Transcript Kant and Moral Duties

Kant and Moral Duties
What do Moral “Theories” Offer?
 We don’t require moral theory(ies) to tell us that
lying and homicide are wrong, and helping those
in need is a good thing to do
 The theory(ies) explain WHY these things are
right and wrong, and give me REASONS for
believing them so
 Moral theory(ies) also help illuminate “grey
areas,” clarify difficult problems, or resolve
conflicts that arise
What are the Characteristics of a Good
Moral (Normative) Theory?
 Clear and unequivocal: tell us what actions are
right (or wrong)
 Reliable: offers straightforward answers in a
wide variety of situations and is able to resolve
conflicts when they arise
 Comprehensive: covers not only individual
actions, but social and political practices,
institutions, and policies
Characteristics of a Good Moral Theory
(Continued)
 Psychologically realistic: doesn’t depend
on false assumptions about what people are
like
 Yields predictable results in familiar
situations
 Is not wildly at odds with our habits,
intuitions, and customary responses to
ordinary problems
Utilitarianism (review)
 The Principle of Utility (GHP) is a good example
of most of these provisions
 Gives clear answers, helps resolve many
problems, explains and justifies our intuitions
 But the Omelas story, or “shoot the prisoners”
dilemma, illustrate issues (like justice, fairness,
and rights) which are not sufficiently addressed
Kant’s Contrasting Strategy
 Morality seems to consist in various law-like principles, obligations,
that limit our freedom
 “I want…” (desire) versus “I ought…” (duty)
 Kant will show, however, that these moral duties issue from our truly
impartial rational desires, and so are expressions of our freedom
(“Laws of Freedom”)
 The “Morally Good Will” (person of good character, integrity) is one
who recognizes the moral law as his/her own self-imposed
limitations on individual freedom for the sake of empowering the
freedom of all
 Human beings have moral dignity because of this power of reason to
regulate their behavior – unlike mere animals, we don’t just “have
desires” or impulses and act on them, we also have AUTONOMY
(the capacity for self-governance)
 Morality is an expression of that autonomy, it is “self-governance”
Kant, Part I: the “Supreme
Principle” of Morality
If we ask for the essential characteristic defining moral goodness or
worth, we find:


An action has “moral worth” if it conforms to the requirements of
duty, and is done for the sake of duty (and not for some other
motive); and
A person is morally good (“good will”) if he or she can be counted
on to do his/her duty, motivated solely by a respect or reverence for
the moral law (rather than consideration of some other, variable
principle).
Some Notes on this
Conclusion
NOTE (1) : This does NOT mean that someone who does the “right”
thing for the “wrong” reasons is acting wrongly, only that their
action is not praiseworthy. It merely means they get no “extra
credit.”
NOTE (2): Kant allows that this confluence of actions and personal
motivations is unusual. He wonders whether, on these criteria, there
has ever been a truly “morally good will” in the world.
NOTE (3): Our duty presents itself to us in the form of “imperatives”
(commands) that are absolute and binding (categorical – no
exceptions or excuses)
Observations about Categorical
Imperatives
 CI’s derive their authority from within – from the rational impulse to
obey the dictates of Reason itself (as an expression of my autonomy)
 CI’s command absolutely, unconditionally, “no ifs, ands or buts” (no
strings attached)
 CI’s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change
 Duty and the institution of morality are like this (as contrasted with
the imperatives of practical behavior, such as advancing one’s career,
or engineering a particular social order)
 “Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to or
not, whether anyone will notice, reward, praise, or blame you (or
not).”
The “Categorical Imperative
Procedure” = CI1
 CI1 - “Act only on that maxim (intention?) through
which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law” [4 illustrations]




Do not harm the self (suicide)
Do not harm or deceive others (lying)
Do what is good for the self (develop your talents)
Do what is good for others (beneficence)
The “Categorical Imperative
Procedure” = CI2
 CI2 - “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.” [Note
same four illustrations, considered from the
perspective of the “agent” (i.e., the person
undertaking the action) rather than action.]
Kant’s Illustrations
Action
and
Agent
“Perfect” (or
“imperfect” (or
negative) duties positive) duties
(precisely-defined actions
toward specified others)
(undetermined actions
toward unspecified others)
Toward
SELF
Toward
OTHERS
Suicide example Cultivation of
Talents
Keeping
Beneficence
promises; truth- (promotion of public
welfare)
telling
The “Categorical Imperative
Procedure” (CI3)
 CI3 - “The Kingdom of Ends” – Reason is
both the source of moral law (legislator) and
subject of the law (citizen). Accordingly:
“Act always as if you were, through your
maxims, a lawmaking member of the moral
community, bound to obey the laws you
impose upon yourself and others”
Concluding Notes on
CI-procedure




CI1 = formula of “universal law”
CI2 = “respect for persons principle”
CI3 = “Kingdom of Ends”
Kant portrays the first two as derivations
from the third, which attempts to portray the
moral situation of a free, rational individual
within a democratic society