Immanuel Kant Duty Ethics

The moral worth of an action depends on motive (do the right thing for the right reason)

“A good will isn’t good because what it affects or accomplishes; it’s good in itself. Even if by utmost effort, the good will accomplishes nothing, it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself.” “A good will isn’t good because what it affects or accomplishes; it’s good in itself. Even if by utmost effort, the good will accomplishes nothing, it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself.” Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant

The three contrasts 1. Freedom (determination of will) Autonomous v Heteronomous Autonomy : to act freely; to act according to a law I give myself Heteronomy: to act according to desires I haven’t chosen myself; the rule that is followed in response to external factors (laws of nature; desires and inclinations)

2. Morality Duty v Inclination An act is only of moral worth if it is done from a sense of duty; i.e. if it is done from a motive which is not self-interest. (Kant acknowledges that we may have emotions which support the morality of the act, but as long as they are not the reason for performing the act, then the act is of moral worth)

3. Reason Hypothetical v Categorical imperatives (imperative = what we ought to do) Hypothetical : : means to ends reasoning; to get X, we should do Y (the shopkeeper who gives the correct change so as not to get a bad reputation) Categorical : unconditionally demands performance of an action for its own sake; it has the form "Do A."

“If the action would be good solely as the means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary...for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical.” “If the action would be good solely as the means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary...for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical.” Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant

How do we discover what imperatives are categorical? We ask the question – ‘does reason tell me that I would I want this action to be a universal way of behaving?’ This is the Principle of Universalisability

“Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant

Kant’s Categorical imperative Aside from universalisability Kant (showing his ultimate faith in the enlightened capabilities of human nature) also detailed that you should: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always as an ends.

So, according to Kant, an act has moral worth only if it is performed: So, according to Kant, an act has moral worth only if it is performed: autonomously, autonomously, deontologically (from duty) deontologically (from duty) according to categorical imperative according to categorical imperative

Criticisms We run into dilemmas when a conflict of duty arises. What if you are forced to lie to save a life? Is telling the truth or saving the life more important? We run into dilemmas when a conflict of duty arises. What if you are forced to lie to save a life? Is telling the truth or saving the life more important? The ‘saint’ problem – Someone who WANTS to live a good life of obligation (duty) should (and would) be considered a moral person according to common morality. Kant, however, would seem to disagree. The ‘saint’ problem – Someone who WANTS to live a good life of obligation (duty) should (and would) be considered a moral person according to common morality. Kant, however, would seem to disagree.

Criticisms MOTIVE is important according to Kant, but the principle of universalisability asks us to consider the consequences (what would happen if everyone acted in this way…?), so Kant is forced to acknowledge that consequences are important. MOTIVE is important according to Kant, but the principle of universalisability asks us to consider the consequences (what would happen if everyone acted in this way…?), so Kant is forced to acknowledge that consequences are important. Is there really a moral imperative? Shouldn’t we consider that sometimes lying, for example, might be the RIGHT thing to do? Is there really a moral imperative? Shouldn’t we consider that sometimes lying, for example, might be the RIGHT thing to do?