Download File - Ethics and Society

Kantian Ethics
Recap
 The principle of utility
 At the heart of utilitarian reasoning is the
‘principle of utility’. Also known as ‘the
greatest happiness principle’, it tells us
that the best action is the one that
produces the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people.
2
Recap
 Strengths of utilitarianism
 Utilitarianism argues that the purpose of
morality is to promote general well-being.
It tells us that when we make moral
decisions, we have to take into account the
interest of other people and give equal
weight to the pleasure and pain of
everyone affected by our actions.
3
Recap
 Weaknesses of utilitarianism
 One trouble with utilitarianism is that
different types of happiness are often
incompatible (不能作比較). Happiness
cannot be measured and calculated easily,
nor is it always possible to predict the
future consequences of actions. The
biggest problem, however, is that
utilitarian reasoning is sometimes used to
justify actions that are clearly immoral.
4
Recap
 Rule utilitarianism
 Instead of applying the principle of utility
to actions, we can apply it to moral rules.
According to ‘rule utilitarianism’, we
should consider the consequences of
following various rules and choose to
follow the one that is likely to bring about
the best outcome for everyone.
5
In this lecture…





Our moral duty (道德責任)
Categorical imperative (定言律令)
Universal law (普世道德律)
Dignity (尊嚴) and respect (尊重)
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
6
A dilemma
 Suppose you have promised your friend
that you will help her with her homework
at 3:00pm. As you are on your way to meet
her, you see an accident victim lying on the
side of the road who desperately needs
help. There is no one else around to help
the injured victim.
7
A dilemma
 What should you do: keep the promise to
meet your friend, or break the promise so
that you can help the injured person? Do
you think we must always keep our
promises? Can promise breaking be
morally justified in this situation?
8
Our moral duty
Immanuel Kant 康德
(1724-1804) argued that
we have a moral duty
(道德責任) to do what is
right for its own sake,
i.e. we ought to do what
is right simply because
it is the right thing to
do.
Immanuel Kant
9
Our moral duty
 According to Kant, we are rational (理性
的) persons living in a moral
community (道德群體) populated by
other rational persons.
 The basic question of morality concerns
how we ought to behave based on an
understanding of our duty (道德責任) to
each other.
10
Our moral duty
 For Kant, morality is not something we
learn from our parents or teachers, nor
do we learn to distinguish right from
wrong by observing other people’s
actions.
 Rather, reason 理性 (i.e. our ability to
think logically) tells us what we ought
or ought not to do.
11
Our moral duty
 Reason enables us to understand our
relationship with other people as well
as the moral duty we have to each other.
 In Kantian ethics, ‘duty’ can be defined
as what we ought to do as rational
persons (i.e. as members of the moral
community).
12
Our moral duty
 It is through reason that we come to
know our duty, i.e. what each and every
rational person ought to do.
 Since morality is founded on (建基於)
reason, everyone, except small children
and the mentally disabled (精神病患者),
should be able to distinguish right from
wrong.
13
Our moral duty
 As you might remember, utilitarianism
holds that happiness or pleasure is the
only thing that is intrinsically good (i.e.
good or valuable it itself).
 Thus, according to utilitarian reasoning,
any action that promotes overall
happiness is morally right.
14
Our moral duty
 Kant rejected utilitarian reasoning by
drawing attention to the fact that some
pleasures (e.g. that of the rapist 強姦者
or torturer 施虐者) are immoral and
therefore bad.
 In Kant’s view, the only thing that is
good in itself is a person’s ‘good will’
(i.e. good intention 良好意圖).
15
Our moral duty
 ‘Good will’ can be understood as the
intention (意圖) to perform one’s duty
for its own sake (i.e. to do what is right
simply because it is the right thing to
do).
 For Kant, a good will (or good intention)
is a necessary element of any morally
good action.
16
Our moral duty
 According to Kant, someone acts with a
good will when he or she performs an
action simply because he or she knows
that it is the right thing to do (i.e. that
he or she has a duty to do it).
17
Our moral duty
 According to Kant, some actions have
moral worth 道德價值 (i.e. moral value),
other actions do not.
 For Kant, a good will is what makes an
action ‘moral’. Only when we act from
good will does our action have moral
worth.
18
Our moral duty
 Brushing your teeth may be the right
thing to do, but it has no moral worth
because it has nothing to do with ‘good
will’ or ‘duty’.
 Offering help to other people, on the
other hand, is an action that has moral
worth if you are motivated to do so by a
good will or a sense of duty.
19
Our moral duty

