Kant’s Ethics of Duty 3 insights form the basis for his theory  An action has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. (DUTY)  An action is morally correct if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. (UNIVERSALIZABILITY)  We should always treat humanity, whether in ourselves or other people, as an end in itself and never merely as means to an end. (RESPECT)

The Ethics of Duty Acting for the sake of duty is:  Acting without self-interest  Acting without concern for consequences  Acting without inclination [downplays the role of compassion]

How Christianity changed ethics In the Christian view  to act morally a person must see the act is right (i.e., it is commanded by GOD) and must do the act because they see it is right. For Kant Reason, not God, is the source of the moral law. We can rephrase the above as:  to act morally a person must see the act is right (i.e., it is commanded by REASON) and must do the act because they see it is right.

The "good will" and duty... Kant believed that only a GOOD WILL is morally valuable.  A good will knows what its duty is (that is, the good will knows what reason commands it to do.)  And the good will DOES the dutiful act because the good will is dutiful.

An Act Must Be Done From Principle  In order for an act to be done from principle there must be a thought-out rule.  And you must perform the act because you see it is an INSTANCE of the rule. From slide 3: “to act morally a person must see the act is right (i.e., it is commanded by REASON) and must do the act because they see it is right. “

The "Categorical Imperative" The Categorical Imperative is the means by which we determine what the moral law is. It states:  "I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” It means:  that we have to be willing for others to use the same moral law that we are using.

The Second Formulation of the “Categorical Imperative” We should respect all human beings impartially. Because human beings exist as “ends in themselves” we should never use them as “mere means.”  Kant’s argument is based on our rationality. [This is what sets us aside from those things that are what he calls “objects of inclination.”]  The 2 formulations of the “Categorical Imperative” are basically the same according to Kant. How so?

Using others as “mere means” : What does it mean? Whether we are using a person as a “mere means” can be hard to determine as our motives are often mixed, but a “mere means” situation may involve the following characteristics:  deception about true motives  profiting at another person’s expense  undermining a person’s chance to make an informed choice [tied to deception]  violating certain other maxims we have

A Brief Summary 1. The moral law is commanded by reason. 2. What makes an action morally right is that you have a moral maxim that you can universalize. 3. It is also wrong to treat people as “mere means”  Kant focuses on universality and impartiality  And these are conditions that are necessary for people to be treated “freely & equally” -- i.e. with RESPECT

Kant: Pro & Con Pro:  It is admirable to act from duty  Morality should be evenhanded  The importance of respect for other persons Con:  Maintains the split between duty and inclination  Ignores the role of the emotions in morality  Ignores the place for consequences in morality

What ways are available to resolve moral problems so far? 1.Evaluate the consequences of the alternatives. [UTILITARIANISM] 2.Believe that the right action will flow from our having formed good moral habits [ARISTOTLE] 3.Act from the correct motive [KANT] MOTIVES: can be based in feeling or reason Kant believes that REASON makes more stable, universal & impartial decisions possible

KANT Summary  We are to act on the basis of duty [what reason commands]  It is the good will that reason creates that enables us to do this.  Our reverence for the moral law will help us find what our duty is.  Instead of looking at consequences use the following principles. Can you universalize your moral maxim? Are you using a person as a “mere means”?

Ask yourself … What do Kant’s 2 principles ensure about the decision we make ? That it is --  STABLE [reason not emotion; also not consequences]  UNIVERSAL [everyone could use your maxim]  IMPARTIAL [reason & universalizability]  OBJECTIVE [reason & no emotion]