Transcript Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

Grounding for the Metaphysics of
Morals
Philosophy 1
Spring, 2002
G. J. Mattey
Ethics
• Material philosophy has to do with specific
objects and the laws governing them
– Physics is the science of the laws of nature
– Ethics is the science of the laws of freedom
• Ethics has an empirical part, in that its laws
concern a human will that is affected by nature
• The moral law concerns what ought to happen but
may not in fact happen
The Moral Law
• The moral law is the a priori part of ethics
– It contains nothing empirical
• It governs with absolute necessity
• It applies to all rational beings and does not
depend on the nature of man or the circumstances
in the world
• It must be sought in pure reason
• The moral law must guide our actions if they are
to be good
Good Will
• Only a good will is good without qualification
• The virtues of the mind (e.g., intelligence) and of
temperament (e.g., courage) can become bad if the
will is bad
• The same holds for external goods that complete
the ancient conception of happiness
• A good will is a necessary condition for being
worthy of happiness
• It is good in itself, through its willing, not through
any utility it might have
Reason and Happiness
• Reason is not well-suited by nature for the
attainment of happiness
• Happiness would be better entrusted to
instinct
• So if reason has a purpose, it must be
something other than happiness
• Its true function is to produce a good will
• Good of the will is higher than happiness
Duty and Inclination
• We may act from duty, inclination, or selfish
purpose
• Sometimes we do from selfish purpose what duty
calls for, without inclination
– A prudent merchant charges a fixed price
• Sometimes we do from inclination what duty calls
for
– Preserving one’s own life
• Sometimes we act purely from duty
– Preserving one’s life when one does not wish to live
Moral Worth
• Only actions performed purely from duty
have moral worth
• Acts that overcome inclinations and selfish
purposes and arise from duty have the
highest moral worth
• Even promotion of happiness has moral
worth only insofar as it is done as duty
Maxims
• Moral worth is not found in the end of an
action, but in the maxim that determines it
• The maxim is the principle that moves the
will to action
• The rational maxim of duty is to follow the
law even if it thwarts the inclinations
• The highest moral good is the
representation of the moral law
Respect for Law
• The moral law motivates us without
recourse to inclination or effects
• The only motivating principle remaining is
to act out of respect for law
• One should act only on those maxims one
can will to be a universal law
An Example
• I am in distress, and to alleviate my situation I
might make a promise with the intention of
breaking it
• I might act according to the maxim, “make
dishonest promises when in trouble”
• Making this maxim universal might lead to bad
consequences for me
• The moral, rather than practical, reason for
rejecting it is that the maxim would destroy itself
if it were made universal
Moral Philosophy
• The moral law is accessible to everyone
• We do not need science or philosophy to be
able to tell right from wrong
• Still, we need to investigate the moral law
philosophically due to the bad influence of
inclinations and needs (desire for happiness)
• This can corrupt the purity of the moral law
The Dear Self
• It is difficult to find cases of acting purely from
duty
• Philosophers have thus claimed that our
motivation for acting is self-love
• We cannot even tell in ourselves whether this is a
secret motivation
• We always seem to find the dear self at the basis
of our actions
• Whether we have ever done it or not, we ought to
do our duty
Pure Practical Reason
• The moral law commands all rational beings
• It could do so only if is valid with absolute
necessity, subject to no contingencies
• Such a law can be found only in pure practical
reason, not in knowledge of human nature
• It cannot be derived from examples
• Even the concept of God as the highest good is
derived from the idea of moral perfection
Will and Reason
• Everything that happens in nature is the result of
laws
• Human action is based on our rational conception
of laws (principles)
• Human will may be determined by principles
• Or it may be determined by inclination
• If determined by principles, it follows the
command of reason, which determines what one
ought to do
Imperatives
• A divine will would always obey the moral law, so
there is nothing it ought to do
• Humans do not always obey
• All imperatives command in one of two ways
– Hypothetically: one should do this to accomplish that
end
– Categorically: one should do this as objectively
necessary in itself
• Only a categorical imperative declares what is
good in itself
Hypothetical Imperatives
• The end in a hypothetical imperative might
be good or not
• Children are trained to achieve many varied
ends, without regard to their good
• The natural end of human action is
happiness
• Skill in choosing means to the end of
happiness is prudence
Prudence
• Hypothetical imperatives are possible because
willing the ends requires willing the means (that in
one’s power) to the ends
• But how do we will the end of happiness?
