Objectives SWBAT Identify Immanuel Kant Analyze Kantian Rationality

Objectives: SWBAT Identify Immanuel Kant Analyze Kantian Rationality Identify and discuss the Categorical Imperative

DEONTOLOGY 8. 7 forensics April 29, 2014

The trolley problem � Problem one: Three people are tied to one end of the track, one person on another junction. � You can pull a lever and decide whether three or one person dies, you have to choose – who dies?

Problem 2 � You are standing on a bridge and three people are on the tracks below about to be hit by a runaway trolley. You are standing there with a large man, you could push him off the bridge and stop the train, sacrificing him for the three � What do you do?

Kantian Deontology vs Teleology � Teleological Morally theories are goal oriented right acts are things that bring about goodness Egoism Utilitarianism � Deontological Rightness theories are NOT goal oriented and wrongness of an act aren’t determined by the result but by their features

Deontology 6 The theory of duty or moral obligation. Duty: � Role-related � General duty Obligation: � Requirement identity. set on a person because of his/her

Basic Kantian themes 7 1. Personal autonomy: p 2. Respect: p 3. The moral person is a rational self-leglislator. Persons should always be treated as an end, not a means. ‘No persons should be used. ’ Duty: p the moral action is one that we must do in accordance with a certain principle, not because of its good consequence.

Immanuel Kant 1724 -1804 German Enlightenment Critique of Pure Reason Poses the question: what is the fundamental source of morality? � What is it about people’s actions that make the susceptible to evaluation as right/ wrong?

Kant’s philosophy: What can I know? � Critique (1781) of Pure Reason What ought I do? � Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals (1785); Critique of Practical Reason (1788) What can I hope for? � Critique of Judgment (1790); Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793) Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) 9

Kant’s Rationalism The following are not classified as right or wrong: � Actions of plants and inanimate objects � Actions performed by animals out of instinct � Actions performed by humans involuntarily Kant’s conclusion: � The source of morality is: The ability for humans to make RATIONAL DECISIONS Free will

Phenomena and Noumena 11 Phenomena: � things as they appear to us; empirical and therefore changeable. Noumena: � things-in-themselves, which can’t be known by the use of senses. Kant argues that if there is such a thing as moral reality, it must be founded on the noumena, and this is because…

The moral law is in its character absolute, and it can allow no exception. And empirical knowledge simply cannot establish such a law. 12

The moral worth 13 On Kant’s view, the moral worth of an action is not determined by its consequences because: 1. It is possible that someone does something out of evil intention, but ends up bringing good consequences to society. 2. It is also possible that someone does something out of good intention, but ends up bringing about bad consequences. 3. The consequences of an action are not under our control. 4. We can only control our motives when acting as a moral person. 5. Therefore the moral worth of an action is given by our good will.

DEONTOLOGY 8. 7 forensics April 30, 2014

Kant’s Rationalism Morality applies to all rational beings, so its source can not solely be pleasure or desire � Morality would apply to non-emotional beings the same as it would emotional beings Nothing but rationality can dictate what the rules of morality are

Kant on goodness Moral and Ethical goodness differ from other types of goodness Other types of goodness are dependent on needs or desires: moral goodness is not The only thing that is morally good is GOOD WILL.

17 The right motive can be a motive out of either: � self-interest, � sympathy (natural inclination), or � a sense of duty (the voice of conscience). Only the final motive will count on Kant’s view.

18 Hypothetical Vs categorical imperatives Hypothetical imperative: � What I ought to do if some conditions hold. � E. g. , Maxim: I ought to attend the lecture if I want to pass my examination. Categorical imperative: � What I ought to do unconditionally. � E. g. , Maxim: I ought not to murder no matter what goal I have.

Kant on Goodness He believes that an act has NO moral value unless it is done for the sake of morality alone……

One merchant doesn’t cheat his customers because it is the right thing to do. Another merchant doesn’t cheat his customers because it would hurt his business in the long run. IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE

Kant’s Maxims Capacity for rational choice is the cornerstone of morality � Making a rational choice involves: Having awareness of the situation you are in Deliberating about your possible choices Selecting one of those choices as the right one � Self-governance � These rules are called Maxims

The categorical imperative Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will it should become a universal law Explained � Every voluntary action or deliberate act creates a maxim � To determine whether or not an act is right, we must consider what would happen if EVERYONE ALWAYS acted on that maxim

One Kant’s view, all moral imperatives are categorical imperatives. They are universally valid and have equal forces to EQUALLY FREE and RATIONAL AGENTS. 23

Case Study: Tennessee Is the intent of the bill moral in your mind? What are the negative consequences according to the bill’s detractors? What are other negative consequences that you think may arise? If this law became a CATEGORICAL IMPARATIVE, is that a world that would function well?

25 Hypothetical Vs categorical imperatives Hypothetical imperative: � What I ought to do if some conditions hold. � E. g. , Maxim: I ought to attend the lecture if I want to pass my examination. Categorical imperative: � What I ought to do unconditionally. � E. g. , Maxim: I ought not to murder no matter what goal I have.

26 Two formulations of the categorical imperative 1. 2. Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law. Always treat humanity, whether your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.

One Kant’s view, all moral imperatives are categorical imperatives. They are universally valid and have equal forces to EQUALLY FREE and RATIONAL AGENTS. 27

An example: why lying is wrong 28 If we use consequences as the basis of moral worth, sometimes lying is right because it makes a lot of people happy. But the maxim that supports lying cannot pass the ‘universality test’ and the ‘humanity test’.

Lying is wrong because: 29 1. 2. If everybody lies, then words lose its function to express truth. The principle of lying therefore cannot be universalized. Lying can be successful only if we use other people’s ignorance. But in this case we are treating them only as a means to our ends.

30 Freedom and the kingdom of ends Given that all rational beings are equal, a kingdom comprising those beings must not favour any party or treat the other as inferior. It follows that in the kingdom of ends everybody should be equally free and should not be a means to other people’s end. The law thus set up is a contract between free and rational agents.

Morality is thus a matter of social contract made between free and rational agents. 31

Motivational problems 32 Why should I obey to the moral law? � Answer: Because I want to be a wholly free (autonomous) person who acts on the principle that I find most reasonable. Why should I respect other persons? � Answer: This is simply because rational persons are equal.

Freedom or equality? 33 Is autonomy or equality the fundamental value in ethics? What if they conflict each other? � Answer: In principle they do not conflict each other, because both are built up in the idea of reason. � But in practice…?

Conflicts of duties 34 If duty A conflicts with duty B, how can they be universalized? Example: �I have a universal duty not to kill the Fat man. � I also have a universal duty to save the five workers. � What should I do?

Non-rational beings 35 The moral law is set up by rational agents who mutually respect each other. Non-rational beings such as animals are not protected by that law because they don’t have this sense of responsibility. If we have a duty not to be cruel to animals, it cannot be for their sake, but for the reason that we will hurt our own rationality in doing so (that we will develop a bad personality in this practice).

Some questions to consider 36 If I am a Kantian, should I support: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Participatory democracy? Representative (market) democracy? Capitalism? Revolutionary Marxism? Confucian ethics? Anarchism?