Transcript Do unto others…

Session 4
Rev. Dcn. Edward P. Munz
Notes taken from:
An Introduction To Catholic Ethics
and
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding
1 Ethics
Immanuel Kant’s Ethical Theory
History
 1724-1804: Age of Enlightenment (Reason)
 Era of science, physics, astronomy (not authority)
 Reason is more useful than religious authority (Galileo)
 Most important ethical system after Christ
 Based on the Stoics (look to nature)
 David Hume mid 1700’s- “…humans can tell right
from wrong by means of a moral sense” (Natural Law)
 People have eyes to see? They also have reason.
2
Kant Disagrees with Aristotle
 Happiness? Uhhhhh……………………. No
 While people desire to be happy
 We have “reason” and a “will” beyond happiness
 Life based on “instinct” = happiness
 Life based on “reason” = happiness or misery
 Bad choices leads to misery so… must pay the
price (criminals also have reason and will)
 Happy life distinct from, sometimes opposed to
pursuit of the moral life.
3
Kant and Aristotle …
 Aristotle = “Counsels of Prudence”
 Nicomachean Ethics = Few absolute commands
 Kant = “Moral Duty” higher than happiness
 Certain moral rules apply to everyone in every situation
- all the time
 Respect for neighbor? Yes, even if neighbor is a
dangerous mass murderer (may not lead to happiness)
 Lottery winners unhappy, those who suffer find peace,
happiness, even comfort in suffering.
4
“A Good Will”
The Basis of Morality
 A Good Will is the only thing “good without
qualification” regardless of consequences
 The caveat? A terrorist is courageous, but does not
have “A Good Will”
 Courage, happiness, wealth = neutral of themselves
 If possessed by an evil will = characteristics are evil
 If possessed by a good will = characteristics are good.
5
Happiness Not Always Good
What Makes a Good Will?
 Good Will = Being good for goodness’ sake




Obey the moral law for the sake of the moral law!
Person cheats on taxes = Breaks moral law
Does not cheat out of fear = No moral worth
Does not cheat out of duty = Moral worth
 To be truly good = purest intentions, no reward
 Are any actions truly good
 Do we secretly do good for personal recognition
 The action/intent counts - not the consequences.
7
Do Your Duty! Deontology
“Duty is something that you are required to do
whether you want to or not.” (Understanding Ethics page 136)
Kant elaborates “duty” (deontology) in 3 ways:
1) Always tell the truth
2) Always keep your promises
3) Never commit suicide
Duties apply to all in the same way - No exceptions!
8
Do Your Duty! Deontology
“The only reason to do anything is to do it for duty’s sake.”
(Understanding Ethics - p. 145)
A kind, friendly, caring person doing good
vs
A grouchy, mean, nasty person doing good
The kind person acts out of inclination
The grouch person acts out of duty
The grouch is morally better.
9
Act or Consequences:
What determines moral value?
 A man, an old lady and some
groceries…
 Man helps lady with groceries
 Man’s intent is to rob the lady
 Man enters lady’s appt, but finds
no money
 Man helped the lady but … acts
immorally
 Intentions were evil from
beginning
 Kant is a “non-consequentialist.”
10
Act or Consequences:
What determines moral value?
 A young girl buys cookies for grandmother




Grandmother allergic to nuts
Baker says “No nuts in cookies”
Grandma eats cookies and dies
Girl acts morally even though
grandma dies
 Girl’s intention is good, too bad for grandma!
11
Hypothetical vs. Unconditional
 Not all duties are absolute or unconditional
 Hypothetical Commands based on if we want a
certain result, then we follow the command
 “Do your homework” IF you care about education
 “Walk the dog” IF you have a dog you care about
 Unconditional Commands must be obeyed by
everyone
 Tell the truth - Always
 Do not break promises - Ever
 Do not kill yourself.
12
So……. What is the Moral Law?
The Categorical Imperative
(Formulated in 2 ways)
1. Formula of Universal Law
 Act only in a way you would want all to act universally
 Man takes out a loan with no intention to pay back




Should his action apply to all people in all situations
NO! Financial markets would collapse
NO! People would stop trusting each other
NO! People would no longer lend money
 Does not follow formula of Universal Law = immoral act
Closely follows the Golden Rule “Do unto others…”
 Inconsistent “willing” - Willing that all others must follow
rules, but also willing exception for themselves.
13
So……. What is the Moral Law?
The Categorical Imperative
2. Formula of the End in Itself
 Human Beings are the end, never the means to the end
 Treating others as a means = their purpose has greater
value than their person
 Humans self-govern through reason
 Secretly using a lender to get money with no intention to pay back
does not give lender option to use reason in his decision
 OK to “use” a plumber = there is an agreed fee in exchange
 (Christian) Not OK to use a prostitute = No reciprocity of love.
14
Kant and Christianity …
 Categorical Imperative = Yes, “Golden Rule”
 Person makes exceptions for self = Yes, Parable of the
Unforgiving Servant
 Human position in natural world = Yes, Christian view
 Animals are a means = Yes, Dominion of animals
 Humans are end, never means = Yes, Christian view
 Reason alone = No, wisdom of Sacred Scripture
 Reason alone = No, authority of God.
15
Kant and Personal Autonomy
 We must behave independently of personal preferences,
prejudices, self-serving motives even if it hurts
 Criminals must be held accountable - Respect of their
choice to do bad (Autonomy)
 Retributive Justice = “An eye for an eye” Criminal
weighed consequences - punishment seen as option,
judged wrongly - must honor criminal’s autonomy - must
punish
 Restorative Justice = Rehabilitate - Violates personal
autonomy - Forces compliance (prisoner used as a means
to an end (social compliance).
16
Kant: A Perfect System?
3 Problems
1) Kant is a “non-consequentialist”
 Man and the old lady? Act and intent determine
morality, consequences irrelevant
 Young girl with cookie? Bad consequences, but
good intent
 Driving away from an accident knowing people
will die as a result? Consequences determine
moral effect.
17
Kant: A Perfect System?
3 Problems
2) Duties are universal and apply w/out exception
 Duty to respect the dead means different things to
different cultures (bury, cremate, eat). Who decides
 Can duties be interpreted in the same way
 When does one act seem wrong vs. another act with
same intent (bury, cremate, eat)
18
Kant: A Perfect System?
3 Problems
3) Conflicting Duties






Doctor must preserve life
Doctor must try to prevent pain and suffering
Two essential duties of the doctor
By preserving life, pain and suffering result
By reducing pain (heavy morphine) death may result
Doctor’s duties conflict - what to do to act right?
19
Textbook Assignment
Page 60-61
 1st Row Seats: Question 1
 2nd Row Seats: Question 3
 3rd Row Seats: Question 4
 4th Row Seats: Question 5
Answers will be presented in class. Best, most complete
answer for each question will earn an A+
Questions Due: 2 Class Periods from today.
Individual Position Paper
Due: 1 Week
20
Question: What is the most significant philosophical
difference between Aristotle and Immanuel Kant?
Assignment due in 1 Week. Be
ready to present your paper to the
class for comments and critique.
Review class notes
Review the textbook
Any Questions?
Be concise and clear