Lecture 5: Consequential Ethics

1
Lecture 5 Consequential Ethics Deontological
Ethics
2
Consider these quotes

• The remarkable thing is that we really love our
  neighbor as ourselves we do unto others as we do
  unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate
  ourselves. We are tolerant toward others when we
  tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we
  forgive ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice
  others when we are ready to sacrifice ourselves.
  Eric Hoffer

3
Consider these quotes

• We can discover this meaning in life in three
  different ways (1) by doing a deed (2) by
  experiencing a value and (3) by suffering.
  Victor Frankl.

4
Consider these quotes

• Never let your sense of morals get in the way
  of doing what's right. Isaac Asimov.
• When morality comes up against profit, it is
  seldom that profit loses. Shirley Chisholm

5
Consider these quotes

• Actions are right in proportion as they tend to
  promote happiness wrong as they tend to produce
  the reverse of happiness. By happiness is
  intended pleasure and the absence of pain.
  John Stuart Mill

6
Major Ideas

• Virtue Ethics An action is right iff it is what
  the virtuous agent would do. 1. An action is
  right iff it is what a virtuous agent would do in
  the circumstances 1a. A virtuous agent is one
  who acts virtuously, i.e., one who has
  exercises the virtues. 2 A virtue is a character
  trait a human being needs to flourish or live
  well. What is essential is to note the conceptual
  link between virtue flourishing (living well or
  eudaimonia).

7
Major Ideas

• Deontological Ethics An action is right iff it
  is in accordance with a moral rule or principle.
  A moral rule is one that is(a) laid on us by God,
  (b) required by natural law, (c) laid on us by
  reason, (d) required by rationality, (e) would
  command universal rational acceptance, or (f)
  would be the object of choice of all rational
  beings. What is essential is the link between
  right action, moral rule, rationality.

8
Major Ideas

• Consequential Ethics An action is right iff it
  promotes the best consequences. The best
  consequences are those in which happiness is
  maximized. What is essential to note is that it
  forges a link between consequences happiness.

9
Major Ideas

• Before we consider consequential and
  deontological ethics, lets explore some other
  basic terms that are important to know
• Good ideas have good consequences, bad ideas have
  bad consequences.

10
What is Pluralism?

• There are definite standards of right behavior
  but that more than one right standard exists.
• - There are several right course of action.

11
What is Relativism?

• The theory that there are no absolute standards
  and that all truth is relative to a person or
  culture.
• - No universal moral law or norm of goodness or
  rightness exists.
• - What seems right to a person or group is
  right there is no higher court of appeal.

12
A. Relativism assumes the following

• 1. The context or situational setting in which
  any talk occurs influences its outcome or the
  conclusions that arise from it.
• 2. Relativism leads to the conclusion that the
  situational character of all conversations have
  no access to a standpoint from which we could
  reach conclusions about what is absolute or
  universally right or wrong, good or evil, just or
  unjust.

13
Relativism assumes the following

• 3. Moral relativism declares that assertions
  about the right and the good, as well as laws or
  principles that guide human moral behavior are
  contextually determined.

14
3a. Cultural Relativism

• A form of pluralism, this theory holds that
  different standards of right and wrong arise in
  different cultures. Within a given culture there
  are distinct standards, but these standards may
  vary from culture to culture.
• - No culture is in a position to make ethical
  judgments about the behaviors of other
  cultures.
• - Ex. One culture may have a prohibition
  against slavery, whereas another culture does
  not. In this view, slavery is right for the one
  culture but wrong for the other.

15
3b. Individual Relativism

• A form of pluralism, individual relativism is
  the doctrine that states that what is right
  depends on the view of a specific individual.
• Ex. If a lady believes that extramarital
  affairs are morally permissible but her husband
  does not, then extramarital affairs are right for
  her, but wrong for him.

16
In contrast, what is Absolutism?

• There are definite and universal standards of
  ethical behavior, that we can know what they are,
  that all people have an obligation to act on
  them.
• a. Believed to be standards which are dictated
  or generated by human reason (Kantian ethics ).
• b. These ethical standards are either
  religious in nature (e.g., special revelation
  the Bible.).

17
3c. A Problem of Relativist Theories

• A. They seem unable to account to how strongly
  people feel about certain immoral acts.
• Ex. If a Nazi soldier believes that torturing
  Jewish children is morally permissible, can we
  only say that such behavior is right for him but
  that it is not right for us?
• B. They are unable to offer a strong account for
  justice vs. injustice good vs. evil, right.
  vs wrong it is counter-intuitive.

18
3c. A Problem of Relativist Theories

• C. Unlivable and inconsistent with reality.

19
Disastrous Effects of Relativism According to
John Piper (Christian Thought)

• Relativism commits treason against God
• Relativism cultivates duplicity (dishonesty).
• Relativism conceals doctrinal defects.
• Relativism cloaks greed with flattery.
• Relativism cloaks pride in the guise of humility.
• Relativism enslaves people.
• Relativism leads to a brutal totalitarianism.
• Relativism silences personal identity.
• Relativism poisons personal character.

