Transcript Immanuel Kant - philosophyandreason

Immanuel Kant
Duty Ethics
The moral worth of an action depends on
motive
(do the right thing for the right reason)
“A good will isn’t good because what it
affects or accomplishes; it’s good in itself.
Even if by utmost effort, the good will
accomplishes nothing, it would still shine
like a jewel for its own sake as something
which has its full value in itself.”
Immanuel Kant
The three contrasts
1. Freedom (determination of will)
Autonomous v Heteronomous
Autonomy : to act freely; to act according to
a law I give myself
Heteronomy: to act according to desires I
haven’t chosen myself; the rule that is
followed in response to external factors
(laws of nature; desires and inclinations)
The three contrasts
2. Morality
Duty v Inclination
An act is only of moral worth if it is done from a
sense of duty; i.e. if it is done from a motive
which is not self-interest. (Kant acknowledges
that we may have emotions which support the
morality of the act, but as long as they are not
the reason for performing the act, then the act is
of moral worth)
The three contrasts
3. Reason
Hypothetical v Categorical imperatives
(imperative = what we ought to do)
Hypothetical : : means to ends reasoning; to get
X, we should do Y (the shopkeeper who gives
the correct change so as not to get a bad
reputation)
Categorical : unconditionally demands
performance of an action for its own sake; it has
the form "Do A."
“If the action would be good solely as the
means to something else, the imperative is
hypothetical; if the action is represented as
good in itself and therefore as
necessary...for a will which of itself
accords with reason, then the imperative is
categorical.”
Immanuel Kant
How do we discover what
imperatives are categorical?
We ask the question – ‘does reason tell
me that I would I want this action to be a
universal way of behaving?’
This is the Principle of Universalisability
“Act only on that maxim whereby you can
at the same time will that it should become
a universal law.”
Immanuel Kant
Kant’s Categorical imperative
Aside from universalisability Kant (showing
his ultimate faith in the enlightened
capabilities of human nature) also detailed
that you should:
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 as an ends.
So, according to Kant, an act has moral worth
only if it is performed:
autonomously,
 deontologically (from duty)
 according to categorical
imperative

Criticisms
We run into dilemmas when a conflict of
duty arises. What if you are forced to lie to
save a life? Is telling the truth or saving the
life more important?
The ‘saint’ problem – Someone who
WANTS to live a good life of obligation
(duty) should (and would) be considered a
moral person according to common
morality. Kant, however, would seem to
disagree.
Criticisms
MOTIVE is important according to Kant,
but the principle of universalisability asks
us to consider the consequences (what
would happen if everyone acted in this
way…?), so Kant is forced to acknowledge
that consequences are important.
Is there really a moral imperative?
Shouldn’t we consider that sometimes
lying, for example, might be the RIGHT
thing to do?