Transcript File - Tallis English & Philosophy

Kantian Deontology: The
Categorical Imperative
“Two things fill the mind with ever new
and increasing wonder and awe: the
starry heavens above me and the
moral law within me.”
Kant’s Copernican Revolution
• Where does Copernicus (=Polish astronomer)
place us in the physical universe?
– Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) turned astronomy
inside-out by hypothesising that the earth moved
around the sun (instead of the other way round)
• Where does Kant (= Prussian philosopher) place
us in the moral universe?
– Kant turned epistemology inside-out by theorising that
objective reality depends on the mind (instead of the
other way round).
– Similarly, morality depends purely on rational
considerations.
– The individual moral agent is at the centre of their
own moral universe.
Deontology – Assessing Acts
• Morality is a matter of duty and obligation.
• Actions are right or wrong in themselves.
• Whether something is right or wrong
doesn’t depend on its consequences.
• But on the way choosers think when they
make choices.
• We each have duties regarding our own
actions: we are autonomous moral
agents.
Happiness vs. Reason
• Morality motivates us to act
• Our actions must be brought about by
either reason or happiness.
• Happiness is conditional: what makes
people happy differs, and happiness can
be good or bad.
• But reason is universal, categorical.
unconditional.
The Good Will
• Reason  only one of our traits of
character is inherently/unconditionally
good
– Name some virtues
– Are they always good or used for good ends?
• The ‘Good Will’ = our power of rational
moral choice = unconditionally good
– found only in humans
– gives us inherent dignity as autonomous
moral agents
More about the Will
• What makes the will good?
– when it acts out of duty, not out of inclination.
• What does it mean to act out of inclination?
– To do something because it makes you feel good or
because you hope to gain something from it – to act
to maximise your happiness, basically.
• What does it mean to act out of duty?
– when you act out of respect for the moral law.
• How do act out of duty?
– we must know what the moral law is.
• How do we know that?
– we use the "Categorical Imperative."
What is an imperative?
• An imperative is just a command.
• A hypothetical imperative is a command that
presupposes some further goal or end
– i.e. if I want X I should do Y
– But nothing compels you to do Y
• A categorical imperative is not hypothetical. It is
unconditional.
– i.e. do X
– It is irrational and immoral not to obey it
• For Kant, morals = categorical imperatives
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
• Morality is universal, the same for everyone:
– “Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to be
[legitimately binding] has to carry absolute necessity
with it…” Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of
Morals
– Rationally speaking, the moral law must be obeyed.
– And when we act, we act on maxims or practical
principles of action.
• so “Act only on that maxim through which you
can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law”.
The three formulations of the
Categorical Imperative
• Formula of Universal Law: "Act as if the maxim
of your action were to secure through your will a
universal law of nature"
• Formula of Humanity: "Act so that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or that of
another, always as an end and never as a
means only"
• Formula of Autonomy: “Act as if you were
through your maxims a law making member of a
kingdom of ends."
Starter: Quickfire Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What two things fill Kant with awe?
What is Kant’s ‘Copernican Revolution’?
Fill in the blanks: A_______ M_____ A_______...
Why reason, not happiness? Why duty, not inclination?
What is Kant’s ‘Good Will’?
What is the difference between a hypothetical and a
categorical imperative?
7. What do the phrases ‘Universal Law’, ‘Humanity’,
‘Autonomy’ refer to?
What is a Categorical Imperative?
• In effect, two rules for testing rules of conduct or
maxims - pass = a possible CI
• First test: ‘contradiction in conception’ or ‘selfcontradiction’
– First, generalise the maxim and see if it makes sense.
– A maxim is wrong if the situation in which everyone
acted on that maxim is somehow self-contradictory.
– Take stealing: If we could all just help ourselves to
whatever we wanted, the idea of ‘owning’ things
would disappear;
– And then no one would be able to steal.
The Categorical Imperative
• Second test: “contradiction in will” (a.k.a. ‘reversibility’)
• If the maxim you’re testing isn’t self-contradictory
– then ask: would you choose to live in a world where it was
followed by everyone
– as then it would apply to you as an individual
– would you mind being governed by it?