20
Lets now turn to consequential ethics
21
Consequential Ethics

• We choose the actions that bring about the best
  outcomes. There are many kinds of consequential
  forms of ethics. Lets consider the following
• - Egoism we should always act to maximize our
  own individual interests.

22
A. Consequential Ethics

• We choose the actions that
• bring about the best outcomes
• - Egoism we should always act to maximize our
  own individual interests.
• - Utilitarianism we should act to maximize the
  happiness of all affected by the action.

23
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• This theory that holds that an act is right or
  wrong according to the utility or value of its
  consequences.
• An act that produces more good than harm has
  greater value than act that produces more harm
  than good.

24
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism believe in the value of ethical
  laws in helping people determine which action
  will probably bring about the greatest good for
  the greatest number of people.
• While they are not against laws or values
  (antinomians), they are not absolutists either.
• Every act is judged by its results, not by it
  intrinsic and universal value.

25
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• In order to do determine the best consequence,
  some argue that you must add up the happiness in
  one person and then multiply the total happiness
  in the total number of people and subtract the
  total pain.
• If the result is positive then the action is
  good.
• If the result is negative then the action is bad.

26
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• Uses of Utilitarian Ethics in terms of Pleasure
  vs. Pain (Peter Singer)
• 1. When we testify the safety of a new
  shampoo, we drip the shampoo in concentrated form
  into the eye of rabbits, causing them terrible
  pain. But does shampoo leaving your hair
  lustrous and manageable, sufficient to justify
  the infliction of so much suffering?

27
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• 2. The taste of a char-grilled steak, juicy
  and tender, is a genuine source of pleasure. But
  can this gourmet pleasure (which is not essential
  to sustain our lives), and in fact may shorten
  our lives by contributing to LDL levels, justify
  the infliction of suffering on cattle that are
  raised on crowded feedlots, and then herded into
  slaughter houses?

28
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• 3. It must be delightful to live in an elegant
  home, richly equipped with a Jacuzzi and sauna in
  addition to having a master bedroom suite with an
  entire wall-covered entertainment system. But is
  it really right to spend that much on luxuries
  that add only a small increase to our pleasure
  when the same resources could be used to care for
  impoverished children living in hunger? For
  example, 21.00 US dollars can feed over 150
  elementary students in Ghana for two weeks (rice
  mixed with yams).

29
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• 4. I purchase another expensive GQ suit to
  add to my already stuffed closet-for it will
  bring me pleasure. But is that small increment
  of pleasure even remotely comparable to the
  pleasure and relief of suffering that would
  result if I took that same money and purchased
  clothes to orphan children or a threadbare
  family?

30
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• 5. A tummy tuck will certainly improve sagging
  appearances and make some of us feel better. But
  the cost of a tummy tuck can be used to drill a
  water well and provide clean and pure water to an
  entire village in most third world countries.

31
A closer look at Utilitarianism

• 6. Utilitarian Ethics and Public Policy
• If we are trying to decide whether a new
  football stadium with luxury boxes for the very
  rich is a better investment than decent
  inner-city schools and health care for the poor,
  is utilitarian calculations a better guide for
  making such decisions than deontological ethics?

32
Problems with Utilitarianism

• The end does not justify the means.
• An act is not automatically good simply because
  it has a good goal.
• The road to destruction is paved with good
  intentions (Prov. 1412).
• Ex. President Nixons goal of national security
  was noble, but the criminal activity of Watergate
  was not justified.

33
Problems with Utilitarianism

• Utilitarian acts have no intrinsic value.
• Ex. The attempt to save a life is not an
  intrinsically valuable act.
• No benevolence, no sacrifice, no love has any
  value unless it happens to have good results.
• Ex. If forced to choose to save either a
  medical doctor or a poor child from a destructive
  house fire, one is obligated to save the medical
  doctor.

34
Problems with Utilitarianism

• People are subject to the greater good of
  statistics
• Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical
  doctor or a poor child from a destructive house
  fire, one is obligated to save the medical doctor
  because we know he is able to help people we
  dont know the future of the child.

35
Problems with Utilitarianism

• The need for an absolute standard
• Relative norms do no stand alone. They must be
  relative to something which is not relative. So,
  unless there is a standard, how can they know
  what is the greater good.

36
Problems with Utilitarianism

• The end is an ambiguous term
• If the utilitarian contends that ethics should
  be based on what will bring the best results in
  the long run, how long is long? A few years?
  a life-time? Eternity? Anything beyond the
  immediate present is outside of the human range.

37
Problems with Utilitarianism

• Ambiguous as well in determining whether the
  end means for the greatest number or for all
  individuals.
• Could good could be achieved or the most people
  if basic rights were denied to some people? Is
  this intuitively right?

38
Problems with Utilitarianism

• Pleasure vs. Pain
• Pain and Pleasure are not exact opposites. Is
  this true?
• How do you measure pain and pleasure?
• Can pain be beneficial over and against pleasure?