• There is immense confusion over which means
will promote it
• Wealth, knowledge, even health all can lead to
unhappiness
• So there are only empirical counsels for happiness,
never commands for happiness
Categorical Imperatives
• Categorical imperatives to not prescribe means to
an end
• Apparent categorical imperatives may be
disguised hypotheticals
– One may adopt a maxim against telling false promises
so as to remain credible
• So, we need to look to pure reason, not examples,
to see how categorical imperatives are possible
• The categorical imperative is an a priori synthetic
principle
The Categorical Imperative
• The only element of a categorical imperative that
can be determined in advance is conformity to
universal law
• This gives the content of a single imperative: act
in such a way that the maxim of the action can
serve as a universal law
• Or: act as if your maxim were to become a
universal law of nature through your will
Perfect Duties to Ourselves
• A perfect duty admits of no exception in the
interests of inclination
• We have a perfect duty to preserve our own
life, even if self-love would dictate ending it
• I cannot universalize the maxim of suicide
without destroying all of life
• So one must act on the maxim of preserving
one’s own life, which can be universalized
Perfect Duties to Others
• We have a perfect duty to others to make honest
promises, even when dishonesty would help us out
of difficulty
• I cannot universalize the maxim of making false
promises without destroying all trust
• If all trust is destroyed, my promise would not
then serve my interests
• So one must act on the maxim that one must make
honest promises
Imperfect Duties to Ourselves
• An imperfect duty is one which permits
exceptions in the interests of inclination
• We have an imperfect duty to develop our talents
• I cannot universalize the maxim of indulging in
pleasure
• Life would go on, but our rational abilities would
go to waste
• So one must act on the maxim that one develop
one’s talents to the greatest extent possible
Imperfect Duties to Others
• We have an imperfect duty to help others
• I cannot universalize a maxim of letting
others get along on their own
• Life would go on, with less hypocrisy, but if
everyone behaved this way, I might find
myself without help when in need
• So one must act on the maxim of helping
others
The Unity of the Duties
• All duties are derived from a single principle: that
we be able to will the maxim of our action to be a
universal law
• Acting against a perfect duty requires a maxim
which cannot be thought of as a universal law of
nature
• Acting against an imperfect duty requires a maxim
which can be so thought, but which cannot be
willed to be a universal law of nature
Transgression
• When we transgress our duties, we do not give up
their claim to be universal law objectively
• Instead, we subjectively make an exception to the
law to serve our own inclinations, in which case
the law is only general
• There is no contradiction here, since it is reason
that upholds objective universality and inclination
that promotes only subjective generality
• So, even transgression of the categorical
imperative acknowledges its validity
Justification
• Is there a categorical imperative that is binding on
all rational beings?
• Justification cannot depend on an account of
human nature, but must be a priori
– A principle based on human nature could not be an
objective law valid for all rational beings
• But it is tempting to appeal to empirical motives
and laws, given the difficulty of justifying
objective laws a priori
Ends
• Ends are what determine the will to action
• There are two kinds of ends
– Objective ends, which are valid for every rational
being, based on reason alone, and depending on
motives
– Subjective ends, which are arbitrarily proposed as the
effect of one’s action, based on desire, and depending
on incentives
• Subjective ends can be grounds for only
hypothetical imperatives
An End in Itself
• An objective end could be a ground for a
categorical imperative
• Rational beings (persons) are objective ends, ends
in themselves
• It is a categorical imperative that they may not be
arbitrarily used as means to some other ends
• Non-rational beings are not ends in themselves
and may be used as means
The Examples Revisited
• Suicide is not permitted because it treats one’s self
as a means to an end (relief)
• Making false promises requires using another
person as a means to my ends
• Neglecting to develop one’s capacities is
inconsistent with the advancement of the end of
humanity
• Not furthering the ends of others is inconsistent
with the fact that because they are ends in
themselves, their ends are my ends
Legislation
• Insofar as everyone must be treated as an end in
itself, we are not free to treat them as our
subjective inclinations dictate
• The law constraining inclination is a universal law
• The universal law comes from the rational will
• So, a categorical imperative is to act only on a
maxim that is consistent with a law which is
legislated by the rational will
• When we act out of duty, we act in a way that is
not based on any interest
Autonomy
• The will acts autonomously when it dictates a law
for itself
– If it acts for some interest, then it acts heteronomously
• Previous attempts to discover the moral law all
presume a heteronomous will
– For example, divine law is backed by a system of
rewards and punishment
• As such, they were all doomed to failure
The Kingdom of Ends
• A kingdom is “a systematic union of different
rational beings under common laws”
• The moral law requires that we treat other rational
beings as ends in themselves
• So, it presupposes the possibility of a kingdom of
ends
– Each rational being is a legislator in the kingdom
– Each rational being is subject to the laws of reason
• The laws of the kingdom of ends have in view the
relation to one another as ends in themselves
Dignity
• Everything in the kingdom of ends has a price or a
dignity
– A price is worth based on inclination
– A dignity is an intrinsic worth based on something’s
being an end in itself, beyond all price
• Only morality and humanity have dignity, based
on autonomy
• All the other virtues have a price of some sort
(skill at work, wit, etc.)