Consider the following examples:
1. “I like helping people because I expect
them to return the favor (投桃報李).”
2. “I like helping people because it makes
me feel good about myself.”
20
Our moral duty
 In these examples, although helping
people is right, the actions have no
moral worth because they are not done
with the right intention (意圖) or
motive (動機).
 From the standpoint of Kantian ethics,
it is not enough that we do the right
thing; we must do the right thing for
the right reason.
21
Our moral duty
 Actions motivated by self-interest or
desire do not have moral worth because
self-interest and desire often lead us to
do bad or wrong things.
 Morality, in Kant’s view, has nothing to
do with selfish motives (自私的動機),
but everything to do with duty and
good intention.
22
Our moral duty

Do the following actions have moral
worth?
1. “I build a school for poor children
because I want the school to be named
after me (以我命名).”
2. “I build a school for poor children
because that is the best I can do to help
them.”
23
Our moral duty
 Finally, Kant argued that if an action is
right, we have a duty to do it no matter
the consequences.
 Consequences, in his view, are
irrelevant when we make moral
judgments or decisions. If we have a
duty to do something, we ought to do
so even if it might lead to bad
consequences.
24
Categorical imperative
 How do we distinguish right from
wrong? Are there any rules or principles
(原則) that we can follow when we make
moral judgments or decisions?
25
Categorical imperative
 Kant believed that there are universal
(普世的、適用於所有人的) moral rules
that all rational persons have a duty to
follow.
 We can use reason to work out a set of
absolute (絕對的) moral principles. To
do so, we have to start with the
question: ‘What ought I to do?’
26
Categorical imperative
 Kant observed that the meaning of the
word ‘ought’ is confusing (使人混淆) in
everyday language.
 It is therefore necessary to distinguish
between hypothetical ‘ought’ (which is
non-moral) and categorical ‘ought’
(which is moral).
27
Categorical imperative
 Kant made a clear distinction (區分)
between two different kinds of
imperatives; namely, ‘hypothetical
imperatives’ (假言律令) and ‘categorical
imperatives’ (定言律令).
 An ‘imperative’ is a command (指令)
that tell us what we ought to do.
28
Categorical imperative
 A hypothetical imperative tells us what
we ought to do to get what we want. For
example:
 ‘If you want a good job, get a good
education.’
 ‘If you want to arrive on time, you ought to
leave early.’
29
Categorical imperative
 A categorical imperative, on the other
hand, tells us what is the morally right
thing to do. For example:
 ‘You ought to keep your promise.’
 ‘You ought not to torture (虐待) innocent
people.’
30
Categorical imperative
 To sum up, a hypothetical imperative
1. specifies a means (手段) to an end (目的);
2. is always in the form of a conditional
sentence;
3. is about satisfying a goal or desire; and
4. has nothing to do with ‘morality’.
31
Categorical imperative
 In contrast, a categorical imperative
1. specifies what everyone has a duty to do
as a moral person;
2. is not in the form of a conditional
sentence (duty is ‘unconditional’ 無條件的)
3. has nothing to do with satisfying goals or
desires; and
4. is the basis of universal moral law (普世道
德法則).
32
Categorical imperative