39
Conclusion to Consequentialism

• Consequentialists believe that consequences are
  the only things that matter
• A. We do not necessarily know the outcome.
• B. The consequences of our own action may be
  unpredictable.

40
Conclusion to Consequentialism

• C. he consequences of other peoples actions
  which impact on our actions may also be
  unpredictable.
• D. We do not know what the consequences will be
  of our action in the long term.
• E. We cant necessarily control the consequences.

41
Concluding thought to Consequentialism

• Dostoyeskys Challenge to Utilitarian Ethicists
• Tell me honestly, I challenge you-answer me
  imagine that you are charged with building the
  edifice of human destiny, the ultimate aim of
  which is to bring people happiness, to give them
  peace and contentment at last, but that in order
  to achieve this it is essential and unavoidable
  to torture just one speck of creation,
  thatlittle child beating her chest with her
  little fists, and imagine that this edifice has
  to be erected on her unexpiated suffering for
  having done nothing wrong tears. Would you agree
  to be the architect under those conditions? Tell
  me honestly!
• The Karamazov Brothers, trans. Ignat Avsey
  (Oxford Oxford University Press, 1994).

42

• Lets now explore Deontological Ethics

43
Deontological Ethics

• We should choose actions based on their
  inherent, intrinsic worth evangelical approaches
  to ethics are deontological because it
  presupposes Scripture as revelation.
• Deontological comes from the Greek word
  deon, meaning that which is binding, in
  particular a binding duty. So, you are bound to
  your duty.

44
Deontological Framework

• An action is right if and only if (iff) it is in
  accordance with a moral rule or principle.
• This is a purely formal specification, forging a
  link between the concepts of right and action and
  moral rule, and gives one no guidance until one
  knows what a moral rule is.

45
Deontological Framework

• Therefore, the links between right action, moral
  rule, and rationality based upon moral rule
  given by God or required by natural or laid on us
  by reason or required by rationality or would
  command universal rational acceptance or would by
  the object of choice of all rational beingare
  all essential aspects to any deontological
  framework.

46
Deontological Framework

• So, the next thing the theory needs is a premise
  about that A moral rule is one that would have
  been historically
• A. Theistic
• 1. Given to us by God
• 2. Is required by Natural Law (theistic
  connection)
• B. Secular (though can still be connected to
  God)
• 1. Is laid on us by reason.
• 2. Is required by rationality
• 3. Would command universal acceptance
• 4. Would be the object of choice of all
  rational beings.

47
Deontological Ethics

• It holds that acts are right or wrong in and of
  themselves because of the kinds of acts they are
  and not simply because of their ends or
  consequences.
• - The ends do not justify the means.
• - A good end or purpose does not justify a bad
  actions.
• - You are duty-bound binding is not dependent
  on consequences, no matter if it is painful or
  pleasurable.

48
Deontological Ethics

• For example
• 1. You are duty-bound to keep your promise to be
  faithful to your spouse, even if a more
  attractive person comes along.
• 2. You are duty-bound to always telling the
  truth, even if it cost you a job.
• Duty is not based on what is pleasant or
  beneficial, but rather upon the obligation itself.

49
Deontological Ethics

• For example, a deontologist might argue that a
  promise ought to be kept simply because it is
  right to keep a promise, regardless whether the
  doing so will have good or bad consequences.
• In contrast, a utilitarian will argue that we
  should keep our promises only when keeping them
  results in better consequences than the
  alternatives.

50
Overview of Ethical Systems Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)
. To act morally you must be motivated
exclusively by rational commitment to the
universal moral law or the categorical
Imperative Act in conformity with that maxim,
and that maxim only, that you can will at the
same time be a universal law. Right actions
flow out of right principles
To act morally requires the rational power to
recognize absolute moral laws that transcend our
natural world.
To act morally requires the power of the will to
rise above all natural feelings and inclinations.
This raises us above our natural world.
Second form of categorical imperative Act in
such a way that you always treat humans not
merely as a means to an end but also as an end.
Do the act that is motivated by the sincere
belief that what you are doing is the right thing
not merely for you, but for anybody seeking to
act properly in any situation.
51
Basic Terms to Know

• 1. Deontological Ethics "rule or duty-based
  morality ...emphasizes right action over good
  consequences
• 2. a priori "not in any way derived from
  experience or dependent upon it" concepts
  derived a priori are universal rules that
  determine, in advance, the conditions for
  knowledge in a particular domain
• 3. maxim rule of conduct
• 4. Hypothetical imperative an action that is
  good only as a means to something else
• 5. Categorical imperative an action that is good
  in itself and conforms to reason categorical
  imperatives act as universal rules governing a
  situation regardless of circumstance

52
Summary

• Thus, Kantian ethics states an action is right
  iff it is in accord with the Categorical
  Imperative (the supreme principle of morality).
  Right actions flow from right principles.
• From using our capacity to reason Kant believes
  the Categorical Imperative can be formulated in
  at least three ways they are all equivalent with
  the first formulation being the basis. Though
  they bring out various aspects of the moral law,
  they cannot tell us more than what the first
  formula does.