• Keeping of promises, e.g., provides “immediate
favor and delight,” as well as respect
Absolutely Good Will
• A will is absolutely good when it cannot be evil
– Its maxim cannot be in conflict with itself it willed to
be a universal law
• The categorical imperative is the supreme law of
an absolutely good will
– Obedience to the categorical imperative is the only way
to avoid self-conflict
• The end of the actions of a good will must be an
end in itself
• The good will legislates universal law
Happiness
• Moral principles based on the promotion of
happiness are based on experience
• Happiness is construed as a physical or moral
feeling
• The worst form of such a principle is that of one’s
own happiness (egoism)
• There are three problems
– Being well is not the same as doing well
– Being prudent is not the same as being morally virtuous
– Motives of virtue are on a par with motives of vice
Moral Feeling
• The principle that the good act is one that elicits
happy moral feeling is superior to egoism
• It values morality for its own sake
• But appeal to it is superficial
– Due to variation in people, are not a uniform standard
of moral appraisal
– No one person’s feelings can be the basis of the
judgments of everyone’s actions
Rational Principles of Morality
• Philosophers have tried to base morality on a
concept of perfection
• The ontological concept is empty and presupposes
the morality it is supposed to explain
• The theological concept of perfection is that of a
divine will
– We have no understanding of divine properties except
on the model of our own
– If it is not derived from our concept of morality, it
would be based on notions such as domination and
vengeance, which are opposed to morality
Freedom
• The will is a causality that living beings have
insofar as they are rational
• Freedom is a property of this causality, where the
will acts independently of alien causes
• This conception of freedom is negative
• Positive freedom is autonomy: the will dictates a
law to itself, the moral law
• So, a free will is one which is subject to moral law
Practical Reason
• Practical reason is the will of a rational being
• A will cannot be rational if it is directed by
something other than itself, e.g., impulse
• So, a rational will can be directed only by itself
• So, a rational will must be considered to be free
(in the positive sense)
• This is so even though we cannot demonstrate the
metaphysical reality of freedom
Our Interest in Morality
• Why should I subject myself to the moral
law?
• It is not that so doing will serve my interests
• The answer is that I would do so insofar as I
am a rational being and am not hindered
• But I am also a sensible being and am
subject to inclinations, so I only ought to
obey the moral law
A Circle?
• We suppose that we are free of external
causes so that we can understand how we
are subject to moral laws
• But we think of ourselves as being subject
to moral laws only because we suppose that
we are free, autonomous, wills
• So it seems that freedom depends on
morality and morality depends on freedom
Resolution
• When we think of ourselves as free from external
causes, these causes are in the order of
appearances
• When we think of the will as an autonomous
cause, this cause is in the order of things in
themselves
• There is a faculty in human beings which is
distinct from all external causes: reason
• Rational causality can be thought only as freedom
Duality
• All my actions, viewed as appearances, can be
explained in terms of desires and inclinations
• If I were a purely intelligible being, all my actions
would be explained by freedom
• Since I am both sensible and intelligible, the laws
of freedom express only what I ought to do
• Even the “meanest villain” recognizes that he
would conform to the moral law if he were not
such a slave to his impulses
Compatibilism
• There is no contradiction between freedom of the
will and natural necessity
– We think of the human being in different ways in each
case
• So, natural necessity, which we know a priori
holds, is no threat to freedom
• Inclinations and impulses are not all-controlling
• But on the other hand, we cannot explain anything
in the natural world through freedom, which is a
mere idea
The Limit of Moral Inquiry
• Moral feeling is not a criterion of morality
• Our pure interest in the moral law (membership in
the kingdom of ends) is the basis of moral feeling
• Moral feeling, in turn, is what moves us to act in
the world of appearances
• But we cannot understand how something
intelligible explains something sensible
• We only have an idea of a reason that serves as a
causality in and of itself
• This is the limit of all moral inquiry