Kant’s theory differs from Mill’s
Non-consequentialist, non-teleological.
A Rational Theory, not an Empirical Theory.
More affinities to Divine Command Theory.
Chapter Opens:
A lot of cases of experimenting on people without their consent
Stanford experiment, 1950s, Studying Authority
Done with volunteers who served as “teachers” who would administer electric shocks to learners when they gave the wrong answer.
The teachers were told to increase the strength of the shock.
Of course the student was really being shocked, and was deliberately getting the answers wrong.
Supporters of this experiment argued that it was justifiable because their subjects had not been coerced but had volunteered.
Also: useful information was gained about the nature of authority
Critics: volunteers not informed, they had not, strictly speaking, consented to the experiment.
Question: would this experiment be justified on utilitarian grounds?
Nuremberg Code–in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
Problem: 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.
Question: what does it mean to be autonomous–key to Kant’s ethics?
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: IMMANUEL KANT
Kant, 1724-1804, in Konigsberg, Germany (now Kaliningrad, Russia).
Ranks with Plato and Aristotle as an influential philosopher, yet Kant never married and he never traveled farther than 50 miles (80 kilometers) from Konigsberg.
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?
Key Ethical Work: Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
Argues for a stern morality based around what he calls the Categorical Imperative.
The basic principle for ethical reasoning.
KANT’S ETHICS: deontological ethics. Emphasis on determining our moral duty through reason, our moral obligations, regardless of the consequences
67 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.
Remember: For Mill, happiness has intrinsic value
Everything else has instrumental value
Problem: this means that the purpose of human beings to produce happy states of affairs:
This is our use value
Kant opposes utilitarianism as an instrumental theory of morality
What has intrinsic value for Kant?
Kant: we rational beings/persons 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 Honest Shopkeeper example
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.
MOTIVE➔ ACT➔CONSEQUENCE
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.
Logical distinction: contingency v. necessity
Contingent: could be or not be
Necessity: cannot not be.
Hypothetical imperatives 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
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 looking for moral oughts / moral obligations
Kant seeks universal moral oughts,
MORAL OUGHTS that apply to ALL PERSONS.
Rembember distinction: 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)
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
THE SECOND FORM 70 c1
Second form of the categorical imperative:
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.
Key: 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?
Overview of Kantian Ethics:
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.
Third form of the Categorical Imperative:
A rational being must always regard himself as legislator in a kingdom of ends rendered possible by freedom of the will, whether as member or sovereign
Stated basically: Act always as if you were legislating for a universal kingdom of ends
Kant’s idea here: you are subject to the moral law because you give it to yourself.
Maxims which are inconsistent with the will itself being universal legislator are rejected.
A categorical imperative must be unconditional, meaning--not depending on anything else.
Kant argues that a will which is a supreme lawgiver cannot be dependent on any interest since it would need other laws restricting self-interest
--One must develop the laws (though they are universal) from one's own free will, otherwise they would not be unconditional.
The KINGDOM OF ENDS
Kant means a systematic union of different rational beings through common laws.
We are SUBJECT AND SOVEREIGN RATIONAL BEINGS
A rational being belongs as a member to the kingdom of ends when he is subject to its laws.
He is a sovereign when he is not subject to the will of any other
Back to textbook:
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 key elements: fairness and consistency
This approach is quite different than the one utilitarianism belongs to.
Utilitarianism emphasizes the maximization of happiness and the production of good consequences.
Kantian tradition emphasizes absolute fairness and impartiality, and adherence to a moral law that does not have its origin just in getting good results.
Question: how important is it that an ethical theory be fair and consistent?
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.
Kantian view: this is how we generally think of moral obligation.
Question: do you agree?
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.
Kant sees REASON as way of settling these claims.
Kant an Enlightenment era thinker: progress through reason.
Same morality: but grounded in something objective: precise argumentation.
Question do you share Kant’s optimism about reason?
Remember: the Is Ought distinction, just because something is the case, doesn’t mean it ought to be the case.
Kant’s idea: 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 goals 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
Criticism: does The Categorical Imperative really generate moral laws?
Example: Could I have a universal law that everyone write their names at the top of the page when they take a test?
That’s not a moral law
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
What does Kant mean 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.
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?
Another Criticism: It’s too formal.
Philosopher Hegel: Our ethics come from our common customs
Hegel: our Sittlichkeit: our common moral practices.
You can’t really have a calculating machine for ethics.
Contemporary KANTIAN’s
A lot emphasize Kant scholarship: figuring out what exactly Kant means in various texts.
Some Contemporary versions:
John Rawls (died last November)
Important work: A Theory of Justice
Idea: 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.
An “original position”
Rawls is squarely in the Kantian tradition, though with a little utilitarianism mixed in.
Take a look at Kant’s text: Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals
Some highlights:
For example:
(76 c2) THE GOOD WILL:
The good will is the only thing good without qualification.
Nothing else is good without qualification
Example: Intelligence or temperaments--can be good or bad depending on their use
Gifts of fortune--the same way, you can use them for good or not for good.
Happiness: state of well being and contentedness--needs a good will
Moderation: Aristotle’s basic principle, as we’ll see: 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
The Good Will: Kant’s gold standard
Highest moral good that, perhaps, we can’t live up to.
Also: for 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.
Discussion of 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?
Kant says that the advantages of this system are that you:
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.
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?
84 C1 PERSONS AS ENDS
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.
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?