53
Categorical Imperative

• The CI does not depend on a logically prior
  condition though it assumes the predisposition
  that one wishes to be rational and will follow
  what rationally determined duty dictates (in
  contrast to hypothetical imperatives which means
  that the consequent depends upon the antecedent
  If p, then q). Thus, morality is a function of
  human reason. Human reason is governed by Logic.
  Q.E.D., to be irrational is to be inhuman. To be
  sure, there are perfect and imperfect duties.
  Actions are characterized as perfect because they
  follow directly from an application of the
  universalization of the Categorical Imperative in
  contrast to imperfect duties that follow from CI
  only after considering other factors (e.g.,
  seeking our own happiness). An imperfect duty is
  just as strong in its action guiding force as a
  perfect duty. Thus, their point of origin
  highlights their differences.

54
Three Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

• First formulation Act in conformity with the
  maxim and the maxim only, that you can will at
  the same time a universal law. This means that
  what I consider doing, it must be something that
  I can will or accept that all do (universal) it
  is replacing individual preferences with purely
  universal terms.
• Second formulation Act in such a way that you
  treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
  that of another, always an end and never as a
  means only. In essence, every person has
  intrinsic value and that humanity is a limit or
  constraint on our action.
• Third formulation Therefore, every rational
  being must act as if he were through his maxim
  always a legislating member in the universal
  kingdom of ends. In other words, we have to
  will what is consistent with the operations of
  the kingdom as a whole. In sum, all people
  should consider themselves as both members and
  heads

55
Major Points to Consider

• 1. What gives an act moral worth is our motives
  because we cant necessarily control the
  consequences of our act or/and things do not
  always turn out as we want. He calls this motive
  the good will. Therefore, we are responsible
  for our motives to do good or bad, and thus it is
  for this that we are held morally accountable.
• 2. What is the right motive is acting out of a
  will to do the right thing only an act motivated
  by this concern for the moral law is right.
• Consider the following Shopkeeper illustration

56
Major Points to Consider

• 3. Kants Shopkeeper illustration A shopkeeper
  charges her customers a fair price and charges
  the same to all. But what is the shopkeepers
  motive?
• A. If the shopkeepers motive for charging a
  fair price is that it serves her own best
  interest, then this motive is not praiseworthy.
• B. If the shopkeepers motive for charging a
  fair price is because she is sympathetic toward
  her customers, then this motive is still not
  praiseworthy.
• C. If the shopkeepers motive is to do the right
  thing because it is the right thing, then her
  motive is indeed praiseworthy. Only doing that
  which is morally right is praiseworthy.
• We do not always know when our acts are
  motivated by self-interest, inclination or pure
  respect for morality. Also, we often act from
  mixed motives. However, we are certain that the
  motive is pure when we do what is right
  regardless how we feel or/and the consequences.

57
Major Points to Consider

• 4. In order for our action to have moral worth we
  must not only act out of a right motivation but
  we must also do what is right.

Right Motive
Right Act
The motive and the act must be morally right! We
must not only act of duty (have the right motive)
but also according to duty or as duty
requires (do what is right).
58

• 5. How we are to know what the right thing to do
  is to test our motives and actions against the
  categorical imperative. If our motive and acts
  meets the criteria of the categorical imperative
  we are obligated to do it.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE Oughts that tell us
what we ought to do no matter what, under all
conditions, and are universally binding
(categorical imperative). 1st form of
Categorical Imperative Act only on that maxim
which can will as a universal law. This means
that what I consider doing, it must be something
that I can will or accept that all do (universal).
Right Motive
Right Act
59
According the first formula

• According to the first formula the agent must
  be willing to eliminate all individual reference
  from the maxim of her action. The most
  significant exclusion from the maxim is oneself.
  Therefore, in order to pass the test of the
  categorical imperative in the first formulation,
  one must be prepared to go on willing even if it
  contains no reference to oneself.

60

• 6. Thus, whatever I consider doing, it must be
  something that I can will or accept all do.
• A law by its very nature has a degree of
  universality. Act only on that maxim which you
  can will as a universal law.

Maxim is a description of the action that I
will put to the test.
7. How do I know what I can and cannot will
as a universal practice?
As a rational being I can only will what is
non-contradictory
61

• 8. First Two Forms of the Categorical Imperative

2nd form of Categorical Imperative Always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or that of
another, never simply as a means but always at
the same time as an end. This means that every
person has intrinsic value that humanity is a
limit or constraint on our action.
1st form of Categorical Imperative Act only on
that maxim which can will as a universal
law. This means that what I consider doing, it
must be something that I can will or accept that
all do (universal) it is replacing individual
preferences with purely universal terms.
62
1st Categorical Imperative

• 1st Categorical Imperative is a decision
  procedure for moral reasoning. 4 Steps
• 1. Formulate a maxim that enshrines your
  reasoning for acting as you propose.
• 2. Recast maxim as universal law of nature
  governing all rational agents-all people will
  act upon.
• 3. Consider whether your maxim is even
  conceivable in a world governed by this law of
  nature.
• 4. Ask whether you would or could rationally
  will to act on this maxim in such a world.