• It is logically possible to universalise some unpleasant
maxims
– e.g. ‘don’t help others in need’
• But we can’t will this maxim, because we might need
help ourselves.
• So such a maxim is not ‘reversible’.
• So it cannot be willed without contradiction.
The case of the false promise
• Kant’s example about non-contradiction
• Maxim: “I may make a false promise in order to
reap financial gain.”
• Generalised: Anyone may make a false promise
to get something s/he wants.
• This is self-contradictory because:
– If anyone may make a "false promise," nobody would
take a promise seriously; promising becomes
meaningless.
– Result: I may not act on that maxim, as the maxim
fails the ‘contradiction in conception’ test.
Stealing, Lying
• Similar reasoning leads Kant to conclude that
any maxim permitting theft or lying must be
rejected. Why…?
– A thief's maxim, once generalised, would overturn the
institution of property,
– but unless the institution of property exists, there can
be no theft.
– A liar's maxim, once generalised, would overturn the
assumption of truthfulness,
– but without this assumption, no lie can even be
attempted.
The case of The Bad Samaritan
• Kant’s example about reversibility
• Maxim: I may refuse to help another person in distress
who cannot pay me even though I could do so at little
cost to myself.
• Generalised: Anyone may refuse to help another person
in distress who cannot pay her even though it would cost
her little to help.
• Can it be conceived without contradiction? Yes.
• So being mean passes the non-contradiction test for it to
be a Categorical Imperative:
The Bad Samaritan II
• But does it pass the second test, Reversibility?
– Could you will yourself in the same position?
– Probably not, because you might find yourself in a
situation of extreme need and nobody else would help
you.
– If this did happen to you, you would wish to be
helped.
• So the Bad Samaritan maxim is not reversible
• Hence not really universalisable.
• Result: You cannot act on the "Bad Samaritan"
maxim.
• But: ‘contradiction in will’ test - logical force...?
Starter: some objections to Kant
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exceptionless rules are extremely dangerous.
The standard is an inhuman one against which to judge our actions.
– Isn’t it a very high standard? Is it possible not to use people in order to obtain
your goals or seek an edge or unfair advantage? Might this not make us goalless?
– Surely our natural desires are worthy? Would Kant really view parental love for
children as immoral?
Doesn’t duty sound rather like habit? Isn’t it better to do things from inclination?
Suppose I am inclined to hit you but control myself – surely this is more valuable to
you than someone who is just nice to you from habit?
What role does character play in all this? Would a habitually moral scumbag be
possible?
The choices necessary to live a good life could involve actions which entail results
incompatible with happiness.
How far should respect for persons go?
Can we imagine circumstances where contingent circumstances might really matter?
Can we imagine circumstances where imperatives might clash?
Starter: some strengths of Kant
• People have rights which would supersede, for
example, the tyranny of the majority in
utilitarianism.
• Achieving good ends by despicable means is
ruled out.
• People cannot be exploited.
• We avoid the many problems to do with
weighing up and working out consequences.
• We don’t have the issue of explaining why or
how we have moral intuitions.
Starter
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
What is the contradiction in conception test?
What is a maxim?
What is the contradiction in will test?
What is wrong with lying?
What is wrong with not helping?
What is wrong with liking helping?
What is wrong with loving your children?
What is wrong with inclination, and what does Kant
prefer?
9. What shines like a star for its own sake?
10. Name each of the three formulations of the Categorical
Imperative.
Example essay-questions
• 08 Examine the difficulties nonconsequentialists face in explaining how
certain actions are necessary. (50 marks)
• 0 8 Assess the view that what makes an
action moral is that it is motivated by a
sense of duty. (50 marks)
Starter: who or what? Kant’s influences…
Plato
David Hume (1711 –1776)
The Age of Enlightenment, the
Enlightenment, the Age of Reason)
Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1712 - 1778)
Martin Luther
Lutherans (1483-1546)