Introduction to Ethics Lecture 12 Kant

1
Introduction to EthicsLecture 12Kant

• By David Kelsey

2
Immanuel Kant

• Immanuel Kant
• 1724-1804
• was born in Konigsberg in what was then Germany.
• lived in Konigsberg his entire life and he was
  never married.
• Interestingly, didnt publish his first work, The
  Critique of Pure Reason, until 1781, when he was
  57.
• Widely regarded as one of the most influential
  and important philosophers of all time.
• There are many versions of a Deontological Moral
  theory, but Kants is by far the most widely
  accepted.

3
Deontological Theories compared
toConsequentialist theories

• Immanuel Kants moral theory is a Deontological
  theory not a Consequentialist one.
• Consequentialist moral theories
• Put the good before the right
• They first specify what good is of value.
• What is right is just whatever maximizes whats
  good.
• So it is the consequences or end results that
  matter
• Deontological moral theories
• Put the right before the good.
• Do not
• first specify some good and then determine what
  is right by asking what will maximize that good.
• Instead, Deontological theories determine what is
  right through some other method
• and direct you to do what is right even if some
  other act would produce greater happiness.
• But Deontological theories dont think
  consequences dont matter.
• They think consequences are not the only thing
  that matters

4
Deontologists

• Deontologists like rules.
• A rule tells us whether an action is right or
  wrong just on the basis of what kind of action it
  is, rather than on the basis of its consequences.
• For example, Never kill the innocent.
• Is it general enough?
• Or the Golden Rule Act the way you would like
  everyone to act.
• Is it clear enough?

5
Kants picture

• Personhood Kants moral theory stems from his
  view of personhood.
• For Kant, a person is just an agent.
• An agent is rational
• To be rational is to be capable of guiding ones
  own behavior on the basis of reasons, directives
  and principles.
• As Kant puts it Everything in nature works in
  accordance with laws. Only a rational being has
  the power to act in accordance with his idea of
  laws-that is, in accordance with principles-and
  only so has he a will.
• So To be rational is to act for reasons or by
  principle.
• A reason a consideration that weighs in favor of
  or supports doing something.
• A principle the same thing as a law.
• It is just a rule of action

6
BDI

• A rational agent has beliefs, desires, intentions
  and a will.
• Beliefs, Desires Intentions
• We form desires or wants for things,
• We form beliefs on how to satisfy those wants,
• And we form intentions on how to satisfy those
  desires.
• We form a plan, given our beliefs, by which we
  will be able to satisfy the desire.
• The Will the capacity an agent has to act for
  reasons...
• The will carries us from the intention to satisfy
  some desire, to actually satisfying that desire.
  It gets our feet moving.
• It is the power that us rational beings have to
  get from reasons to action.

7
Kants freedom of the will

• Freedom
• A person is free when bound only by her own will
  and not by the will of another.
• We can be commanded only by our own wills.
• Freedom as a first cause
• Freedom (and rationality) consists in seeking to
  be the first cause of ones actions wholly and
  completely through the exercise of ones own
  will.
• Her actions then express her own will.
• Internal authority the authority of the
  principles binding her will is then also not
  external to her will.
• Kant then give us the Categorical imperative as
  this binding principle.

8
The Categorical Imperative

• Binding our will So the Categorical imperative
  is supposed to bind our wills.
• Binding us to being rational The CI binds our
  wills by binding us to being rational.
• So It provides us with a how to guide to being
  rational.
• But is it rational to be rational?
• Yes or No?

9
The Categorical Imperative

• Kant called his Supreme principle of morality the
  Categorical Imperative, which he said was to be
  distinguished from a hypothetical imperative.
• A Hypothetical imperative is conditional on some
  want or desire.
• If you dont have the relevant desire, then you
  arent directed to perform the action
• Doesnt depend on desires
• it simply commands you to do X, no matter what.
• Putting the right before the good
• Since the categorical imperative is categorical
  it commands you to act irrespective of the
  consequences of your actions.
• This is what it means for Kants theory to be
  deontological and to put the right before the
  good

10
The Categorical Imperative

• So what is the categorical imperative?
• He gives a number of different formulations
• We will focus on the one known as the formula of
  the end in itself
• 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.