63

• 9. Second Form of the Categorical Imperatives

Explains how we ought to treat ourselves.
2nd Categorical Imperative Always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or that of
another, never simply as a means but always at
the same time as an end. This means that every
person has intrinsic value that humanity is a
limit or constraint in our action.
Treat ourselves other as ends rather than
merely as means.
The moral conclusions should be the same whether
we use the 1st or 2nd form of the categorical
imperative.
64

• 10. Third Formulation of the Categorical
  Imperative Hypothetical Kingdom of Ends

All maxims as proceeding from our own
law-making ought to harmonize with a possible
kingdom of ends as a kingdom of
nature." Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals,
4436/104.

• Key Points
• Think of ourselves as members of a society of
  beings whose permissible ends are to be
  respected.
• 2. Test our maxims by asking, whether, supposing
  the maxims were natural laws, there would be a
  society of that kind. In other words, we are
  obligated to act only by maxims which would
  harmonize a possible kingdom of ends.
• 3. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims
  that create incoherent or impossible states of
  natural affairs when we attempt to universalize
  them
• We have an imperfect duty not to act by maxims
  that promote unstable or greatly undesirable
  states of affairs.
• Kant seems to assume that those who apply the
  categorical imperative to their maxims will come
  out with answers that agree when the maxims
  tested are alike. J.B. Schneewind, Autonomy,
  Obligation, Virtue, pg. 338.

65
Third Categorical Imperative introduces a social
dimension to Kantian Morality

• The formulation of the CI states that we must
  act in accordance with the maxims of a member
  giving universal laws for a merely possible
  kingdom of ends (4439).
• It combines the others in that (i) it requires
  that we conform our actions to the maxims of a
  legislator of laws (ii) that this lawgiver lays
  down universal laws, binding all rational wills
  including our own, and (iii) that those laws are
  of a merely possible kingdom each of whose
  members equally possesses this status as
  legislator of universal laws, and hence must be
  treated always as an end in itself.
• The intuitive idea behind this formulation is
  that our fundamental moral obligation is to act
  only on principles which could earn acceptance by
  a community of fully rational agents each of whom
  have an equal share in legislating these
  principles for their community.

66
Summary of first three categorical imperatives

• The Categorical Imperative requires that I act
  only on maxims that I can will as universal law.
• The categorical imperative is supposed to give us
  a test for maxims.
• Maxim is the is subjective principle of an
  action. The principle of an action is that
  prescription from which the action follows.
• If the maxim meets the test, the action that
  follows from it has moral worth if the maxim
  does not meet it, the action does not have moral
  worth.

67
1st Categorical Imperative

• 1st Categorical Imperative requires willingness
  to continue to the subscription to the maxim of
  an action even if all individual or singular
  reference is excluded from it. Eliminating
  individual or singular reference requires
  eliminating reference to me. In other words,
  think of replacing individual references with
  purely universal terms.

68
1st Categorical Imperative

• 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 an end.
• Rather than thinking that humanity is the goal
  or proper end of our action, he presupposes that
  humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.
  
• This kind of constraint can be seen mostly
  clearly by tracing the connection with the first
  formula, the Formula of Universal Law. Remember,
  the agent must be willing to eliminate all
  individual reference from the maxim of her
  action. The most significant exclusion here is
  that of herself. Therefore, be prepared go on
  willing the maxim even if it contains no
  reference to herself.
• The constraint that the second formula imposes
  is that the maxim of an action must be such that
  any other free and rational person can adopt it.
  Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for
  Kant, respecting our capacity for free and
  rational choice in his term, it is respecting
  our autonomy. I am constrained, according to
  this first formula, by the consideration that is
  wrong, other things being equal, to impede the
  agency of others. To treat another human being
  as merely a means is to ignore the other as a
  center of agency. The clearest cases here are
  those of coercion and deception.
• For example If I take the hand of one of my
  students in my class and with it I strike the
  neighbouring students face, I have bypassed the
  first students agency. I have treated her
  merely as a means, as though she were merely an
  organic hitting implement. The same is true when
  I deceive somebody, because if I conceal the
  nature of the situation, I impede her ability to
  make a free and rational choice for that
  situation.

69
1st Categorical Imperative

• The constraint that the second formula imposes
  is that the maxim of an action must be such that
  any other free and rational person can adopt it.
  Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for
  Kant, respecting our capacity for free and
  rational choice in his term, it is respecting
  our autonomy. I am constrained, according to
  this first formula, by the consideration that is
  wrong, other things being equal, to impede the
  agency of others. To treat another human being
  as merely a means is to ignore the other as a
  center of agency. The clearest cases here are
  those of coercion and deception.
• For example If I take the hand of one of my
  students in my class and with it I strike the
  neighbouring students face, I have bypassed the
  first students agency. I have treated her
  merely as a means, as though she were merely an
  organic hitting implement. The same is true
  when I deceive somebody, because if I conceal
  the nature of the situation, I impede her ability
  to make a free and rational choice for that
  situation.

