1. Quick Recap
Briefly outline how we should make moral decisions according to Kant. Try to include as much as what we’ve covered so far as possible.

2. Kantian deontological ethics explained in 3 minutes

3. Evaluating Kantian Ethics
Can you identify any strengths of Kant’s theory?
Any potential problems?
Strengths
Weaknesses

4. Comparisons to other theories…
A couple split up. A year later the ex- boyfriend puts various pictures of his ex-girlfriend on the internet. She doesn’t discover this. The pictures bring pleasure to others.
How would an act Utilitarian respond to this case?
How would a rule Utilitarian respond?
Do these responses seem intuitively moral?
What would Kant say in response to this?
What reasons would he give for this response?
Does this response seem intuitively moral? Why?

5. Comparisons to other theories…
A serial killer is on the loose. Thousands of citizens live in a state of fear and demand that the killer be brought to justice. Eventually the mayor selects someone at random from the protesting mob, a man with a known criminal record who is widely disliked. This man is quickly tried, found guilty, and executed. The mob disperses, feeling happy and secure again.
How would an act Utilitarian respond to this case?
How would a rule Utilitarian respond?
Do these responses seem intuitively moral?
What would Kant say in response to this?
What reasons would he give for this response?
Does this response seem intuitively moral? Why?

6. Evaluating Kantian Ethics
Can you identify any strengths of Kant’s theory?
Any potential problems?
Strengths
Weaknesses
Deals with a number of situations that Utilitarianism struggles with (revenge porn, scapegoating etc.) by identifying each person as a rational, valuable being who shouldn’t be exploited.
Sharp distinction he makes between duty and desire. It prevents individuals from assuming that what is good for them, what brings them pleasure or benefit, is morally good, something that will be good for everyone.

7. Lesson Objective
To identify the clear strengths of Kantian deontology.
To start to discuss some of the issues Philosopher’s have identified with Kantian Deontology.
To discuss how effective these issues are as criticisms of Kant.

8. Problems with practical application
Criticism One
Problems with practical application
The theory only gives a framework, it does not give us any actual moral duties.
The central requirement is that we should ‘do our duty because it is our duty’.
But does Kant actually tell us how to usefully work out what our duties are?

9. Criticism One - Expanding
It’s not clear for a start whether a maxim that can be universalised is automatically moral: I could universalise “Tie your left shoe first” but does that automatically make it a moral law? Of course not! Similarly if I can’t universalise something, does that automatically make it immoral?: I can’t universalise “Let the other person enter the room first” but does this mean it’s an immoral action? Of course not!

10. More problems with practical application
Can I make an immoral action moral if I word it very carefully? I could claim my maxim is “To steal gifts from large shops when there are seven letters in my name (Michael)”. This could be universalised – afterall it would only result in occasional bouts of stealing by people with very specific names, but it doesn’t seem moral.

11. Response to this final issue…
Kant's reply is that we should be concerned with our actual maxim not some made-up one. I am not being honest with myself. Being honest would mean I would admit my actual maxim is: “take what I want, when I can’t afford it.” which of course, cannot be universalized.
For Kantian ethics to work, we must be honest about our motives and maxims.

12. Problem one – Practical Application
The problem is, universalisability doesn’t necessarily tell us which actions are moral and ought to be done
And non-universalisability doesn’t necessarily tell us which actions are immoral, and should be avoided.
There is also the argument that clever wording can make anything universalisable.
So the categorical imperative is not very useful as a moral guide.

13. In rough notes: Write the problem out in logical steps
How big a problem is this? Write one sentence to explain.

14. Is he here?! Criticism Two Conflicting / clashing duties
A murder knocks at your door, looking for your friend. He asks you where he is.
You’ve promised your friend you’ll hide him and protect him.
Your duty to tell the truth about your friend being there conflicts with another duty, to keep your promises.
The problem is, Kant’s theory gives us no way to choose when we are faced with clashes / conflicts between duties.

15. Criticism 2 (cont.) - Counter-intuitive duties
What if you had made no promise to hide your friend?
Kant: The situation would be straightforward, you simply have a duty to tell the murder the truth about where your friend was. Not doing so would be abusing his agency (second formulation) and could not be universalised (first formulation) since the maxim would be “Always lie”.
WHAT?! This seems… wrong.

