Key Words to be happy with deontological – actions, not consequences summum bonum – the supreme good prescriptive – ‘I ought’ means ‘I can’ ‘a priori’ - knowledge without needing experience ‘a posteriori’ – knowledge through experience ‘analytic’ – necessarily true statements ‘synthetic’ – statements that could be true or false categorical imperative hypothetical imperative universalisability

Key assumption Autonomy (self rule) Humans have freedom plus reason So we can choose an action which is good, and can give the word “good” a clear meaning which is true everywhere and for everyone

Kant is Deontological The act and intention is all important Based on duty – we shouldn’t act out of compassion Morality is prescriptive – ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’

An ultimate aim Summum bonum – the supreme good Kant argues that we cannot achieve this in our lifetime – leads to the assumption that there is an afterlife and God.

An objective Moral Law known through reason Moral statements are ‘a priori synthetic’ A priori - knowable prior / without experience (through reason) Synthetic – may be right or wrong

Good will = doing one’s duty We should act out of duty, not because of the consequences Opposes utilitarian principles – an act is morally good, even if it results in suffering We should act out of duty and reason – an identical act performed out of love is good but not moral Reason, rationality – guiding our emotions

The Categorical Imperative Moral statements are ‘categorical’ – they prescribe necessary behaviour irrespective of the consequence 1. universalisability – can it be done at all times and by all people? (Can your action be willed as a universal law) 2. treat humans as ends and not just as means 3. act as if you live in a kingdom of ends ie you are an autonomous (free) law-maker.

The importance of freedom As humans we generally have free will Morality assumes we are able to follow the categorical imperative – actions done when our freedom is constrained are not ones of morality (we can’t be blamed)

Evaluating Kant morality is more than personal preferences justice is impartial humans have intrinsic worth But... very restrictive and unwieldy in a modern world universalisability is meaningless – are any two dilemmas identical? challenges common idea that compassion (feelings) and consequence are important considerations