Transcript Immanuel Kant - Archbishop Hoban HS

Immanuel Kant
1724-1804
Morality should be evaluated through
reason, not theology.
Part I.
The Ethics of Duty
More than any other
philosopher, Kant
emphasized the way
in which the moral
life was centered on
duty.
Kant’s case against Aristotle
-Everyone does desire to be happy, but the
purpose of life is the ability to reason, not
happiness. We are called to reason because we
can. That is what sets us apart—(Aristotle’s
rational)
-If nature intended human’s for happiness, she
would not have given them reason and the ability
to make choices. Free will produces more misery
than all natural disasters combined!
Kant’s Ethics
Universal good will is the basis of all
morality.
Courage, intelligence, self-control are
morally neutral.
It took courage to blow up the world trade
center and intelligence to build a nuclear
bomb.
If a man of bad will posses strong character
traits, he will use them for evil.
The test of good will for any act
1. The Universal Moral Principle:
-What if everyone did this—no exception for
myself
2. Do unto others as you would have done
unto you:
3. One may not do evil so that good may
result.
-The end does not justify the means.
Good will
A person has good will if he/she chooses to obey
moral law for the sake of moral law itself.
We should be good for goodness sake-because it is
the right thing to do.
Morality is duty-driven People should act with
integrity. Regardless of the consequences.
People have intrinsic value: We may not use others
as a means to an end.
Moral acts
Moral acts are only praiseworthy when they
are done purely because they are the right
thing to do, not because we will gain from
them or feel inclined to do them.
Things we gain from, want to do, or even
are naturally inclined to do, are morally
neutral.
Examples
A man, his wife, and the other woman.
Service to others.
Doing what you are inclined to do.
Kant-Don’t break your arm patting yourself
on the back!
Good consequences do not make
an action good.
We do not have complete control over the
consequences of our actions. So, they
should not be factored in to our decision.
One cannot do evil so that good may result!
We must do what is right, even if we do not
get warm fuzzy feelings or pleasant
consequences.
Exceptions
Are exceptions possible for Kant?

Yes, as long as they can be consistently universalized
Examples

The speeding car


We can universalize an exception for something like
ambulance drivers
The Gestapo example

Can we universalize a maxim to deceive in order to save
innocent lives?
Kant and Christianity
Universal Law = Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you
Christian’s believe that all people have
intrinsic value because they are made in the
image and likeness of God.
However, people often need more than
reason to act in heroic sacrifice for others.
Comparing Ethical Theories
Ideally, we seek a society in which
self-interest and regard for others
converge—the green zone.
Egoism at the expense of others and
altruism at the expense of selfinterest both create worlds in which
goodness and self-regard are
mutually exclusive—the yellow
zone.
No one wants the red zone, which is
against both self-interest and regard
for others.
Kant
High
Altruism
Self-sacrificing
altruism
Low
Egoism
Not beneficial
either to self
or others
Drug addiction
Alcoholism, etc.
Aristotle
Self-interest
and regard
for others
converge
High
Egoism
Self-interest
at the expense
of others
Low
Altruism
Selfish
Nietzsche
Types of Imperatives or duties
Hypothetical Imperative:
“If you want to drive to UCLA from San
Diego, take the 405 freeway.”
 Structure: if…then…

Categorical Imperative
“Always tell the truth”
 Unconditional, applicable at all times

How do we know what is Good?
Two tests of goodness to see if this is a
Categorical Imperative
1. Universal law: What is everyone acted
this way? Am I making an exception for
myself? Would I wish to live in a world
where everyone acted this way?
2. People have intrinsic value: We may
not use others as a means to an end.