16. ‘Could I say to myself that everyone makes a false promise when he is in difficulty from which he otherwise cannot escape? I immediately see that I could will the lie but not a universal law to lie. For with such a law [i.e. with such a maxim universally acted on] there would be no promises at all… Thus my maxim would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law’

17. On whiteboards:
Think of your own example of a situation where two moral duties (according to Kant’s definition of a duty) would conflict.
How would you decide what the right thing to do in this situation was?

18. Modern Solution– W.D. Ross
The duties we generate using Kant’s formula are not always absolute
They are ‘prima facie’ duties (or ‘duties at first sight’). These types of duty allow exceptions when a good enough reason requires it.
When there is a conflict of duties we use our intuition to determine which is our actual duty – the one that overrides the others.
So in the example of the murderer, we have three prima facie duties – always keep promises, tell the truth and avoid harming others.
At this point we should appeal to our moral intuition to identify which duty should be taken above the others. Most people would say “Avoid harming others”.

19. Why is this (criticism) a problem?
The problem is that Kant does not permit any exceptions to universal laws.
So the theory is counter-intuitive in that our duty sometimes requires us to do things which most people would regard as morally wrong.
It also provides no concrete advice about how to behave in situations where our moral duties conflict.
We could respond to the counter-intuitive argument by using Ross’ “Prima Facie” duties, but for Kant this would go against the core of his theory – the idea that we should all act according to our duties at all times, no exceptions.

20. In rough notes: Write the problem out in logical steps
How big a problem is this? Write one sentence to explain.

21. What strengths of Kantian ethics did we discuss last lesson?
Quick Recap
What strengths of Kantian ethics did we discuss last lesson?
What two issues with Kantian ethics did we discuss last lesson? Can you remember any responses to these issues?

22. Criticism 3:
The values of certain motives (e.g emotions, the desire to do good).
It seems intuitive that there are certain emotions which have a moral dimension, e.g. guilt, sympathy
Kant claims that the emotions are irrelevant: the only appropriate motivation for moral action is a sense of duty.

23. Criticism 3 – Motives - Expanded
Some people take issue with the Kantian idea that duty is the only motive that has moral worth:
Surely it would be morally right to go see my friend in hospital because she is my friend and I care about her. If we stated to her that we had just come to visit because it is our duty (as Kant would seem to suggest) then she would likely be hurt.
If I do something for you just because I feel warmly towards you Kant would apparently argue this to be morally worthless, we are not acting because of our duty but because of our desires.
Isn’t putting duty above feelings and emotion cold and inhuman?

24. Whiteboards!
Think of your own example where we think it is morally good to act in a certain way because of how you feel

26. Why is this a problem?
Consistency and impartiality should be a part of moral consideration, but only a part.
Love of humanity and our emotions regarding each other also seem to be important factors.
Actually, acting out of duty rather than love or care often implies lack of authenticity that is not regarded as moral
E.g. father playing with his son out of duty, not joy.
‘Do-gooders’ only doing the right thing because it’s their duty.

27. In rough notes: Write the problem out in logical steps
How big a problem is this? Write one sentence to explain.

28. Quick Recap – What have we seen so far…
Which of these criticisms is the biggest issue Kant faces in your opinion? Why?
Criticism 1:
It’s difficult to work out exactly what Kant’s theory wants us to do in many situations.
Some things that can / can’t be universalised wouldn’t seem to be a question of morality.
I can universalise anything if I word it cleverly enough.
Criticism 2:
What happens when duties clash? (Promising your friend to keep him safe / lying to the murderer at the door) How do we know which to follow?
Sometimes our duty seems to require us to do something that most would consider immoral (telling the truth to the murderer about where your friend is) this seems counter-intuitive.
Criticism 3:
Entirely ignoring feelings when it comes to deciding what to do seems cold and inhuman. Surely I would want to protect my friends because I care about them? Not just because it’s my duty.
Some emotions make us act in a moral way – guilt, sympathy etc. To say that these emotions have no moral dimension just seems wrong.

