT for the MORAL LAW
Key point: Kant is not a RELATIVIST:
Argues that there is absolute right and wrong.
Goal of his system: how to determine this!
68 The Honest Shopkeeper:
One of Kant's most noteworthy examples is the Honest Shopkeeper
Example of what motivates moral actions:
Shopkeeper has a policy of honesty, WHY?
Three possible motives:
1. Good business practice, everyone will know this shop is honest. That will help business
2. The shopkeeper likes her customers. She's friendly and naturally inclined to do good. Hence she's fair and honest
3. Shopkeeper is honest because it is morally right to be honest.
Breakdown for Kant:
1. Not moral: the shopkeeper is only acting out of interest, hoping to gain something.
If dishonesty built the business would the shopkeeper be dishonest?
2. Shopkeeper only following natural inclination. What if natural inclination lead her to cheat.
Problem with this as a GROUND for morality.
3. This person is the only one TRULY acting morally!
This action has MORAL WORTH
Problem for Kant:
We don't always KNOW what our motive is.
Is it self-interest, inclination, or pure respect for morality?
Often we have mixed motives.
Best case here is where: self-interest and inclination tell us one thing, the moral law tells us something else, and we follow the moral law.
Question: can you think of an example of this?
68, c2 WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
Kant: we must not only have the right motivation, we must also do the right thing.
Diagram: 68 c2
Kant: morality not a function of producing good consequences!
If our action gets good results but we do it for the wrong motive, the act has no moral worth.
MORAL WORTH: Good Motive + Good Act
We must act both "out of duty" and "according to duty"
Question: how do we know our MORAL DUTY?
Kantian Distinction:
HYPOTHETICAL v. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES.
Imperative: the form of a statement that tells us to do something
Form of a COMMAND
Question: What is a command? Give examples
{{Emphasize notion of FORM OF A COMMAND: do x!}}
Hypothetical v. Moral imperatives
Hypothetical statement: If, then statement
If it is wet, then it must be raining.
Hypothetical imperative:
If you want to get result X, then you must take action Y.
--you ought to do Y
If you want to stay dry, bring your raincoat or umbrella
If you want to keep your car running smooth, change your oil every 5,000 miles.
No moral obligation implied here.
These are CONTINGENT--dependant upon what I happen to want, or the desires I happen to have:
We might want to:
please others
hurt someone
be on time
or just keep our car running
These depend on my own individual goals or plans.
The actions are means, the goals are the ends.
Moral obligation follows the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.
Different kind of OUGHT--very demanding OUGHT
If there is something I morally ought to do, I ought to do it no matter what--whether or not I want to, and whether or not it fulfills my desires and goals or is approved by my society
Question: what does this mean? How does this differ from Mill?
These oughts are not CONTINGENT: meaning: not dependant on other circumstances
Rather: they are UNCONDITIONAL or NECESSARY
{explain the difference between contingent and necessary}
The hypothetical imperatives relate to goals we might have as individuals.
Moral imperatives relate to basic features about us as persons:
Persons are rational beings.
Only rational beings can act from a reason or from principals/
Kant seeks UNIVERSAL moral oughts, \
MORAL OUGHTS that apply to ALL PERSONS.
What is prudent v. what is morally right
Kant calls these oughts: CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
69, c2 THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
CATEGORICAL: dictionary definition: without qualification or reservation,
directly, explicitly
marked by a clear certain positive statement or effect without qualifying, reserving, temporizing or obscuring.
Question: does this sound like it would be part of an absolute morality?
Categorical Imperative: the form of a command that is without exception.
The CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE is Kant's basic moral principle.
Comparable to THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY for utilitarians.
The Categorical Imperative is Kant's TESTING PRINCIPLE--
WAY OF TESTING RIGHT AND WRONG.
Kant has different formulations: At least four of them.
We'll concentrate on the first two here:
the first and second forms of the Categorical Imperative.
THE FIRST FORM 69 c2
For Kant: moral obligation is categorical.
It is unconditional and applies to all persons as persons, rather than to persons as individuals.
It is a UNIVERSAL IMPERATIVE
Kantian theory: Morality is not a matter of producing good consequences. (happiness, pleasure, love, friendliness, or anything else)
Therefore: The moral principle will be formal, without content.
Question: what does this mean?
