Transcript kant06 - pantherFILE

Kant (6)
Morality and autonomy
Problems with Kant’s theory
3 formulations of the CI



Universal law formulation: Act only according to
that maxim whereby you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law (421).
Formula of humanity: Act always so as to treat
humanity, whether in your own person or that of
anyone else, never merely as a means but always
at the same time as an end (429).
Formula of autonomy: Reject all maxims that are
not consistent with the will's own legislation of
universal law (431).
Formulations and points of view
FORMULATION POINT OF VIEW
Universal law
Humanity
Autonomy
--of the agent as subject to the
moral law, wanting to know
what it requires of him
--of persons affected by actions
regulated by the CI procedure
--of the agent as someone who
actively carries out the CI
procedure
Deriving the 3rd formulation




I propose the maxim
I find a maxim acceptable only if I can
consistently propose it as a general rule
I can do this only if everyone can find it
acceptable (2nd formulation)
Testing a maxim by the CI is seeing if it is
consistent with the idea of the rational will of
every person as legislative of universal law.
Elaboration


The CI procedure binds agents only to
principles they can give to each other as
legislative members of a possible “kingdom of
ends”
By using the CI procedure I view all persons,
including myself, as autonomous, that is as
free beings equally sovereign with respect to
the terms of our association.
Connection with contractualism


Contractualism says that the correct moral
principles are the ones that specify terms of
association that would be included in an ideal
agreement among the members of society
Kant’s ideal agreement is the agreement on
maxims that would be accepted as
reasonable by legislators for a possible
kingdom of ends.
Autonomy vs. heteronomy


Autonomy: capacity of the will to be a
law to itself (independently of any
property of the objects of volition)
(440)
Heteronomy: determination of the will
by an external or alien cause (441)
CI procedure reflects our autonomy



If we can follow the CI, then our action stems solely
from our powers of practical reasoning, that is, from
our rational will.
Our will is not determined by an attraction to any
object outside itself--neither by an inclination
(Humean passion) nor by an attraction to a perceived
objective order of values (Plato).
Plato and Hume treat the will as heteronomous
Four objections to the CI




Sly universalizer objection
Rules out morally irrelevant maxims
Problem of the social environment
Problem of dealing with evil
Sly universalizer objection


“By designing a suitably specific maxim, I can
get approval for any action”
Example: I am to lie on a loan application
when I am in financial difficulty with no other
way of getting out of it, provided that I am or
was the lecturer in Phil 241 at UWM in spring
2003, in order to ease the strain on my
finances.
Possible replies


Objection ignores sincerity condition
Contrary to the objection, the maxim
would not pass after all
CI rules out morally irrelevant maxims?


Example: I am to practice shooting
hoops in the school court at 10 a.m. on
Saturdays in order to sharpen my skills.
Possible reply: stated in this general
way, it does raise a moral issue, and
needs to be qualified
Problem of the social environment


Example: deceitful promising in
circumstances of injustice
Possible diagnosis: this shows that
Kant’s theory is at least incomplete, and
needs to be complemented with a
theory of justice and a morality for
unjust situations
Problem of dealing with evil


Classic case: Lying to the Nazi who comes to
the door looking for the Jewish family hiding
in your attic.
Possible response: restrict Kant’s theory to
ideal circumstances (the kingdom of ends);
but then we need a theory for the non-ideal
world. Could try a contractualist approach for
this.