Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Kantian Ethics Summary

    Uploaded by

    CAITHLENE MARIE ALFONSO
    Kant believed that morality is determined by the categorical imperative rather than consequences of actions. The categorical imperative commands that we only act according to maxims that we can universalize without contradiction. For example, we cannot lie because lying requires making an exception for ourselves that lying is acceptable in some cases. Kant also believed that for an action to have moral worth, it must be motivated by duty rather than self-interest or desires. A person's moral character depends on their motivation for acting rather than the consequences of their actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kantian Ethics Summary

    Uploaded by

    CAITHLENE MARIE ALFONSO
    36 views5 pages
    Kant believed that morality is determined by the categorical imperative rather than consequences of actions. The categorical imperative commands that we only act according to maxims that we can universalize without contradiction. For example, we cannot lie because lying requires making an exception for ourselves that lying is acceptable in some cases. Kant also believed that for an action to have moral worth, it must be motivated by duty rather than self-interest or desires. A person's moral character depends on their motivation for acting rather than the consequences of their actions.

    Original Title

    Kantian Ethics Summary.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Kant believed that morality is determined by the categorical imperative rather than consequences of actions. The categorical imperative commands that we only act according to maxims that we can universalize without contradiction. For example, we cannot lie because lying requires making an exception for ourselves that lying is acceptable in some cases. Kant also believed that for an action to have moral worth, it must be motivated by duty rather than self-interest or desires. A person's moral character depends on their motivation for acting rather than the consequences of their actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    36 views5 pages

    Kantian Ethics Summary

    Uploaded by

    CAITHLENE MARIE ALFONSO
    Kant believed that morality is determined by the categorical imperative rather than consequences of actions. The categorical imperative commands that we only act according to maxims that we can universalize without contradiction. For example, we cannot lie because lying requires making an exception for ourselves that lying is acceptable in some cases. Kant also believed that for an action to have moral worth, it must be motivated by duty rather than self-interest or desires. A person's moral character depends on their motivation for acting rather than the consequences of their actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    KANTIAN ETHICS

    German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an opponent of


    utilitarianism. Leading 20th century proponent of Kantianism: Professor
    Elizabeth Anscombe (1920-2001).

    Basic Summary: Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions
    (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases
    where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For
    Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we
    decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If
    the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) Does my action
    respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own
    purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the
    action. (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent).

    Kant’s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to


    these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on
    their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.

    Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred
    to it as The Categorical Imperative. The CI determines what our moral duties
    are.
    the following is an exerpt from the notes of Professor Eric Barnes...

    Morality and imperatives: What does it mean for one's duty to be


    determined by the categorical imperative?

    What is an imperative? An imperative is a command. So, "Pay your


    taxes!" is an imperative, as are "Stop kicking me!" and "Don't kill
    animals!"

    Hypothetical Imperatives: these imperatives command conditionally


    on your having a relevant desire. E.g. “If you want to go to medical
    school, study biology in college.” If you don’t want to go to medical
    school, this command doesn’t apply to you. Another example, your
    father says, "if you are hungry, then go eat something!" - if you aren't
    hungry, then you are free to ignore the command.

    Categorical Imperatives: These command unconditionally. E.g.


    “Don’t cheat on your taxes.” Even if you want to cheat and doing so
    would serve your interests, you may not cheat.

    What is the connection between morality and categorical


    imperatives? Morality must be based on the categorical imperative
    because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that
    you cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you.

    How does the categorical imperative work? The categorical imperative


    has three different formulations. That is to say, there are three different
    ways of saying what it is. Kant claims that all three do in fact say the same
    thing, but it is currently disputed whether this is true. The second
    formulation is the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a
    categorical imperative. Here is the first formulation.

    1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law): "Act only on that


    maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should
    become a universal law [of nature]."

    a) What is a maxim? A maxim is the rule or principle on which


    you act. For example, I might make it my maxim to give at least
    as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might
    make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of
    my family.

    b) Basic idea: The command states, crudely, that you are not
    allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to
    allow everyone else to do as well. You are not allowed to make
    exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other people
    to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own
    promises.

    c) More detail: More accurately, it commands that every maxim


    you act on must be such that you are willing to make it the case
    that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar
    situation. For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I
    wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that
    everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to
    happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work
    and you would not get what you wanted. So, if you willed that
    such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then you
    would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according
    to the categorical imperative. It is impermissible because the only
    way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.