FIRST FORM: 69 c1
ACT ONLY ON THAT MAXIM WHICH YOU CAN WILL AS A UNIVERSAL LAW
Point here: we are required to do only what we can accept or will that everyone do.
Kant: we must think of ourselves as acting according to MAXIMS:
A maxim: an axiom: a general truth, fundamental principle or rule of conduct expressed in sentential form.
Could also be a saying of a proverbial nature.
The Maxim of our action must be something we can WILL as a universal law.
Kant's example: making a promise with the intention of breaking.
Maxim: it is okay to sometimes make promises you intend to break.
Could we make this into a UNIVERSAL LAW?
[Question: could we? Why not? What would happen to the CONCEPT of promising? Who would believe you when you made a promise?]
Kant's argument: as a rational being I can only will what is noncontradictory.
Can't have a thing be and not be [raining and not raining--LOGICAL CONTRADICTION!]
Making a promise with the intent to break it is a self-destructive practice {self-destructive to the practice}
Either a promise is made or it is not.
Could you say that it is morally permissible to experiment on people without their consent?
NO: involves lying
If lying were a universal rule, the CONCEPT of lying would DISAPPEAR (and the concept of telling the truth)
THE SECOND FORM 70 c1
Second form looks at the proper treatment of persons as persons.
For Kant: key characteristics of persons is their ability to set their own goals.
Persons are AUTONOMOUS: they are self-ruled, or capable of being self ruled.
As persons we choose our own life plans, what we want to be, our friends, etc.
We have our own reasons for doing this.
We make our own choices.
In this scheme of things: it is appropriate for us to use things for our ends, but not to use persons as though they were things that we could use purely as means to our own ends.
[Question: what does this mean? Can we use people as though they have no will of their own?]
SECOND FORM OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
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 71 c1
Question: how would this come down to cases? Could you still ask you friend to give you a ride to the airport?
1. tells us how we ought to treat others as well as others
2. it tells us to treat ourselves and others as ends rather than merely as means
We should treat persons as having INTRINSIC and not just INSTRUMENTAL value.
People are valuable in themselves.
Regardless of whether they are useful or loved or valued by others.
-->>How do the first and second forms relate?
Kant says that all the forms of the categorical imperative are identical.
The obligations generated by each should be the same
Making a false promise would violate
1: not universalizable
and 2: using a person, not treating them as an end.
EVALUATING KANT'S MORAL THEORY 71 c2
Question: how do evaluate Kant's theory so far?
A lot GOOD to be said about this theory.
It's fair, consistent, treats persons as autonomous and morally equal beings.
Also: it provides a good way of testing MORAL RULES
71 c2 MacKinnon suggests that fairness and consistency are also key elements of a particular tradition in morality.
She says that this tradition is quite different than the one utilitarianism belongs to.
Utilitarianism emphasizes the maximization of happiness and the production of good consequences.
This tradition emphasizes absolute fairness and impartiality, and adherence to a moral law that does not have its origin just in getting good results.
Look at some of the elements of Kant's moral thinking:
THE NATURE OF MORAL OBLIGATIONS 72 c1
Kant believes that moral obligation is real and strictly binding.
Kant says that this is how WE generally THINK of moral obligation.
MY POINTS:
A lot of what Kant's doing: taking our ordinary conception of morality and putting it on a FIRM THEORETICAL GROUND
Question how would THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE differ from the main parts of traditional Judeo-Christian morality?--i.e. The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule
Both of these are given DEONTOLOGICALLY!
Thou shalt not kill
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
MORAL COMMANDMENTS
Kant trying for a theoretical ground for these principles.
ONE AREA OF CONCERN:
Kant responding to problems with DIVINE COMMAND THEORY:
Moral Law comes DIRECTLY from DIVINE COMMAND
Problems here: 1. Is a moral law good because God commands it, or is does God command it because it is good?
2. How do we know the word of God: Scripture: the Bible, Koran, etc.
a) not accepted by everyone that scripture is of a truly divine origin
b) not universally accepted that Holy Scripture is to be taken as literally true
c) problems of interpretation:
I)-if the Sacred Writings say two different things, which takes priority (e.g. Christian: Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics all interpret certain Biblical passages differently--one basis of having these different religious denominations. What are the principles by which the interpretations are made.
ii) Do even the clear commands admit to exceptions? Though shalt not kill. Turn the other cheek. Is fighting in a war therefore immoral? Some have claimed yes, Some, like Thomas Aquinas have argued that there are just wars, killing in these wars would be morally justifiable.