70
What is the connection between the categorical
imperative is the following

• If I cannot will maxim X as universal law, then
  I am acting for reasons that it is not possible
  for everyone to share. But to act toward people
  on the basis of reasons they cannot possibly
  share is to use them, to treat them as a mere
  means to my goals. In fact, all people should
  consider themselves both members and heads
  because we have a perfect duty not to act in
  maxims that create incoherent or impossible
  states of natural affairs for it will lead to
  unstable or greatly undesirable states of
  affairs. See, the truly autonomous will is not
  subject to any particular interest. Kants idea
  here is that one should not treat others in ways
  they couldnt rationally assent to.

71

• 10. Perfect and Imperfect Duties

Imperfect Duties Are those duties that dont
whole heartily conform to the categorical
imperative. e.g., If I were an egoist and
concerned only about myself, no one could accuse
me of using other people I would simply leave
them alone. But this attitude practice is
inconsistent with the duty to treat others as
persons. As persons, they also have interests
and plans, and to recognize this I must at least
sometimes and in some ways seek to promote their
ends and goals.
Perfect Duties Perfect duties are absolutes
necessary they conform to the categorical
imperative. eg., We can and should absolutely
refrain from making false or lying promises.
72

• The following are 4 examples famously used by
  Kant.

73
1st example Suicide

• Whenever continuing to live will bring more pain
  than pleasure, I shall commit suicide out of
  self-love.
• 1. Suicide cant be a universal law for one cant
  will that would be universal will.
• 2. Remember, suicide would be morally right if
  and only if the person who is thinking about
  suicide can consistently will that suicide be a
  universal law.

74
1st Example Suicide

• A man reduced to despair by a series of
  misfortunes feels wearied of life, but is still
  so far in possession of his reason that he can
  ask himself whether it would not be contrary to
  his duty to himself to take his own life. Now he
  inquires whether the maxim of his action could
  become a universal law of nature. His maxim is
  'From self-love I adopt it as a principle to
  shorten my life when its longer duration is
  likely to bring more evil than satisfaction.' It
  is asked then simply whether this principle
  founded on self-love can become a universal law
  of nature. Now we see at once that a system of
  nature of which it should be a law to destroy
  life by means of the very feeling whose special
  nature it is to impel to the improvement of life
  would contradict itself and, therefore, could not
  exist as a system of nature hence that maxim
  cannot possibly exist as a universal law of
  nature and, consequently, would be wholly
  inconsistent with the supreme principle of all
  duty." (Quoted from the Fundamental Principles of
  the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K.
  Abbott)

75
2nd example Lying Not Keeping Promise

• Whenever I need money, then I shall borrow the
  money and promise to repay, even though I know I
  will not repay.
• 1. Lying and not keeping promise cant be a
  universal law for one cant will that would be
  universal will.
• 2. Remember, lying and not repaying would be
  morally right if and only if the person who is
  thinking about lying and not keeping promise can
  consistently will that lying and not keeping
  promise be a universal law.

76
3rd Example Developing Ones Habits

• "A third finds in himself a talent which with the
  help of some culture might make him a useful man
  in many respects. But he finds himself in
  comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge
  in pleasure rather than to take pains in
  enlarging and improving his happy natural
  capacities. He asks, however, whether his maxim
  of neglect of his natural gifts, besides agreeing
  with his inclination to indulgence, agrees also
  with what is called duty. He sees then that a
  system of nature could indeed subsist with such a
  universal law although men (like the South Sea
  islanders) should let their talents rest and
  resolve to devote their lives merely to idleness,
  amusement, and propagation of their species- in a
  word, to enjoyment but he cannot possibly will
  that this should be a universal law of nature, or
  be implanted in us as such by a natural instinct.
  For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills
  that his faculties be developed, since they serve
  him and have been given him, for all sorts of
  possible purposes." (Quoted from the Fundamental
  Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, as
  translated by T.K. Abbott)

77
3rd example Developing Ones Habits

• When Im comfortable as I am, I shall let all my
  talents rust.
• 1. Everyone necessarily wills that some of his or
  her talents be developed.
• 2. If everyone necessarily wills that some of his
  or her talents be developed, then no one can
  consistently will that his non-use of talents to
  be a universal law.
• 3. Non-use of talents is morally right if and
  only if the agent thinking about non-use of
  talents can consistently will that non-use of
  talents be a universal law. (The Categorical
  Imperative)
• 4. Therefore, allowing ones talents to rust is
  morally wrong.

78
4th Example Helping Others.