There are two formulations of the
categorical imperative:
1. the formula of universal law (普世道德律)
2. the formula of humanity as an end in
itself (以人為本)
33
Universal law
 For Kant, morality is based in reason
(理性). At the heart of Kantian ethics is
a system of universal moral laws (普世道
德律), i.e. moral rules or principles (法則)
that every rational (理性的) person
would agree to.
 The same moral standards apply to
everyone. Every rational person is
expected to follow the same moral rules.
34
Universal law
 The formula of universal law:
 When we are judging whether an action is
morally right or wrong, we must ask
ourselves whether we would rationally (理
性地) want and expect everyone to act in
that way (by putting ourselves in other
people’s shoes).
 If the answer is ‘yes’, the action is moral. If
the answer is ‘no’, the action is immoral.
35
Universal law
 Consider this example:
 Suppose you need some money and you
want to borrow it from your friend. Would
it be moral to make a promise to repay (償
還) it without really intending to do so?
Do you rationally want and expect
everyone to act in this way?
36
Universal law
 No. If everyone acted in this way, no
one would believe in promises anymore.
It would not be possible to borrow
money because no one would lend
money to others, knowing that
promises would not be kept and loans
would not be repaid. No one would take
promises as promises if they were
meant to be broken.
37
Universal law
 Consider a different situation:
Suppose you need some money. You want to
borrow it from your friend by making a
sincere (真誠的) promise to repay it. Is it
moral to do so? Do you want and expect
everyone to act in that way?
38
Universal law
 Yes. Reason (理性) tells us that doing so
is moral because we would want and
expect everyone to act in that way.
 To sum up, making a sincere promise is
moral, whereas making a lying promise
is immoral.
39
Universal law
 ‘Making a sincere promise’ is a
universal law because we can expect
every rational person to act in that way.
Reason tells us that it is the morally
right thing to do.
 ‘Making a lying promise’ cannot be a
universal law because we cannot
rationally expect everyone to act in that
way. Therefore, it is wrong to do so.
40
Universal law
 Do you think the following can be
considered as ‘universal moral laws’?
1. Steal from other people those things that
you cannot afford to buy.
2. Shout at waiters in restaurants.
3. Avoid polluting the environment.
41
Dignity and respect
 Kant’s concept of respect for persons
(尊重個人) is derived from the formula
of humanity as an end in itself (以人為
本):
‘Never use other people merely (純粹地) as
a means (手段) to your own ends (目的).’
42
Dignity and respect
 The belief that people ought to be
regarded as having the highest intrinsic
value is central to Kant’s ethics.
 The dignity (尊嚴) of being human
arises from the fact that humans exist
for goals and purposes of their own. As
such, they must be respected as ‘ends in
themselves’ (自為目的).
43
Dignity and respect
 Objects (物件) do not have intrinsic
value. Why? Because they cannot make
choices and therefore do not exist for
purposes of their own.
 We can use objects for our ends (i.e.
goals and purposes) because they do
not have purposes of their own. In
Kant’s view, it is not immoral to do so.
44
Dignity and respect
 For example, a pen does not exist for a
purpose of its own; instead, it exists to
serve a human purpose, i.e. to be used
as a tool for writing.
 The pen is not an ‘end in itself.’ It has
no intrinsic value (內在價值); it only has
instrumental value (利用價值), i.e. to be
used as a means (手段) to an end (目的).
45
Dignity and respect
 Human beings are not objects. They
have intrinsic value, or ‘dignity’ (尊嚴),
because they can make choices and set
goals for themselves.
 Unlike objects, humans exist for
purposes of their own. They can choose
what they want to do. That is why we
have a duty to respect persons as ends
in themselves.
46
Dignity and respect
 According to the formula of humanity
as an end in itself, it is necessary for us
to respect a person’s dignity. It is wrong
to treat persons as objects, i.e. as mere
means (純粹手段) to our own ends.
 For Kant, it is not necessarily immoral
to treat a person as a means as long as
we do not treat them as objects.
47
Dignity and respect
 For example, in hiring a taxi I employ
the driver to get me to where I want,
thereby making use of him. But I do not
treat him as an object because I also
recognize his purpose of making a
living by getting people to their
destinations (目的地).
48
Dignity and respect
 Why is it morally wrong to treat other
people as objects?
 It is because when we do so, we fail to
see that other people do not exist to
serve our purposes. When we force
others to do things that they are
unwilling to do, we fail to respect them
as ends in themselves.
49
Dignity and respect
 Unlike objects, persons have dignity
because they can set goals for
themselves. As such, persons are
valuable in themselves, whether or not
they are useful for others.
 To sum up: because persons are not
objects, it is immoral to treat humans
in the same way we treat objects.
50
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 One objection to Kant’s moral theory is
that it cannot cope with conflicts (衝突)
of duty. Consider the following
dilemma (兩難處境):
 Suppose you are considering stealing food
from a supermarket to feed you starving
(挨餓的) children. You do not want to do it,
but you cannot think of any other ways to
feed your children. What should you do?
51
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 There are two relevant moral rules in
this situation: [1] ‘You should not steal’,
and [2] ‘You should not allow your
children to starve.’
 Now the question becomes: If there is a
conflict between these two moral rules,
which one should you follow?
52
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 Kantian ethics has also been criticized
for being too rigid (僵化).
 For Kant, moral laws are absolute
commands of reason (理性的絕對指令).
In other words, they must be upheld (堅
持) at all times. If reason tells that we
have a duty to do something, we ought
to do it no matter the consequences.
53
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 For example, Kant argued that it is
wrong to lie under all circumstances.
 There was even one example in which
Kant himself suggested that if a killer
came to the door asking for someone
hiding inside whom he wanted to kill,
we ought to tell him the truth.
54
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 Consider the following situation:
 The year is 1942. You are an ordinary
German citizen. In your home you are
hiding an innocent Jewish woman named
Sarah, who is fleeing (逃避) Nazi officers.
When the Nazis knock on your door and
ask if Sarah is in your house. What should
you do? Should you tell the truth or lie?
55
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 Suppose, in the above example, because
you told the murderers the truth, they
found their victim and killed her. You
would be blameless (無須負責) from a
Kantian point of view, i.e. you would
not be responsible for the victim’s
death.
56
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 Why? Because consequences, in Kant’s
view, are irrelevant when we make
moral judgments or decisions.
 For Kant, since we have a moral duty to
tell the truth, we are not responsible
for any bad consequences that might
follow as a result of doing so.
57
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 Can we escape responsibility so easily?
After all, we helped the murderers find
their victim. Do you think that there is
something wrong with Kant’s
reasoning?
58
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics
 Most people would find Kant’s
reasoning highly unsatisfactory (難以令
人滿意). Some may go further and argue
that under the given circumstances, we
have a duty to lie because there is no
better way to save the life of an
innocent person.
59