Download The Basis of Moral Knowledge

Duty-Defined Morality
Sources:
Solomon – The Big Questions
Stumpf – Philosophy
Velazquez – Business Ethics, Ch. 2
On what basis do we have moral rights? We could try to argue like the 18th century
philosophers Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau about a state of nature prior to society and derive
human rights from that. Another approach is to argue that they come from reason itself.
We have seen attempts to justify morality based on commandments from a higher authority
such as God (Christian theology).
The Ten Commandents – “Thou shall not kill.”
We have also seen attempts to deduce moral principles from initial assumptions about the
nature of human beings (human rights).
“All men are equal and independent before God, therefore every person has the right
to free speech, freedom of association, property, etc.”
What if we didn’t try to justify moral principles based on authority or on deduction from basic
principles, but on reason itself?
I would get a Categorical Imperative - a commandment without qualifications.
The justification of a moral law is the status of the principle itself, not the authority
(either God or deduction) by which it is given to us, not its consequences or whatever
personal reasons we might find in addition for obeying it. It is simply “right.”
Kant and the Authority of Reason
The most complex and sophisticated theories of morality are the ones that make the authority
internal to us, as in conscience or reason. Kant's theory of morals is of this type. For him
morality is a matter of reason and rationality. He talked of autonomy, by which he meant that
every one of us is capable of figuring out what is right or wrong on his or her own without
appeal to external authority, just by using the faculty of reason.
This does not mean that morality is subjective, since reason goes beyond us. It is "objective"
and prescribes universal necessary laws and duties. It is the authority of reason that justifies
moral principles. God's laws are justified because they follow from reason. God can only tell us
what our reason is already capable of justifying.
Since it is the rationality of the principles, and not the consequences, which are important, it is
not so much our actions in and of themselves which are important, but rather our intentions
(Good will). Consequences are therefore important, but not the actual consequences, but the
expected consequences of our acts.
In making moral choices, the most rational choice has to be made on the basis of whether or
not the action could be generalizable. We have to ask ourselves, what if everyone acted in the
same way? Therefore the test of a principle's rationality is its universalizability. This
essentially makes moral principles universal in another sense, that is, that they hold true
regardless of time and place. They are a-historical, a-situational, cross-cultural, cross-societal,
cross-individual.
The Basis of Moral Knowledge
The task of moral philosophy is to discover how we are able to arrive at principles of
behavior that are binding upon all men. We cannot discover these principles by
observing behavior – this will tell us what men do but not what they ought to do.
He rejected utilitarianism or any doctrine that gives to morality a purpose outside
of itself. In other words, we do not need to be moral because it is in our or
society’s "best interests". A man who is honest because it is in his own selfinterest is not virtuous. Moral laws exist for their own sake. All originate a priori in
the reason.
Moral laws are not discoverable by observation, because our observations give
us no information regarding how we ought to behave.
Kant wanted to base all our knowledge on reason. To give a comparative example
about the physical world, we generally operate on the assumption “every change must
have a cause.” There is no way to prove this is true from experience (take my word for
it) because it is not observable. It is a presumption that goes beyond any particular facts
we experience at any one time. The same is true for a moral statement such as “We
ought to tell the truth”. This statement is not observable either. Both statements are the
product of reason, both are applied by us to the world, and both are universal.
The basis of obligation should not be sought in human nature (e.g. human rights)
or in the quality of “goodness” (e.g. Plato, Aristotle), or in the circumstances of
the world in which man is placed (e.g. based on consequences), but simply a
priori in the concepts of reason.
Morality and Rationality – when we consider what we must do we are also
considering what all rational being must do, for if it is valid for me it must be valid for all
rational beings. Moral philosophy is the quest for these principles that apply to all
rational beings and that lead to behavior that we call good.
“Good” Defined as the Good Will
The “good” is defined in terms of intentions. Nothing we can think of is good in and of
itself except good will. Acts cannot be judged good based on their consequences, nor
on its usefulness in attainment of some purpose – only the will of the person engaging
in the act.
Duty is a form of obligation as it comes to us in the form of an imperative.
Categorical imperative - a certain kind of action as objectively necessary, without
regard to any end. Applies to all men and commands. A categorical imperative
commands certain conduct immediately, without having any other purpose as a
condition.
It is categorical because it instantly applies to all rational beings, and it is
imperative because it is the principle on which we ought to act.
The Categorical Imperative – the first formulation
“An action is morally right for a person in a certain situation if, and only if, the person’s
reason for carrying out the action is a reason that he or she would be willing to have
every person act on, in any similar situation.”
Should I fire someone because I do not like their race? We should ask ourselves
what would happen if everyone fired people because of their race. We should
extend this further and ask ourselves whether we would like to be discriminated
against based on our race. (Example 1, p. 79 – Velazquez)
A person’s reasons must be universal – what if everyone acted that way, and
reversible – meaning that I must be prepared for others to act the same way to me.
Similar to the Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Being willing to act on a certain reason is one thing, sometimes we cannot even
conceive others acting in the same way.
