1. Leadership & Ethics (NAV 4402) 06 FEB 07 SSgt Thomas Buettner
Kantian Ethics
Immanuel Kant. German philosopher. Lived Eastern Russia
He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and the last major philosopher of the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment, which advocated Reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and logic, to allow philosophers to obtain objective truth about the universe.
Kant’s philosophy has had a profound impact on Western moral, political, and legal traditions.
Leadership & Ethics (NAV 4402)
06 FEB 07
SSgt Thomas Buettner

2. Objectives Understand Kantian Ethics
Be able to apply Kantian Ethics to different scenarios/cases
Be able to distinguish the differences between Utilitarianism and Kantianism

3. Kant’s Philosophy Autonomous Decisions Deontology (Deon = Duty)
Actions in themselves are right or wrong
Ethical rules should never be broken
Human value
Duties – used to derive reason and moral decision
The capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision,free of external authority. This is very important, why? Because Kant regarded every individual as equal. You must understand that Kant was a firm believer in autonomy; Kant’s ethical theory reflected the optimistic confidence in the objectivity of human reason and the value of individual autonomy, which was characteristic of the term Enlightenment. Is this different from Utilitarianism?
Can anyone explain the term deontology? Kantian ethics, like utilitarianism, begins with a basic principle and derives rules from that principle and it guides one’s actions. He is considered a deontologist because he emphasizes what we are supposed to do, deon fron the greek, meaning duty.
This brings the third bullet into play. Kant strictly believed that actions are in themselves right or wrong and not simply because of their consequences. Utilitarianism focuses on outcomes, where Kantianism focuses on the action itself.
This makes a smooth transition into the next point where Kant took the extreme view that some ethical rules should never be broken regardless of the consequences. This is the extreme opposite of Utilitarianism! If it is not for the good of the whole, it needs to be changed.
Human value is obviously important because if we did not value life, we would all give up our children for the good of the society, right? No, we do not do that because we hold the value of life high, typically higher than material things. Once again, Kant believed that ethical rules are intended to protect and benefit human beings, even the most basic ethical rules may need to be broken in unusual circumstances to avert major human catastrophes. In all but very extreme cases, however, deontologists regard respect for individual human beings as taking priority over maximizing happiness. This piggy-backs with the first point that Kant encourages individuals to make good decisions because each person is important. Take home message for this one is: universal respect for all persons! How could this be different from utilitarianism?
“an action is morally good and praiseworthy only if it is done from a sense of duty, or what Kant calls a “good will”. Duty and good will go hand in hand. This is where utilitarianism and Kantianism leave the same highway altogether. Remember one word “Motive”. In Kantianism, motive is everything, whereas, in ut., one’s motives are completely irrelevant and only consequences matter. So to finish this slide up…it is not enough to do the right thing; it must be done because the one who acts believes that this action is morally right, which is his/her duty.

4. TAKE HOME MESSAGE Kantianism Categorical Imperative 1
“ACT ONLY ACCORDING TO THE MAXIM THAT YOU COULD WILL TO BE A UNIVERSAL LAW”

5. TAKE HOME MESSAGE Kantianism Categorical Imperative 2
“YOU SHOULD USE AN INDIVIDUAL, EITHER YOURSELF OR ANOTHER, AS AN END AND NEVER AS A MEANS ONLY”

6. Can the maxim be willed to be universalized ?
Identify the maxim
CAT1
Can the maxim be willed to be universalized ?
(Is there a contradiction in means or will?)
If “NO” then do it!
CAT 2
Does the maxim involve treating individuals as ends only?
If “YES” then do it!
Note the darkened words. Each is crucial to Kant’s philosophy. Your best friend in the service is standing watch (you are in port and there is no threat whatsoever), and he/she leaves his/her post to take a nap. You catch him/her, but he/she does not know that you know. This person has helped you so many times with your problems. What does Kantianism say you should do?

7. Terms MAXIM (intention)
- A personal rule on which we make our decisions
“good without qualification” Kant says that intelligence, wit, judgment, courage, and other talents of the mind are good only with the qualification that they are accompanied by a good will – pg. 165.
Desire and inclination do not come from reason.
Good will = far greater worth than anything it could bring about. Not that it’s good at accomplishing an end.