Kant sees REASON as way of settling these claims.
(Later project: Religion within the limits of reason alone).
Kant an Enlightenment era thinker: progress through reason.
Question do you share Kant's optimism about reason?
Back to the textbook: Another Kantian notion: OUGHT IMPLIES CAN
If there is anything we morally ought to do, we simply ought to do it.
Differs from a morality that flows from our own particular goal we have as individuals.
Question: Big question here: evaluating Kant: is this what YOU think of when you THINK of moral obligation?
Important things here:
1. Acting out of RESPECT for the moral law.
This is required for an action to have moral worth.
2. being able to act out of such a regard for morality is also the source of HUMAN DIGNITY.
THE APPLICATION OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE 72 c1
Question: does The Categorical Imperative really GENERATE moral laws.
Could I have a universal law that everyone write their names on the top of their test.
Would this be especially moral?
Kantian might answer: this is a HYPOTHETICAL rather than a CATEGORICAL imperative.
I can't will that not putting my name on top of my paper as a universal practice is wrong/
Question: why not: we put our name on top of our paper because we want to get credit for our test, not for MORAL purposes
72 c1: The Categorical Imperative is actually a negative test.
It is a test for what we should not do, more than a test for what we ought to do.
{Some say: Kant = can't???}
Contrast between KANTIANS and RULE UTILITARIANS
Both have universal laws as part of their moral theory.
Break: Rule utilitarians: results oriented.
We ask if having a practice or a rule would make for the greatest happiness or not.
The better results leads to a law.
Kantians: must ask if there would be anything contradictory in WILLING THE PRACTICE AS A UNIVERSAL LAW.
Ground: us as RATIONAL BEINGS v.
As beings seeking the GREATEST HAPPINESS
What about second formulation: treat people as ends.
Question: how do we know when someone does something for us that we're not using them?
How do we know we're avoiding deceit and coercion?
For Kant: the ease of use or lack of difficulty in applying a moral theory doesn't prove that the theory is incorrect.
Ambiguity is a problem for all reasonable moral philosophies.
DUTY 72 c2
Important: Getting clear about what Kant means by duty
Not a particular set of duties held by some group.
Important: Getting clear about what Kant means by duty
Not a particular set of duties held by some group.
Rather: (72 c2) duty is whatever is the right thing to do.
Kant seeks to offer an ABSOLUTE (or ABSOLUTIST) morality
A morality that would consist in a set of exceptionless rules.
Example: if a killer comes to your door, should you lie to that killer. NO
Here: a contradictory duty: to tell the truth and to preserve life.
Kant wanted to establish the principles of morality on a firm basis.
His most basic exceptionless rule: we are never permitted to do what we cannot will as a universal law or what violates the requirement to treat persons as persons.
MORAL EQUALITY AND IMPARTIALITY 73 c1
Another main feature of Kant's moral theory is its emphasis on moral equality of all persons.
Moral obligation and morality itself derive from us as rational, autonomous persons.
Morality is grounded in our UNIVERSAL nature as persons.
Kant's moral theory is also IMPARTIAL
Moral law applies UNIVERSALLY, to and for ALL PERSONS
Question: is impartiality in ethics a good idea?
One criticism of Kant's ethics: emphasizes our rational side at the expense of our CARING side.
It leaves out the biological or emotional aspects of our beings.
Kant's model is a rational one.
He thinks that's the best. Is it?
PERFECT AND IMPERFECT DUTIES
You might find too many problems with Kant's theory to accept it.
It needs some refinement.
Kant makes a distinction between two kind of duties: PERFECT and IMPERFECT can provide some help here.
Perfect duties are ABSOLUTE DUTIES
A perfect duty is one that is impossible to make as a universal law.
Results in a LOGICAL CONTRADICTION by the very nature of the rule.
Lying, for example: if we willed the morality of lying as a universal practice, the distinction between lying and telling the truth would disappear.
Kant's other example, 74 Committing suicide to make life happier.
Contradictory law.
IMPERFECT DUTIES: these are duties that could be made as a universal law without a LOGICAL contradiction, but couldn't be WILLED to be a universal law without a logical contradiction.