If I am considering breaking a contract because there is something I do not want to
do, how could I imagine everyone breaking contracts? We would just throw them
away. (Example 2, p. 79 – Velazquez)
The first formulation incorporates two criteria for determining moral right and wrong:
Universalizability: The person’s reasons for acting must be reasons that everyone
could act on at least in principle. “What if everyone did that?”
Reversibility: The person’s reasons for acting must be reasons that he or she would
be willing to have all others use, even as a basis of how they treat him or her. “How
would you feel if someone did that to you?”
Our actions are not to make us happy.
Our actions are not to be judged on what they accomplish
Our actions are not judged on the basis of whether they further our interests.
Our actions have “moral worth” only to the degree that it is also motivated by a
sense of “duty” – a belief that it is the right way for all people to behave.
The Categorical Imperative – the second formulation
“An action is morally right for a person if, and only if, in performing the action, the person
does not use others merely as a means for advancing his or her own interests, but also
both respects and develops their capacity to choose freely for themselves.”
This means that everyone should treat each human being as a being whose existence as
a free rational person should be promoted. This means two things:
1. respect each person’s freedom by treating people only as they have freely
consented to be treated beforehand.
2. develop each person’s capacity to freely choose for him or herself the aims he or
she will pursue.
In other words, we should not treat people as an instrument for advancing one’s own
interests with no respect for them nor development of their capacity to choose freely.
Human beings have an equal dignity that is incompatible with being manipulated,
deceived, or otherwise unwillingly exploited to satisfy the self-interests of others. In
general, deception, force, and coercion fail to respect people’s freedom to choose and
are therefore immoral.
Examples:
1) making fraudulent contracts by deceiving others is wrong because I am deceiving a
person into making a contract they would otherwise not freely choose to make.
2) refraining to give others help when they need it is to limit what that other person is free
to choose to do.
Both formulations come down to the same thing – people are to treat each other as free
and equal in the pursuit of their interests.
Kantian Rights
Does the categorical imperative allow us to derive moral rights? Moral rights identify interests
that individuals must be left free to pursue as they autonomously choose and whose free
pursuit must not be subordinated to our interests. They identify the specific major areas in
which persons must deal with each other as free equals
The categorical imperative by itself cannot tell us what particular moral rights humans have.
We must first know what interests humans have and whether there are good reasons for
giving the free pursuit of one interest, rather than another, the protected status of a right.
Clearly not all interests are rights, because they can conflict with one another.
Example: free speech. we would have to show that this is critically important to human
beings and more important than the free pursuit of other conflicting interests that humans
may have. Also, if everyone has the moral right to free speech, to the extent that it
conflicts with other human interests that can be shown to be of equal or greater
importance (such as libel or defamation), the right to freedom of speech must be limited.
How to justify rights:
Positive rights – People have a clear interest in being helped by being provided with the work,
food, clothing, housing, and medical care they need to live on when they cannot provide these
for themselves. If we agree that such help is necessary for everyone to be able to choose
freely and develop and even survive, then no individual should be deprived of such help. We
have positive rights to these things.
Negative rights – We have a clear interest in being free from injury or fraud and in being free to
think, associate, speak, and live privately as they choose. Therefore everyone should be free
of the interference of others in these areas. These are negative rights.
Contracts: It is in our interest to preserve the institution of contracts. Human beings have a
contractual right to what they have been promised in contracts, and everyone also has a right
to be left free and fully informed when contracts are made.
Problems with Kant
Critics point to limitations and inadequacies
1. Not precise enough to be useful. The general policy of doing what I would want
everyone else to do leads to problems sometimes. e.g. if I am a murderer, would I be
willing to follow the policy that all murderers be punished? Or not willing because then I
should be punished myself. Which sense is correct? Or if a business owner pays
minimum wage and refuses to put in safety equipment, she is “respecting their capacity
to freely choose for themselves because they are free to go look for work elsewhere. Is
she treating them as means or as ends? The theory is not clear.
2. Although we might agree on what has the status of human moral rights, there is
substantial disagreement on what the limits of these rights are and how each of these
rights should be balanced against other conflicting rights. e.g. everyone has the right to
free association and a right not to be injured by others. What about when the right of
association begins to harm others? Like the loud music of a party, or a corporation that
pollutes the air and which the health of others depends. Which right should be limited?
Kant’s theory does not have suggestions.
Rebuttal: The notion of the categorical imperative is not intended to tell us how
conflicting rights should be limited and adjusted to each other. One has to
examine in each case the relative importance of the interests that each right
protects. Deciding whether a corporation has the right to use its property for
financial gain or the neighbors their right not to have their health injured is
something to be negotiated. The categorical imperative is meant to tell us that
everyone must have equal moral rights and everyone must show as much respect
for the protected interests of others as he or she wants others to show for his or
her own. It does not tell us what interests people have nor what their relative
importance is.
3. Counterexamples show that the theory sometimes goes wrong. Suppose I am a
business owner and discriminate against blacks and am so racist that I would want
people to discriminate against me if I were black. According to Kant this would be
moral, when it is clearly immoral.
This could mean that an action is morally right for one person and not for another.