• A fourth, who is in prosperity, while he sees
  that others have to contend with great
  wretchedness and that he could help them, thinks
  'What concern is it of mine? Let everyone be as
  happy as Heaven pleases, or as be can make
  himself I will take nothing from him nor even
  envy him, only I do not wish to contribute
  anything to his welfare or to his assistance in
  distress!' Now no doubt if such a mode of
  thinking were a universal law, the human race
  might very well subsist and doubtless even better
  than in a state in which everyone talks of
  sympathy and good-will, or even takes care
  occasionally to put it into practice, but, on the
  other side, also cheats when he can, betrays the
  rights of men, or otherwise violates them. But
  although it is possible that a universal law of
  nature might exist in accordance with that maxim,
  it is impossible to will that such a principle
  should have the universal validity of a law of
  nature. For a will which resolved this would
  contradict itself, inasmuch as many cases might
  occur in which one would have need of the love
  and sympathy of others, and in which, by such a
  law of nature, sprung from his own will, he would
  deprive himself of all hope of the aid he
  desires." (From the Fundamental Principles of the
  Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K.
  Abbott)

79
4th example Helping Others

• When I am flourishing and others are in
  distress, I shall give nothing to charity.
• Everyone necessarily wills that he or she be
  helped in desperate circumstances.
• 2. If everyone necessarily wills this, then no
  one can consistently will that non-help be a
  universal law.
• 3. Not helping others is morally right if and
  only if the agent thinking about not helping
  others can consistently will that not helping
  others be a universal law. (The Categorical
  Imperative)
• 4. Therefore, not helping others is not morally
  right.

80

• 11. Advantages of Kants Moral Theory

Fairness, Consistency, and morally equal
treatment of all people for they are
intrinsically valuable.
Emphasizes the Law of Non-contradiction we would
not will anything that is not rational.
Emphasizes doing what is morally right (it is our
duty).
It is universally binding and Impartial-in order
for an action to be morally permissible, we
should be able to will it for all.
81
12. Criticisms against Deontological Ethics
Duty centered ethics stressing obedience to
rules, as opposed to result-centered or
utilitarian ethics.

• 1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they
  come into conflict with each other.
• 2. Deontological ethics are consequential moral
  systems in disguise enshrined in customs and law
  have been known to give the best consequences.
• 3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because
  they are based on absolutes.
• 4. Which duties qualify given time or location
  Are old duties still valid?
• 5. Human welfare and misery Some principles may
  result in a clash with what is best for human
  welfare prescribe actions which cause human
  misery.
• 6. Rule worship The refusal to break a
  generously beneficial rule in those areas in
  which it is not most beneficial is rule worship.
• 7. Exclusive focus on rationality ignores our
  relations to with other human beings.

82
There is no clear way to deal with moral
conflicts consider the following

• a. Killer comes to the door If a killer comes
  to the door and ask for a friend of yours inside
  whom he intends to kill, you must tell the truth
  (illustration by Kant).
• But there is only one exceptionless rule in
  Kants philosophy and that is given in the
  categorical imperative We are never permitted
  to do what we cannot will as a universal law or
  what violates the requirement to treat persons as
  persons.
• Kant may not give us adequate help in deciding
  what to do when moral conflicts are involved
  because in the above example, both to tell the
  truth and preserve life are moral obligations.

83
Regarding Impartiality Rationality

• b. Kants moral philosophy is its belief in
  impartiality in order for an action to be rally
  permissible, we should be able to will it for
  all.
• However, persons do differ in significant ways
  (gender, race, age, and talents). In what way
  does morality require that everyone be treated
  equally and in what does it perhaps require that
  different person be treated differently (e.g.,
  gender).
• c. Kants stress on rationality may be considered
  to be too male-oriented, too Westernized. It is
  subject to the continental critique of structure
  (Foucault).

84
Kants View of Virtue/Vice

• Kant defines virtue as the moral strength of a
  human being's will in fulfilling his duty
  (6405) and vice as principled immorality.
  (6390) This definition appears to put Kant's
  views on virtue at odds with classical views such
  as Aristotle's in several important respects.
• First, Kant's account of virtue presupposes an
  account of moral duty already in place. Thus,
  rather than treating admirable character traits
  as more basic than the notions of right and wrong
  conduct, Kant takes virtues to be explicable only
  in terms of a prior account of moral or dutiful
  behavior. He does not try to make out what shape
  a good character has and then draw conclusions
  about how we ought to act on that basis. He sets
  out the principles of moral conduct based on his
  philosophical account of rational agency, and
  then on that basis defines virtue as the trait of
  acting according to these principles.

85
Kants View of Virtue/Vice

• Second, virtue is for Kant a strength of will,
  and hence does not arise as the result of
  instilling a second nature by a process of
  habituating or training ourselves to act and feel
  in particular ways. It is indeed a disposition,
  but a disposition of one's will, not a
  disposition of emotions, feelings, desires or any
  other feature of human nature that might be
  amenable to habituation. Moreover, the
  disposition is to overcome obstacles to moral
  behavior that Kant thought were ineradicable
  features of human nature. Thus, virtue appears to
  be much more like what Aristotle would have
  thought of as a lesser trait, viz., continence or
  self-control.

