Download Kantian Deontology

Kant’s Deontology
What is morality about?
Importance!
Good / Bad
(value)
Duty
Right / Wrong
(conduct)
Honor
Praise
Blame
Virtue
Vice
Merit
Forgiveness Mercy
Vengeance
Obligatory / Forbidden
(conduct)
Punishment
Reward
Fairness
Justice
Desert
So on…
Cruelty
Kindness
England
Bentham (1748-1832)
Mill (1806-1873)
1700
1900
Mozart (1756-1791)
Kant (1724-1804)
Germany
America
For
comparison
Jefferson (1743-1826)
Lincoln (1809-1865)
Ireland
England
Scotland
Berkeley (1685-1753)
Hume (1711-1776)
Locke (1632-1704)
1600
1800
Descartes (1596-1650)
Kant (1724-1804)
France
Germany
Pilgrims Land at
Plymouth Rock (1620)
Jefferson (17431826)
America
Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Major work
 The Critique of Pure Reason
Ethical works:
 The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of
Morals
 The Critique of Practical Reason
 The Metaphysics of Morals
 Anthropology from a Practical Point of View
 Religion within the Boundaries of Mere
Reason
Kant’s Philosophy
Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason
caused a “Copernican
Revolution” in philosophy, for
those who followed Kant, in
taking Aristotle’s Categories
•Substance
•Quality
•Quantity
•Relation
•Place
•Time
•Position
•Possession
•Action
•Being acted on
and arguing that those categories
divide up our minds rather
than the external world.
Kant’s Philosophy
Kant’s “Critical” philosophy results in a Metaphysical and
Epistemological view called Transcendental Idealism
 Transcendental because the view seeks to transcend the limits
of sense experience (limits identified by skeptics like David
Hume) by demonstrating modes of being and entities that
must exist as ‘necessary conditions for the possibility of
experience’
 Idealism because the objects of our knowledge remain, as
Hume believed, limited to ideas, rather than ideas and physical
objects, forces, persons (and other ordinary things we ordinarily
believe we experience or know through experience)
Quotable Quote?
“Two things fill the mind
with ever new and
increasing admiration
and awe, the oftener and
more steadily we reflect
upon them: the starry
heavens above me and
the moral law within
me.”
-Kant, Critique of Practical
Reason
Why Be Moral?
Kant tries to show that morality is based in rationality
 recall that egoism, for instance, has no trouble explaining
why you ought to do something: all morality is in your
interest!
while maintaining that not all morality is in your interest,
which he thinks it plainly is not (duties conflict with
interest often)
Why Be Moral?
How does Kant show morality is based in
rationality?
 He is going to provide a test of our actions such that
when they are morally wrong the actions result in
1. a contradictory, impossible, or incoherent state of affairs, or,
2. in us being inconsistent—contradicting ourselves.
This isn’t as good as making our obligations
identical to our desires (egoism), but since
inconsistency is embarrassing to most
people, it provides motivation of a sort.
Explaining Kant’s
Deontology
Kant approaches ethics much as Aristotle, by identifying things we
already think are good (Kant adds right or obligatory), and trying
to give an account that explains why they are so, and that will
settle dispute about borderline cases (Is it ever right to break a
promise? Do we have duties to ourselves? Etc.)
We will consider these in the order Kant did:




The Good Will
The Notion of Duty
Imperatives
The Categorical Imperative (the Moral Law)
o
o
o
o
Formulation 1 – Ends in Themselves
Formulation 2 – Universal Law (we won’t cover)
Formulation 3 – Autonomy (we won’t cover)
Formulation 4 – Kingdom of Ends (we won’t cover)
The Good Will
Kant says that only one thing is good without qualification …
Virtues, Courage, for instance?
No. Courage is not good if you are courageous in robbing the bank.
Intelligence?
No. Intelligence makes criminals more dangerous, not less.
Health?
No. Health was certainly bad in Hitler.
Happiness?
No. Happiness, pleasure, are bad when experienced by wicked people.
Good Will?
Yes. A good will, in the sense of a person acting from respect for the moral law, is good
unconditionally.
The Good Will
No matter what situation you are in, acting out of a sense of
duty is good regardless of the consequences, or, it is good
unconditionally.
 In human beings, respect for the moral law means being
restrained by its requirements.
 Actions have moral worth only when we act for the sake of
duty and against contrary inclination.
 It follows that divine beings (God, gods, angels, etc), do not
act morally since they have no desires that run contrary to
their duties.
The Notion of Duty
Suppose you send your mother flowers on Mother’s Day because you
love her and want to please her; you also realize, as it happens,
you have a duty to honor your mother. Does your action have
moral worth?

No
For an action to have moral worth is must be

done out
of
respect for the moral law, or done from a sense of duty
Does this mean sending your mother flowers on Mother’s Day
because you love her is immoral? Non-moral?