29. Criticism 4: Consequences
The axe-murder at the door - When no promise is made, Kant says our duty is to tell the truth. A situation where killing one would save thousands (a terrorist) – Kant would argue our duty is to protect his life (second formulation – By killing him you’d be using him for a goal). Why might these scenarios feel intuitively wrong to some people?

30. Criticism 4: Consequences – Expanded
The problem is that they both lead to disastrous consequences.
Kant says the sole thing that gives actions a moral value is the reason for doing them.
But our intuitions tell us that in certain circumstances it is essential to consider the consequences – and to override our duties accordingly.
Yes, maybe if we all followed laws that could be universalised we’d live in a happy content world but we don’t all follow these laws. There are people like the axe murderer or the terrorist here to mess things up. We must take them into account.
So Kant is wrong to say that motives, and not consequences, are the only important factor in moral decision making. Particularly in this non-ideal world.

31. In rough notes: Write the problem out in logical steps
How big a problem is this? Write one sentence to explain.

32. They are not the same! Finally…
Is it even possible to put aside our own concerns / desires and wishes when making moral decisions in all cases?
Contrast:
The impartial decision making process used when deciding who to give a job to. Vs
The kind of decision making process used when deciding whether to lend money to a friend.
They are not the same!

33. Thought Experiment
In the case of the axe-murderer at the door, is rationality / duty alone enough to make anyone tell the truth?
What about in the case of the terrorist? Is duty enough to stop us from killing the man?
What about a person who needs to steal bread to feed their family? Is duty alone enough to prevent them doing it?
In all of these situations, it would seem our desires / goals may take precedence over the duty that Kant outlines.

34. Morality should be based on hypotheticals!
Some philosophers have argued against Kant, stating that motives such as desire / goals do have a definite moral worth. The philosopher Philippa Foot is one of those philosophers. She argues that without such motives, we do not have a good reason to behave morally. In her paper ‘Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives,’ she argues exactly this, stating that moral law, as Kant conceives it, does not give sufficient reason to follow it. Instead it leaves us as “forced conscripts” in a moral army. Only end-based ‘hypothetical’ imperatives give us sufficient good reason to act.

35. Morality should be based on hypotheticals!
Remember hypothetical imperatives are based around our desires / ends:
If you want to win the match, you ought to practise.
If you want to earn loads of money, you should work in the city.
So in the case of hypotheticals there are clear reasons to perform the actions – there is an end/goal to motivate us.
In contrast, Foot contends, the reason to act on categorical imperatives is not so evident.
Why ought I not steal?
Why ought I not lie?
What is the reason to obey the ought?
What problem would Kant have with reducing morality to hypothetical statements?

36. In rough notes: Write the problem out in logical steps
How big a problem is this? Write one sentence to explain.
When you’ve completed this, read through the solution Foot offers to Kant on page 283. Can you make sense of this and add this to your summary?

37. Foot’s Solution (Or why Hypotheticals are not as bad as Kant thinks)
For Foot, the key is to reject the Kantian belief that if we were to base our actions entirely on hypotheticals we would always act out of self-interest.
Some people genuinely want to help others, not for fame, fortune or their own goals, but just to help others. Likewise some people might aim to be fair and just, not for their own reward, but for the love of truth and liberty. If we accept that people can have these moral ends, then they can be a suitably moral reason to act. So, rather than a categorical imperative stating how you should act, with no real reason other than rationality supporting it. Morality becomes a series of hypothetical ‘oughts’ based on specific moral ends.

38. Summary
Summarise each the 5 criticisms we’ve discussed today and last lesson in 30 words or less for each on your whiteboards. When you’ve done this, rank them in order of effectiveness as criticisms – which ones might Kant have big issues with?

39. Lesson(s) Objective
To identify the clear strengths of Kantian deontology.
To start to discuss some of the issues Philosopher’s have identified with Kantian Deontology.
To discuss how effective these issues are as criticisms of Kant.

40. Tasks – Summarising Kantian Ethics
Use the summary sheet to cover the main parts of Kantian ethics.
On the back summarise the five issues with Kant’s deontological ethics. Mention any responses.
In red pen explain how effective you think each a criticism is. (Find a reason!! Be specific!!!)
Write a mini-conclusion explaining whether or not you think Kant’s Deontological theory is good / bad overall, referring to at least one strength.