86
Kants View of Virtue/Vice

• Third, in viewing virtue as a trait grounded in
  moral principles, and vice as principled
  transgression of moral law, Kant thought of
  himself as thoroughly rejecting what he took to
  be the Aristotelian view that virtue is a mean
  between two vices. The Aristotelian view, he
  claimed, assumes that virtue differs from vice
  only in terms of degree rather than in terms of
  the different principles each involves. (6404,
  432) But prodigality and avarice, for instance,
  do not differ by being too loose or not loose
  enough with one's means. They differ in that the
  prodigal acts on the principle of acquiring means
  with the sole intention of enjoyment, while the
  avaricious act on the principle of acquiring
  means with the sole intention of possessing them.

87
Kants View of Virtue/Vice

• Fourth, in classical views the distinction
  between moral and non-moral virtues is not
  particularly significant. A virtue is some sort
  of excellence of the soul , but one finds
  classical theorists treating wit and friendliness
  along side courage and justice. Since Kant holds
  moral virtue to be a trait grounded in moral
  principle, the boundary between non-moral and
  moral virtues could not be more sharp. Even so,
  Kant shows a remarkable interest in non-moral
  virtues indeed, much of Anthropology is given
  over to discussing the nature and sources of a
  variety of character traits, both moral and
  non-moral.

88
Kants View of Virtue/Vice

• Fifth, virtue cannot be a trait of divine beings,
  if there are such, since it is the power to
  overcome obstacles that would not be present in
  them. This is not to say that to be virtuous is
  to be the victor in a constant and permanent war
  with ineradicable evil impulses. Morality is
  duty for human beings because it is possible
  (and we recognize that it is possible) for our
  desires and interests to run counter to its
  demands. Should all of our desires and interests
  be trained ever so carefully to comport with what
  morality actually requires of us, this would not
  change in the least the fact that morality is
  still duty for us. For should this come to pass,
  it would not change the fact that each and every
  desire and interest could have run contrary to
  the moral law. And it is the fact that they can
  conflict with moral law, not the fact that they
  actually do conflict with it, that makes duty a
  constraint, and hence virtue essentially a trait
  concerned with constraint.

89
Kants View of Virtue/Vice

• Sixth, virtue, while important, does not hold
  pride of place in Kant's system in other
  respects. For instance, he holds that the lack of
  virtue is compatible with possessing a good will.
  (6 408) That one acts from duty, even repeatedly
  and reliably can thus be quite compatible with an
  absence of the moral strength to overcome
  contrary interests and desires. Indeed, it may
  often be no challenge at all to do one's duty
  from duty alone. Someone with a good will, who is
  genuinely committed to duty for its own sake,
  might simply fail to encounter any significant
  temptation that would reveal the lack of strength
  to follow through with that commitment. That
  said, he also appeared to hold that if an act is
  to be of genuine moral worth, it must be
  motivated by the kind of purity of motivation
  achievable only through a permanent,
  quasi-religious conversion or revolution in the
  orientation of the will of the sort described in
  Religion.

90
Kants View of Virtue/Vice

• Kant here describes the natural human condition
  as one in which no decisive priority is given to
  the demands of morality over happiness. Until one
  achieves a permanent change in the will's
  orientation in this respect, a revolution in
  which moral righteousness is the nonnegotiable
  condition of any of one's pursuits, all of one's
  actions that are in accordance with duty are
  nevertheless morally worthless, no matter what
  else may be said of them. However, even this
  revolution in the will must be followed up with a
  gradual, lifelong strengthening of one's will to
  put this revolution into practice. This suggests
  that Kant's considered view is that a good will
  is a will in which this revolution of priorities
  has been achieved, while a virtuous will is one
  with the strength to overcome obstacles to its
  manifestation in practice.

91
Criticisms against Deontological Ethics

• How do decide between two principles?
• What about moral conflict between two morally
  right principles.
• From where or whom do we get our principles?
  Nature? God?
• If we get our principles from God, who is he and
  why doesnt he make himself more obvious?

92
Criticisms against Deontological Ethics

• If from nature, that assume what is in nature is
  good.
• How do we define nature?
• We should follow our conscience? However,
  different peoples conscience tell them to do
  different things. Ex. If the Bible condemns
  divorce, why do people say God told him or her to
  divorce his or her spouse? Isnt this a
  conflict?

93
Concluding Questions

• Do you thinks ethics is a matter of natural
  processes, or is it transcendent (supernaturally
  revealed by God)?
• Are ethical principles made or discovered?
• Is ethics objective or non-objective?
• Are there actual objective facts in ethics, or is
  it all just a matter of opinion?

94
Concluding Questions

• Can I be completely wrong about one of my ethical
  beliefs?
• Is ethics a matter or protecting the individual
  or enhancing the welfare of all? In other words,
  is ethics basically individualistic or in some
  way communitarian?
• If people from a different culture have different
  ethical rules or obligations from our own, must
  at least one set of rules be wrong?
• Is this known more through reason or by
  experience of some sort?
• Even those who deny that objective ethical truths
  are split on this question?

95
(No Transcript)