Kant's example: pg. 74 Not developing a talent you have.
Falling into idleness, you could universalize a law that everyone should be idle, but you couldn't rationally WILL that this would be so.
Helping others: would fit in here too.
Certain flexibility here.
VARIATIONS ON KANTIAN MORAL THEORY
W.D. Ross (1877-1971) Emphasis on Moral Intution.
Prima Facie or conditionals duties of loyalty and honesty-intuition helps us decide cases of conflict.
Some contemporary Kantians.
John Rawls, for example book: A Theory of Justice
Justice is fairness.
To know what is fair we must put ourselves in the position of a group of free and equal rational beings who are choosing principles of justice for their society.
Rawls' ORIGINAL POSITION
Squarely in the Kantian tradition
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals
by Immanuel Kant.
Sections from Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
(go through section by section pp. 76-85)
THE GOOD WILL: (76 c2)
The good will is the only thing good without qualification.
Kant says NO to:
intelligence
wit
judgment
any other talents of the mind
They are not good without qualification
OTHER THINGS:
Temperaments--can be good or bad depending on their use
Gifts of fortune--the same way
Happiness: state of well being and contentedness--needs a good will
Moderation--can be misused
Kant writes: 76 c2
Moderation in the affections and passions, self-control and calm deliberation are not only good in many respects, but even seem to constitute part of the intrinsic worth of the person; but they are far from deserving to be called good without qualification, although they have been so unconditionally praised by the ancients.
Continues
For without the principles of a good will, they may become extremely bad, and the coolness of a villain not only makes him more abominable in our eyes than he would have been without it.
Question: what does this mean?
The good will is good in itself
No matter what the circumstances--the good will always will be good--still shine like a jewel
ACTING FROM DUTY
Notion of good will tied to the notion of duty.
Here Kant making the point about duty as the basis of morality.
Distinction between DUTY and INCLINATION
For Kant--moral actions are actions done in accordance with duty
Kant is not concerned with immoral actions
---> no problem with those
Concern with: are moral actions done out of a moral motive?
77 c2 Kant distinguishes:
actions done from DUTY
v.
actions done out of self interest or INCLINATION
THE "HONEST SHOPKEEPER"--(77 c2)
In this translation: "THE PRUDENT TRADESMAN"
Is he honest out of duty or for personal advantage?
Goes through some other duties:
Duty to maintain ones life.
Someone who doesn't commit suicide, out of duty, is acting morally.
Duty to be beneficent.
Here doing good works, out of duty, is moral
Duty to secure one's happiness, but making yourself happy isn't the ground of morality.
Duty to love our neighbor and our enemy
But here: Love thy neighbor--do so out of duty, which can be commanded, not out of feeling, which cannot be commanded.
Two propositions:
1. to have moral worth, an action must be done from duty.
2. "The second proposition is: 78 c1 -c2
An action done from duty derives its moral worth, not from the purpose which is attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined, and therefore does not depend on the realization of the object of the action, but merely on the principle of volition by which the action has taken place, without regard to any object of desire.
Key to Kant's morality here:
THE FORMAL PRINCIPLE OF DUTY
Principle of volition--what determines the will
A PRIORI formal principle of the will
A POSTERIORI, material motive
Morality is the former.
RESPECT FOR THE MORAL LAW (78-79)
Duty is necessity to act out of reverence for the law.
Must be a ground of the will, not an effect
Respect for the law: only the law for its own sake
Kant: The moral worth of an action does not depend on the result expected from it.
It also does not depend on any principle of action that looks toward this expected result.
79 c1
Kant says that "nothing else that the conception of law in itself," can constitute the "pre-eminent good which we call moral."
This good is present only in a rational being, when it, and not an expected result, is the ground determining the will.
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (79 c1-80 c1)
What kind of law can determine the will?
it has to be good absolutely and without qualification?
Conformity of actions to universal law--everything else stripped away.
pg. 79 c1 I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.
(What is a maxim?)
Examples: making a promise with the intention of not keeping it.
What is prudent v. what is morally right
Telling the truth for the sake of duty is different from telling the truth out of concern for inconvenient results.
I can will to lie, but I cannot will a universal law of lying.
By such a law there would be no promises at all.
Basis of the moral law: can you also will that you maxim shall become a universal law?
Advantages of this system:
Don't need any "far-reaching penetration to figure out what is morally good.
