Download Kant and Duty

Bumper Sticker Ethics S.Wilkins
ITS YOUR DUTY
KANTIAN ETHICS
Situation1
Soldier attacks-gun position
Likely he will die in the first wave
(Saving Private Ryan)
Situation2
Juror:
Defendant has a long criminal history.
Instinct says He is guilty. But she must
decide on evidence alone. Not guilty.
Two situations involving DUTY regardless
of consequences
Centrepiece of Kant’s Moral
Philosophy:
Duty
Being good is a matter of reverence for duty
People who follow Kant care about rules and motives
not results.
For Kant ethical obligation is not (like examples given)
based on law.
Military/Criminal.
Ethical duties should be the same for all in everyday
circumstance.
Kant: Moral truth stands by itself; it is AUTONOMOUS and
Self-Contained
Rejects consequentialist ethics.
CONSEQUENTIALISM - Relies on what is, it can never get
us to ethics (OUGHT). Ethical decision making needs
something other than consequences.
Kant: Reason alone should be the foundation.
The ethical rules we adopt are those which show themselves
to be logically consistent – no self contradiction. Moral
principles that meet the demands of reason are always
valid for everyone.
For Kant ethical decisions
are about
MOTIVE
NOT
RESULTS
• We should act out of
the intention to do our
DUTY
The Categorical Imperative
How do we discover what our DUTIES are?
Answer: Through the use of categorical imperatives.
‘‘A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as
objectively necessary in itself apart from its relation to a further end’’
Categorical = That which is Absolute.
A C.I. is then a command/law that allows no exceptions.
C.I. is a general axiom that is not itself a moral rule, but a means of arriving
at a specific moral rule that applies to everyone.
It tells us how to know which ethical rules should be acted upon.
C.I. :
Learn:
Act only on that maxim(1)
through which you can at the same time
will that it should be a
UNIVERSAL LAW.(2)
Example: I borrow some money, promise to pay it back by a certain
time though I know this is not possible.
Maxim(1)(Proposed rule of action):
Whenever I believe myself short of money, I will borrow money, promise
to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done.
Should (1) become a C.I. (2)/universal law?
Kant: NO! Universalising a maxim like ‘We should make promises
we cannot keep’, is ultimately Self-defeating/irrational.
Why? We deceive someone. We cannot exist without truth.
If all people lied there would be no truth left to deceive someone
about.
UNIVERSALIZING:
‘‘We should make promises we cannot keep’’
Would defeat the very purpose of using deceit because no one
would believe any promise. Since universalisation of a
principle that says we promise to do what we cannot do, makes
it impossible to deceive someone, it is self-contradictory; it
violates reason.
Summary: If we would want everyone to act on a maxim under
consideration, it is our moral obligation to do it ourselves. It is
our DUTY.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
VERSION TWO: Kant provides a second version of the C.I.
‘‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether
in your own person or in the person of any other, never
simply as a means, but always at the same time as the
end’’
• Basically: Do our actions treat humanity as an end or do
they use people as a means????????????
• Kant: People are Intrinsically Valuable; they should never
be manipulated to achieve a goal.
• Example: Suicide- In this
case we should not treat
ourselves as a means.
One would contemplate
suicide only if one
thought some benefit
could be achieved by itsuch as relief from
anxiety.
•
This is morally wrong.
In killing ourselves, we
use a person (ourselves)
as a means to an end
(freedom from pain).
Example:
People are to be treated as ends-if
they are used as a means to an end;
they do not have freedom to make
decisions.
1. I compliment your appearance
because I want you to like me
2. You are being treated as a tool
and not as a person with inherent
value.
3 Why? Your freedom to respond
demands on your ability to trust
what I say. Insincere compliments
limit your choice of responses and
manipulate you.
4. You are not able to freely
respond to what I really think.
5. I have used you as a means to
get something I want.