8. Terms DUTY What a rational being should do.
Something to be done because it should be done not to achieve praise or reward.
- It is all about MAXIMS
Actions that are done out of inclination (not duty) but still are beneficial, right, and honorable deserve praise and encouragement, but not esteem – pg 167
Acts can conform with duty without being done for the sake of duty. For Kant, these are not morally just acts.

9. Categorical Imperative
Deontology
Intentions are important not consequences
Universalization
Duty
Using Persons as Ends in themselves not Means
Categorical Imperative (also called Formula of Universal Law, or Formula of the Kingdom of Ends) = what everyone (everywhere) ought to do.
Exceptions? Yes, but only if they can be universalized.
The first requirement is that when we are considering an action we must ask whether we can imagine our intentions for an action as a general rule for everyone. Example: You would not be complying with universalization if you thought it ok to lie, but expect everyone else not to lie.
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity as a means or as an end. Does this make sense? Remember, each of our acts reflects one or more maxims (intentions). Be careful of self-deception here; what does one mean by this term? To finish-up formula of the End in Itself, since we are using one or more of our maxims then we should not look at how much misery or happiness the act is likely to produce. Antiutilitarian.
This is exactly what it means to be a moral agent. A moral agent is someone who is capable of reflection and deliberation and can be held accountable for his or her actions. This is why Kant believes rationality is morally relevant. This is what makes human beings capable of moral reflection and action. This is what gives us value and makes us “ends” deserving of respect. That is why we should not treat people as “means” because we deny them the respect they deserve. This is were the term being “used” come from.
Put bluntly, treating people respectfully but not complying with their wants or maxims. This makes sense because if we just complied with everyone's wishes we may find ourselves doing unjust things. Moreover, we would not require rules or laws under this assumption. Additionally, under this point, one should not use the maxims of others to drive their decisions.
Good intentions lead to bad results sometimes. Bad intentions lead to good results sometimes. How do we choose?

10. Strength’s of Kantian Ethics
-Duty: Commitment to stay the course regardless of consequences
-Respect for Humanity: Treatment of people as ends
-Formula for perfect human life?
Everyone has a good will, in order to be worthy of happiness, but good will, and not happiness is the ultimate goal of man (happiness is a feeling and unreliable)
We are governed by reason for establishing a good will, because reason often frustrates happiness, reason must be used for something else
By acting solely from duty one establishes good will
Duty is determined from the Categorical Imperative
People as ends: cornerstone of modern ethics

11. Weakness of Kantian Ethics
Too rigid?
What is our duty?
Conflicting Duty/Maxims?
Intentions Vs Consequences

12. KANTIAN VS. UTILITARIAN
UTILITARIANISM
Greatest Happiness Principle
The rightness or wrongness of an act depends upon the consequences. (the END Justifies the MEANS)
KANTIAN ETHICS
Supreme Principle of Morality
The rightness or wrongness of an act depends upon universal laws of action (the END never Justifies the MEANS)
It is all about DUTY
UTIL: an act can be deemed good if it produces greater happiness, even if the means used are less than admirable
Kant: an act can be wrong, even if the outcome is greater good, if the means incorporated do not follow the categorical imperative
UTIL: treat people as means to improve everyone’s situation
Kant: treat everyone as an end in themselves and never exploit them as means
UTIL: more scope less precision
Kant: less scope More precision

13. Illegal Immigrant Worker
Case Study
Illegal Immigrant Worker
Situation: Your uncle owns a construction company and pays his immigrant employees “under the table” for $2 less than minimum wage.
External Info: Your uncle, in your opinion, is a great guy that has many talents and has a family of four; your dad works for him too.
Question: An IRS agent asks you to see the tax records for the employees because you are the accountant and you just started working for your uncle last week. What do you do?
Use Utilitariansim to solve this issue. Later we will use this case and apply Kantianism.

14. Scenario #1
You are a nurse (thank you Ojard) and a patient has come in with an acute case of inflamed appendix. The doctor says to the patient that he/she must have it removed. The doctor leaves and the patient tell you that he/she is leaving the hospital because he/she does not want to do it. What do you say to the patient?

15. Have you seen/heard this before?
“an individual who can be counted upon to do what we know we must and ought to do, even when there are no external forms of incentive or accountability in place”