Immoral, no
Non-moral, yes


It accords with duty,
But is not done from duty
It is admirable, and good, but not morally good in a strict sense.
Imperatives
Imperatives are commands:
 Go to the store
 Shut the door
Aside from these bossy imperatives, Kant distinguishes 2
others:
 hypothetical imperatives
 categorical imperatives
Imperatives
Hypothetical Imperatives:




How we give practical advice
Have a conditional, “If, … then…,” structure
If you want a pop, then go upstairs and look in the fridge
Such imperatives are grounded in our goals, purposes, or
interests
Categorical Imperative:




How we give moral advice (or how morality commands us)
Have an unconditional, “Do X,” structure
For Kant there is only ONE categorical imperative (though it has
4 formulations)
This imperative is grounded in our nature as rational beings, not
in our goals, purposes, or interests
The Categorical Imperative
The Moral Law:
Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time
will that it should be a universal law”
How do we understand this injunction?
In four steps…
Step 1
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will
that it should be a universal law”
Identify an act you want to test to see if it is morally
permissible.
Kant’s example is:
 Promising to pay back money while in such a financial pinch
that you know you can’t pay it back.
Step 2
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time
will that it should be a universal law”
Universalize your act (restate it as a law):
Everyone in a financial pinch should promise to pay back
money knowing they cannot pay it back.
Step 3
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the
same time will that it should be a universal law”
Determine whether your universalized maxim could
be a universal law:
If everyone in financial pinches took money falsely
promising to pay it back, what would happen?
Soon promises would be meaningless, making the
action impossible.
Step 3 (continued)
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the
same time will that it should be a universal
law”
Determine whether your universalized maxim
could be a universal law:
If your action results in an inconceivable situation
(people loan money on promises they know are
no good), then you have a perfect duty to refrain
from the action.
Step 4
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the
same time will that it should be a universal
law”
Supposing your action passes test 3 (it could be a
universal law), ask whether you can will that it
be a universal law:
What would happen if everyone, say, refused to help
others in trouble? We could, conceivably, act that
way, so there is no perfect duty not to act that
way.
Step 4 (continued)
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same
time will that it should be a universal law”
Supposing your action passes test 3 (it could be a
universal law) ask whether you can will that it be a
universal law:
Kant says, however, that while we could act that way, we
could not will everyone to act that way, because that
would mean willing that no one help us when we
were in trouble. We have, then, an imperfect duty not
to refuse to help those in trouble.
Use CI to test some
actions…
Step 3: What would happen if everyone …
Step 4: How would you like it if everyone …
Accommodating Moral
Data
Kant constructed his imperative to explain
moral duties as he learned them in his
youth:

Duties Toward Oneself



Perfect: Self-Preservation (no
suicide)
Imperfect: Self-Cultivation (no
squandering talents)
Duties Toward Others


Perfect: Strict Obligation (no
promise-breaking—step 3)
Imperfect: Beneficence (no
selfishness—step 4)
Is Immanuel Kant-Bear’s
reasoning really Kantian?
Yay!
Boo!
☐ ☐
Formulation 1 – Humanity
Formula
“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person
or that of another, always as an end and never as a
means only”
Kant provides this formulation of the categorical imperative
to help readers connect the law with their feelings:
Formulation 1 – Humanity
Formula
How do we treat the cashier as an end
and not merely or only as a means?
Kant says it this way:
“he who is thinking of
making a lying promise to
others will see at once
that he would be using
another man merely as a
means, …. For he whom I
propose by such a
promise to use for my
own purposes cannot
possibly assent to my
mode of acting towards
him, …”
It is this formulation that resulted in a common phrase
used in moral reasoning often today:
 Respect for Persons
Formula 2 – Autonomy
Formula
Autonomy formula (paraphrase): act only on that universal maxim that you as a
rational being create.
The idea of the autonomy formula of the CE is that the only legitimate reason to
follow a dictate of morality is that you yourself, as a rational being, are its
author.
Examples:




Because of my nature as a rational being, I must will that someone help me when I
am in trouble. I cannot then fail to will aid to any other rational being.
Because of my nature as a rational being, I cannot will myself to be a slave to
other rational beings. I cannot then will to enslave other rational beings.
Because of my nature as a rational being, I cannot approve that others break their
promises to me. I cannot then approve of breaking my promises to others.
Because of my nature as a rational being, I cannot approve of others lying to me. I
cannot then approve of my lying to others.
Note that in each example, the universality of the law is forced by the equality of
rationality in each human being, conjoined with your individual reasoning.
Therefore, you (and reason itself) are the authors of the very moral laws that
bind you.
Kant on Capital
Punishment
 Guilt is the only justification for punishment.
 Punishment must be proportionate to the crime.
 Capital Punishment is therefore appropriate for
murder.
 To fail to punish a murderer with death is to fail to
affirm the murderer’s responsibility, which is to fail
to treat the murderer as a human being, as an end.
 All utilitarian justifications for capital punishment
are wrong: deterrence, public safety, pleasing the
victim’s family, etc. Only proportionate guilt
justifies taking someone’s life.
Criticisms of Kant’s Ethics
1.
Why think rational consistency has something to do with
being moral? Lots of irrational actions (multiplying 3 by 8
and getting 21, trying to fly by flapping your arms, etc.) and
non-rational actions (humming a tune, watching a sunset,
etc.) are not immoral.
2.
Why does the impossibility of making promises in a world in
which everyone breaks promises mean it is always wrong to
break a promise? It is one thing to understand the point of
Kant’s claim, another to understand it to make sense. Does it
make any sense?!
3.
When a kid reasons that, if everyone spit on the sidewalk, he
wouldn’t like it, and so couldn’t will his sidewalk spitting be a
universal law of nature, why doesn’t the fact that other
people don’t care to spit on the sidewalk relieve him of
inconsistency? He is not, in such a case, placing his own
worth or importance above that of others. Correct?
References
This presentation drew heavily on the work of Robert Johnson at the University of
Missouri-Columbia…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Curtis Brown at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas…
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/kant_ethics.html
and a nice summary from Robert Cavalier at Carnegie Mellon:
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part1/sect4/Kant.html
Images of Kant found at
http://www.kant.uni-mainz.de/e_icono.html
Other images from Flickr
http://www.flickr.com