Treating people as an
ends/inherently valuable,
corrects a problem of
consequentialist systems i.e.:
The happiness of the majority/or
some other end opens the
door for exploiting people- i.e.
SLAVERY.
+ Enslaving people constitutes
the use of these individuals
for the happiness of the
majority. This cannot for Kant
be tolerated
POSITIVES
1.
Duty-Intuition that some things
are right no matter what. Kant’s
emphasis on Duty helps anchor
morality so that we are not swayed
by changing moods/emotions or
sidetracked by unpredictable
consequences. Duty as a basis –
helps prevent choices being
arbitrary and changeable.
• 2. Laws like ‘Do not steal’ have an
objective status: • This separates us from
emotions/wants. It does not care about
how we feel about stealing. Similarly,
Kant takes us beyond Non Ethical
questions like:
• ‘‘What do I want’’?
And to ethical questions like:
• ‘‘What is RIGHT?’’
3.
For Kant ethics is like
Mathematics or science:
Truth is truth. Even if we change our
thinking- the universe does not
change.
So: Ethical Laws do not change. They
are not open to negotiation.
Kant’s system is attractive if you do
not simply want to justify what you
want to believe but really want to
know what is right.
I want B to be true BUT
A is the truth.
4. Ethics needs to be rational not
irrational (this can be frightening).
Kant asserts that an ethical conclusion
must be rationally supported –this is
preferable to a system that is not
rationally supported.
5. Kant gives use a method of checking if
our wants are ethical.
~we put ourselves in others shoes.
~we must avoid using people as
means to an end.
6.Kant affirms God’s existence but God has no
place in Kantian Ethics
REASON alone is the foundation of moral truth.
However Christians can be attracted to Kant’s
ethic
~ There is objective moral truth.
~ Many of Kant’s ethical rules parallel the 10
commandments.
~ Scripture-Ethical directives for all = Kant’s
rules Universalised.
Problems?
1. What if there is a conflict
C.I. Tell the truth- help a murder.
Tell a lie- prevent a murder.
• ‘Where is he? Let me
Kill him!’
Telling a lie cannot be a C.I., so do
we help the murderer?
We could create another C.I. e.g.
‘‘You should not help those who
seek to murder innocent
people.’’
Now we have two opposite C.I.’s.
Kant does not help us choose!!!
• ‘Do I lie or do I tell
him where Mr. C is?’
2. Does Kant avoid circumstances completely?
Kant certainly uses consequences to determine an
action is rational or not.
Never tell the truth = Irrational: world in which no one
would believe you. Lies would be the norm.
‘‘On one hand Kant say consequences tell us nothing
about ethics. On the other hand, consequences are
consulted in determining whether a proposed rule
is rational.’’
3. Is every rule we would universalise, a
moral duty?
We could make C.I.’s which are neither
contradictory and are
universalizable. But they could be:
A. Morally neutral.
B. So defines that it benefits one
particular person.
i.e.
smile at strangers
How do we know laws about honesty
are more ethically significant than
laws about smiling?
4. Is reason sufficient?
Human reason is finite.
To make our reason the sole
standard of right and wrong
leaves any ethical system open
to error!
A failure to reason
Correctly ethically
Might have greater
Consequences.
• 2+2 =3
Oops, I made a
mistake
5. What of love?
Justicea Dutya People as endsa Reasona
But where is God’s lover
Mercyr
Forgivenessr
For the Christian Kant’s ethic allows us to fulfil our
duty without loving people. This is a problem.
There is no sense of fulfilling the demands of
ethics because of love of God and persons=COLD
LEGALISM.
JACQUES MARTAIN:
“One might say that ethics of pure reason is a
Christian ethic whose theological root has been
severed leaving only the stiffened branches.”
STEVE WILKINS
aDuty
Moral law
Reason
Justice
Dignity of people
rDuties do
sometimes
conflict. Which do
we choose. Kant
does not help
rLacks humanity
And concern for People.
Kant: allow someone to be murdered
To avoid lying!!!
Something is wrong