11
The Formula of the End in itself

• The 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.
• Means vs. Mere Means Kant does not say that you
  should never use another person as a means!
• We use people as a means for our own ends every
  day
• In-N-Out example
• What he says is never treat yourself or any other
  person as a mere means.
• So if you treat someone as a means make sure to
  treat her as an end in herself
• respect her as an agent with ends of her own.
• Rational consent
• To determine if you are treating someone as a
  mere means you need ask only Would this person
  rationally consent to being treated as such?

12
The Scapegoat

• So for Kant, whats wrong with punishing an
  innocent person to prevent a riot?
• A Consequentialist moral theory might permit or
  even require you to punish an innocent person in
  order to prevent a riot and thereby save many
  other lives.
• The Formula of the End in itself explains what is
  wrong with punishing someone who is innocent
  merely to prevent a riot
• You are not punishing him because he deserves
  punishment,
• You are using him as a mere means to save others.

13
The perfect and imperfect duties

• Duties From the Formula of the end in itself
  several duties are derived
• More specific formulations of the categorical
  imperative
• Perfect and Imperfect Duties He divided the
  duties into two groups.
• The perfect duties duties of justice.
• Prohibited They are necessary and ought never be
  violated.
• The perfect duties include
• The duty one has to never harm herself or anyone
  else.
• The duty one has to others to keep her promises
  and to tell the truth.
• The imperfect duties duties of beneficence,
  charity and kindness.
• Not prohibited Violating these duties isnt
  prohibited.
• The imperfect duties include
• The duty one has to others to assist those in
  need.
• The duty one has to oneself to develop her
  talents.
• Perfect duties are said to trump imperfect duties

14
The Good Will

• The Good will Kant thought that the only thing
  good without qualification is a good will.
• To be good without qualification is to be good in
  and of itself.
• To have a good will
• the same thing as having a good moral character,
  which is just to act for the right reasons.
• For Kant, to act for the right reasons one must
  act always for the sake of duty.
• One acts for the sake of duty when
• she performs some action X and her reason for
  performing x is merely that it is what the moral
  law prescribes her to do.
• What is required in performing X is
• ones action be motivated by the moral law
• that no other motives, even love or friendship,
  cooperate.
• The good person
• What makes a good person good is his possession
  of a will that is determined by the moral law

15
Kants theory in action

• In-N-Out Example
• Desire Im hungry for In-N-Out
• Belief
• Intention
• Willing
• False Promises
• A friend asks me to keep a secret
• Desire I want to break the promise
• Belief
• Intention
• Why cant I tell her?

16
To sum up

• So the big picture for the Kantian looks like
  this
• Following the Categorical Imperative gets you the
  following
• Freedom, Rightness and Rationality
• But following the categorical imperative isnt
  enough
• To be a truly good person you must do what the
  categorical imperative tells you to do just
  because it is Right

17
Problems for Kants Theory

• So why we cant just opt out of rationality
• Live like the animals Even though we can be
  bound by the moral law, and in so being exercise
  our capacity as a rational agent, why not just
  live like the animals?
• Why be rational at all?
• Plausible responses
• There is value in rationality

18
Is Rationality the correct starting point?

• Is Rationality the correct starting point?
• Kants view of morality stems from the notion of
  a person.
• Why should this be our starting point?
• Humes response to Kant
• Reason is slave to the passions
• A Kantian response
• Arent rational creatures morally privileged?

19
Problems for Kants theory

• Acting for the sake of the moral law
• makes the agent seem cold and heartless.
• Say you go to visit your friend in the hospital.
  
• She is very sick. So you bring her some flowers
  and a get well card. You say hello and chat with
  her for a while. Then you stay for a bit while
  she sleeps.
• For a Kantian, for the visitation to be a truly
  good action your motive for visiting your friend
  must be that it is your moral duty to do so.
• But dont you really go for the friendship and
  loyalty you have for your friend?
• So maybe the Kantian picture gets moral
  motivation all wrong?

20
Final thoughts?

• Final thoughts on Kant
• Remaining objections
• The completeness of the picture
• Other thoughts