Kant

1
Kant

• Morality of Duty 2

2

• We have seen that, for Kant
• Duty is expressed in categorical imperatives
  one form of which is
• Act as though the maxim of your action were by
  your will to become a universal law of nature.
  (extract, p.274)

3

• We could call this the principle of
  universalisability.
• So the question is, can I universalise my
  intention to lie to a particular person, in a
  particular situation?
• If the maxim of my action cannot be
  universalised, then it goes against Duty.

4

• Two Problems
• 1. Kant acknowledges that he doesnt know if such
  imperatives really exist he will try to prove
  it (although he finally admits to failure).

5

• 2. Critics argue that there are many practical
  and moral problems with such a rigid
  interpretation of duty never lie under any
  circumstances, etc.

6

• 1. What Kant wants is to prove that there is a
  practical law which of itself commands absolutely
  and without any incentives, and that obedience to
  this law is duty (p.276).
• Note absolutely no incentives obedience.

7

• He wants to show that this principle is above all
  merely human (empirical) considerations it is
  a principle, a law of Reason, which applies to
  all rational beings not just humans.
• So, the merely human, the merely empirical are
  of no concern to it. Note how totally
  un-Aristotelian this is.

8

• Kant points out that the intrinsic worth of the
  command is more obvious in cases where we have no
  inclination to act according to duty in other
  words, the more unpleasant the act, the more
  moral the person (see p.277).

9

• Here philosophy must show its purity and must
  appeal only to the supremacy of the law and due
  respect for it. Otherwise, we are condemned to
  self-contempt and inner abhorrence (p.277).

10

• Now, if it is necessary for all rational beings
  to judge their actions by asking if they could
  will them to be universalised, then the
  explanation for this must have something to do
  with the nature of the will of rational beings.
• What is the nature of the will?

11

• It is either relative/material/hypothetical
  aiming at some temporary or conditional end/goal
• Or, it is objective, aiming at some end of
  absolute value.
• This is rather like Aristotles idea of happiness
  as the ultimate, unconditional goal of life.
• BUT

12

• But, for Kant, the only end in itself is the
  person the rational being.
• Such beings are not merely subjective ends but
  are objective ends, ie., beings whose existence
  in itself is an endfor, without them, nothing of
  absolute worth could be found. (p.279)
• The person is necessarily an end for everyone
  because it is an end in itself.

13

• And, on the basis of this, Kant gives us a new
  formulation of the categorical imperative
  although it still hasnt been proven!
• Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your
  own person or in that of another, always as an
  end and never as a means only. (p.279)

14

• Question if we applied this principle to the
  lying examples, would we get the same result?
• If you lie to your mother about breaking the
  vase, are you treating her as a means only and
  not as an end? Is the lie an act that
  disrespects her nature as a rational being?
• Perhaps

15

• Back to our second Problem
• 2. Critics argue that there are many practical
  and moral problems with such a rigid
  interpretation of duty never lie under any
  circumstances, etc.

16

• At the end of the Reading you will find Kants
  response to this kind of criticism.
• A lie may not harm any particular individual in
  some cases it may save a life. BUT a lie harms
  mankind generally, for it vitiates the source of
  law itself (p.281)

17

• And If you lie to stop a murder, then you become
  responsible for all the unforeseen (and
  unforeseeable) consequences of this lie. Whereas
  if you tell the truth, all responsibility stays
  with the (potential) murderer.
• Satisfactory answer??

18

• Summary
• Kants ethics is a form of deontology (focuses
  on duty).
• Our moral duties are based on Reason they are
  expressions of the law of reason.
• We are categorically obliged to conform to duty
  because of our nature as rational beings.