Inexperienced in the course of the world, incapable of being prepared for all contingencies, I only ask myself: canst thou also will that thy maxim should be a universal law? If not, then it must be rejected.
He says it should be rejected not because it leads to any disadvantage: to me or others, but:
because it cannot enter as a principle into a possible universal legislation and reason extorts from me immediate respect for such legislation.
No inclination, just a PURE RESPECT FOR THE MORAL LAW.
APPLYING THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Four test cases
1. 82, 1 Committing suicide because you are unhappy
Maxim: From self-love I adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is likely to bring more evil than satisfaction.
Kant says-as a universal law the maxim would contradict itself.
2. 83, 1: Borrowing money with the intention to not pay it back
Maxim: When I think myself in want of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I never can do so.
Would also contradict itself as a universal law of nature.
Question: why?
The promise itself would become impossible
3. A talent that could be developed.
Should the man neglect his talent because of his comfortable circumstances
Kant-could be a universal law-we could all let our talents rust and be idle and amused
(South Sea Islanders are this way)
However-can't will this as a law of nature.
83, c2 As a rational being, he necessarily wills that his faculties be developed, since they serve him for all sorts of possible purposes, and have been given him for this.
4. A prosperous person who won't help the less prosperous.
Maxim: Let every man be as happy as heaven pleases or as he can make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish to contribute anything either to his welfare or to his assistance in distress!
This could be made a universal law.
However: 83, 2
Although it is possible that a universal law of nature might exist in accordance with that maxim, it is impossible to will that such a principle should have the universal validity of a law of nature. For a will which resolved this would contradict itself, inasmuch as many cases might occur in which one would have need of the love an sympathy of others, and in which by such a law of nature sprung from his own will, he would deprive himself of all hope and the aid he desires
Question: what do you think of this claim?
SKIP AHEAD TO 84 C1 BOTTOM OF PAGE:
PERSONS AS ENDS
He writes:
Supposing ... that there were something whose existence has in itself an absolute worth, something which being an end in itself, could be the source of definite laws, then in this and this alone would lie the source of a possible categorical imperative.
This passage is an argument for the ultimate value of persons.
Man--any rational being--exists as an end in himself.
Not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used.
How does Kant argue for this:
Makes distinction: PERSONS v. THINGS
Question: how do things acquire value?
Economic Model (basically)
Things acquire their worth through exchange
We have certain wants, things fill those want
We value them.
The value of things is only conditional, only relative
Persons by contrast do not acquire their value through exchange, or through being assigned a value
They are ends in themselves.
Question: is Kant too idealistic here? What about organ transplants--do some people acquire a higher value?
Kant's contention: rational nature exists as an end-in-itself.
Kant calls this a SUBJECTIVE principle: we conceive of OURSELVES as having intrinsic worth.
He also says it is an OBJECTIVE principle: every rational being similarly regards its existence.
The imperative that follows from this: 84 c2- 85 c1:
So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case, as an end withal, never as a means only.
Goes through his earlier examples:
Perfect duty to oneself: Contemplating suicide to make your life happier.
Are you treating YOURSELF as a MEANS TO AN END.
Fails.
Perfect duty to others: making lying promises
Also fails: you are treating the person you make the promise to as a means rather than an end.
Imperfect duty to self: Duty to develop you talents, not be idle, slothful.
He says 85 c1:
It is not enough that the action does not violate humanity in our own person as an end in itself, it must also harmonize with it.
If we don't develop our talents, we might MAINTAIN the humanity--in ourselves--as an end in itself but we don't ADVANCE the humanity in ourselves.
Imperfect, meritorious, duties toward others: 85 c2
Helping other people.
Kant argues that helping other people promotes their happiness.
We could subsist as beings without anyone contributing to the happiness of others.
Here he means not harming other people, but not helping them either.
But this doesn't treat humanity as an end in itself unless we
"endeavor...to forward the ends of others"
He writes:
For the ends of any subject which is an end in himself ought as far as possible to be my ends also, if that conception is to have its full effect with me.
Question: Review Exercises: End of Kant pg. 86
1. Does the intention affect the moral character of an action?
2. Is moral obligation categorical Kant's sense?
3. Which form of the categorical imperative do you like best?
4. Is Kant's use of the term duty a drawback for his theory?
