Think Pair Share “Evaluating Kant’s Duties and Inclinations by Ranking Actions”

The Categorical Imperative Immanuel Kant The Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant 1724-1804

Kantian Ethics: The Basics

Kantian Ethics: The Basics Kant’s approach is Deontological. This means that for Kant, the right or wrongness of the action is in the action itself, and not in its consequences. Deon is the Greek word for duty  judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule"-based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty. 1) Deontology says that an action is good if and only if it is motivated by duty, regardless of the consequences.

Duty

Duty Duty vs Inclination? Good will Sometimes, actions are motivated by inclination and conflict with duty; by doing what you feel like doing, you do what you shouldn’t do. Sometimes, actions are motivated by inclination but conform to duty; by doing what you feel like doing, you also happen to be doing what you should do. Sometimes, actions are motivated by duty but conflict with inclination; by doing what you should do, you don’t do what you want to do A  good will = being motivated by duty, not by inclination or by consideration of the consquences. Sometimes, actions are motivated by inclination and conflict with duty; by doing what you feel like doing, you do what you shouldn’t do. Perhaps you go to a party because you want to even though you should be at home studying. Sometimes, actions are motivated by inclination but conform to duty; by doing what you feel like doing, you also happen to be doing what you should do. Perhaps you visit a friend in the hospital because you feel like it, and it just so happens that visiting your friend is what you should be doing anyway. Sometimes, actions are motivated by duty but conflict with inclination; by doing what you should do, you don’t do what you want to do. Perhaps you help your friends move one morning because you know you should, even though you would rather have slept in late. Draw this: Kant asks us to imagine two people. VOLUNTEER: The first helps others because he cares for them, is pained by their suffering and finds pleasure in their happiness. NURSE: The second is unmoved by the suffering of others, but helps them because it is his duty.   According to Kant, the actions of the first person have no moral worth, although they may be pleasant to us or benefit others, because those actions are motivated from inclination, not duty. The actions of the second person, however, do have moral worth because they are motivated by duty. Duty is a very important notion for Kant! 

Universal Law

The Moral Law- Universalizability An action is good, Kant says, if it stems from a good will So an action is good if it is motivated by respect for the moral law. But what is the moral law? always act from motivations, or maxims, which we could rationally want everyone else to follow as well Moral law (The Principle of Universalizability) = Always act from motivations, or maxims, which you could rationally want everyone else to follow as well. Bullet 1: A will is good if it is motivated by duty And duty involves acting out of respect for the moral law The consequences of the action are ethically irrelevant.  Bullet 2: They must be the sort of thing that we could rationally want everyone to follow

The Moral Law- Universalizability "Should I be content that my maxim (to extricate myself from difficulty by a false promise) should hold good as a universal law, for myself as well as for others? and should I be able to say to myself, "Every one may make a deceitful promise when he finds himself in difficulty from which he cannot otherwise extricate himself?" You are the CEO of a company and a disgruntled employee comes in with a gun and grabs a hostage. He requires that you promise him 50,000 otherwise the hostage dies. What do you do?

The Moral Law- Universalizability Ask yourself two questions: 1) “What maxim, or principle, would I be following if I did this?” and 2) “Could I rationally want everyone to follow this maxim, and act in a similar way?” The maxim you’d be following would be something like “Break a promise in order to get out of trouble.” Could you rationally want this to be a rule for everyone?

The Moral Law- Universalizability If “break promises” were a rule for everyone then there would be no promises to break since the very notion of a promise implies they aren’t usually broken. Logically inconsistency nobody can rationally want this rule to hold for everyone Rationally wanting every to follow maxim M = Perceiving that there is no logical contradiction involved in everyone following M.

Universalizing Should a Kantian lie to get out of a social gathering?

Answer A Kantian would ask “Is the rule ‘Lie’ a consistent rule?” The answer would be “No. If the rule ‘Lie’ were true then it couldn’t even be stated without contradicting itself. If the rule were true, and you truthfully told someone ‘Lie,’ then you aren’t lying so you’re breaking the rule! See? The rule is inconsistent!” That’s why the Kantian would decide that she shouldn’t lie.