Download KantianEthics - HCC Learning Web

Kantian Ethics
Good actions have intrinsic value;
actions are good if and only if they
follow from a moral law that can be
universalized.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Kant believes that the only thing that can be
called morally good is a good will.
• He claims that no normative theory of ethics
(of what we “ought” to do) can be derived
from experience (either in terms of the effects
of actions or the causes of actions).
• This is why Kant proposes to do a metaphysics
of morals, which he understands to be based on
synthetic a priori propositions.
Moral Principles
• Kant’s moral theory is a moral theory based on
the idea of principles governing moral action.
• At its basis, this theory holds that for actions to
be moral, they must hold for everyone in the
same way. Fundamentally, it is a view of
ethics based on fairness.
• This means that no other incentive (personal
preference, potentially terrible consequences)
can influence our moral behavior. Kant
considers actions moral only if they are
universally applicable.
Practical reason and freedom
• Kant believed that a true understanding of ethics
comes from a true understanding of what it means to
be human.
• Human beings are, fundamentally, rational and free
(autonomous).
• This means that human actions follow their own
rules.
• Following a rule is just the application of reason to
action, or practical reason. For Kant, the important
thing about human beings is that they are entirely
free to determine which rules to apply and how to
apply them.
Imperatives
• When we examine the rules governing our
actions, we realize that some of those rules
have the moral authority to compel us to act .
• The moral authority of our rules comes from
the degree to which we can universalize those
rules.
• We must ask ourselves: can the rule governing
my action be made into a universal law?
But, in my case…
• Kantian ethics does not allow for any
exceptions on the basis of a person’s
preference, capacities, desires, or
circumstances.
• Moral laws must be applied universally.
• Of course we are all unique individuals (not
robots), but we cannot make an exception
for ourselves when applying the moral law.
“Traffic Jam” Morality
• We make exceptions for ourselves all the time.
• For instance, when we merge late into an exit
lane, or we take a shortcut through a gas
station, or we try to get through an intersection
at the last minute, or we blame our tardiness on
the traffic…
• In all of these cases, we make an exception of
ourselves. We say, “Of course, it wouldn’t
work for everyone to act the way I’m acting,
but I’m in a hurry, I have important things to
do …”
Two Kinds of Imperatives
Categorical
and
Hypothetical
Categorical Imperatives
• These imperatives have the force of a
universal moral law.
• They command necessarily and objectively
in themselves.
• They provide perfect duties that are
determined in every respect and should not
vary between people, societies or time
periods.
Hypothetical Imperatives
• Whoever wills the end also necessarily wills
the means to that end.
– If I will X, I must will Y,
– where Y is the means necessary to attain X.
• Hypothetical imperatives provide imperfect
duties.
• These are duties we have to ourselves or others
that remain undetermined in some respect and
may vary for individuals, cultures, or time
periods.
Three Formulations of the
Categorical Imperative
Universal Moral Law
• Act only in accordance with that maxim/rule that you
could will to become a universal law (Kant, pg. 31).
• Kant calls this the first and most fundamental
formulation.
• It emphasizes the nature of “imperatives” and the idea
of universality.
• Consider “paying back your debts”: why should you
pay back debts?
– Consider the law that says that a person can default of debt
payments.
– Universalize this law.
– Now, consider the process of lending and borrowing.
– If defaults were common, then lenders would not be inclined
to lend money… they lending system would break down.
– So, this law cannot be universalized without undermining its
own intention.
Human Dignity
• Act only in such a way that you treat
humanity, either in yourself or in others,
always as an end in itself and never as a means
to an end (Kant, pg. 38).
• This version emphasizes the intrinsic value of
human persons. Strictly speaking, autonomous,
rational agents are priceless, i.e., there is no
consequence that can justify treating a human
being as a means to an end.
• This Kantian moral principle highlights the
intuitive rationale underlying the moral
wrongness of killing innocents, slavery, and
assigning a dollar value to human life.
Moral Community
• Consider yourself to be both lawgiver and subject in
an ideal community, a “kingdom of ends” (Kant, pg.
41).
• This version asks us to consider our autonomy from
the perspective of a moral community, i.e., the
entire domain of free, autonomous agents.
• Here, Kant asks us to think of the social dimension
to morality. It also asks us to imagine an ideal state
that entirely respects our freedom and responsibility.
Consider the case of a promise
• For Kant, keeping a promise is a perfect duty; it
commands categorically.
• The will that feels obligated to fulfill promises is an
intrinsically good thing.
• One can demonstrate the good of promise-keeping
according to each formulation of the categorical
imperative:
– Promise-breaking involves a contradiction in the practical
concept of promise-making because if no one kept their
promises, then promises would be worthless;
– A person who breaks a promise treats another person as a
means to his own end;
– The best possible society would be a society in which everyone
kept their promises.
Social Contract Theory
• In 1971, Harvard philosopher John Rawls
(1921-2002) published a book, A Theory of
Justice.
• This book argues for a Kantian view of justice
as the proper basis for designing a modern
liberal democratic society.
• Rawls focuses on “social justice” rather than
“criminal justice,” meaning he is interested in
the structure of the social state as just or
unjust.
Justice as Fairness
• Rawls argues that our basic concept of justice is
fairness.
• To be fair, society must be founded on two
principles:
– Equality Principle: each person has an equal right to the
greatest liberties that are compatible with similar
liberties for others.
– Difference Principle: inequalities are tolerated so long
as two conditions are satisfied:
• These inequalities function to everyone’s advantage.
• Greater liberties and social goods are attached to positions that
are equally open to all.
The Veil of Ignorance
• Rawls argues that these principles of a just society
are the principles that a rational person would accept
from “behind a veil of ignorance.”
• The veil of ignorance stipulates that a person choose
social laws and regulations without any knowledge
about his or her specific traits: family, social
standing, education, gender, physical attributes,
intellectual attributes, etc.
• The veil of ignorance preserves the universal
applicability of our decisions; they reflect no person
bias.
Kantianism - Review
• A principled approach to morality. Moral laws
have a universal application
• Rests on the idea of human beings as
autonomous, rational agents acting in their
own self-interest.
• Actions should follow imperatives, or
universal moral laws that make no exception
for ourselves and treat every human being with
complete dignity and respect.