    Kant on Moral Worth

    The Moral Worth of Persons: Kant also has something to say about what
    makes someone a good person. Keep in mind that Kant intends this to go
    along with the rest of his theory, and what one's duty is would be determined
    by the categorical imperative. However, one can treat this as a separate
    theory to some extent, and consider that one's duty is determined by some
    other standard. Keep in mind that what is said below has to do with how one
    evaluates people, not actions. A person's actions are right or wrong, a person
    is morally worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally base). A person's
    actions determine her moral worth, but there is more to this than merely
    seeing if the actions are right or wrong.

    a) Background concepts: This chart should help explain the basics.

    b) The basic idea: Kant argues that a person is good or bad


    depending on the motivation of their actions and not on the goodness of
    the consequences of those actions. By "motivation" I mean what
    caused you to do the action (i.e., your reason for doing it). Kant argues
    that one can have moral worth (i.e., be a good person) only if one is
    motivated by morality. In other words, if a person's emotions or desires
    cause them to do something, then that action cannot give them moral
    worth. This may sound odd, but there is good reason to agree with
    Kant.

    c) Why motivation is what matters: Imagine that I win the lottery and
    I'm wondering what to do with the money. I look around for what would
    be the most fun to do with it: buy a yacht, travel in first class around the
    world, get that knee operation, etc.. I decide that what would be really
    fun is to give the money to charity and to enjoy that special feeling you
    get from making people happy, so I give all my lottery money
    away. According to Kant, I am not a morally worthy person because I
    did this, after all I just did whatever I thought would be the most fun and
    there is nothing admirable about such a selfish pursuit. It was just lucky
    for those charities that I thought giving away money was fun. Moral
    worth only comes when you do something because you know that it is
    your duty and you would do it regardless of whether you liked it.

    d) Why consequences don't matter: A reason why Kant is not


    concerned with consequences can be seen in the following
    example. Imagine two people out together drinking at a bar late one
    night, and each of them decides to drive home very drunk. They drive
    in different directions through the middle of nowhere. One of them
    encounters no one on the road, and so gets home without incident
    regardless of totally reckless driving. The other drunk is not so lucky
    and encounters someone walking at night, and kills the pedestrian with
    the car. Kant would argue that based on these actions both drunks are
    equally bad, and the fact that one person got lucky does not make them
    any better than the other drunk. After all, they both made the same
    choices, and nothing within either one's control had anything to do with
    the difference in their actions. The same reasoning applies to people
    who act for the right reasons. If both people act for the right reasons,
    then both are morally worthy, even if the actions of one of them happen
    to lead to bad consequences by bad luck.

    e) The wrong interpretation: Consider the case described above


    about the lottery winner giving to charity. Imagine that he gives to a
    charity and he intends to save hundreds of starving children in a remote
    village. The food arrives in the village but a group of rebels finds out
    that they have food, and they come to steal the food and end up killing
    all the children in the village and the adults too. The intended
    consequence of feeding starving children was good, and the actual
    consequences were bad. Kant is not saying that we should look at the
    intended consequences in order to make a moral evaluation. Kant is
    claiming that regardless of intended or actual consequences, moral
    worth is properly assessed by looking at the motivation of the action,
    which may be selfish even if the intended consequences are good.

    f) Kant does not forbid happiness: A careful reader may notice that
    in the example above one of the selfish person's intended
    consequences is to make himself happy, and so it might seem to be that
    intended consequences do matter. One might think Kant is claiming
    that if one of my intentions is to make myself happy, that my action is
    not worthy. This is a mistake. The consequence of making myself
    happy is a good consequence, even according to Kant. Kant clearly
    thinks that people being happy is a good thing. There is nothing wrong
    with doing something with an intended consequence of making yourself
    happy, that is not selfishness. You can get moral worth doing things
    that you enjoy, but the reason you are doing them cannot be that you
    enjoy them, the reason must be that they are required by duty. Also,
    there is a tendency to think that Kant says it is always wrong to do
    something that just causes your own happiness, like buying an ice
    cream cone. This is not the case. Kant thinks that you ought to do
    things to make yourself happy as long as you make sure that they are
    not immoral (i.e., contrary to duty), and that you would refrain from
    doing them if they were immoral. Getting ice cream is not immoral, and
    so you can go ahead and do it. Doing it will not make you a morally
    worthy person, but it won't make you a bad person either. Many actions
    which are permissible but not required by duty are neutral in this way.

    g) Summary: According to Kant a good person is someone who


    always does their duty because it is their duty. It is fine if they enjoy
    doing it, but it must be the case that they would do it even if they did not
    enjoy it. The overall theme is that to be a good person you must be
    good for goodness sake.

    From: https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm

    You might also like