Non-consequentialist Ethics: Kant's Duty-based Moral Theory (handout)

An action is MORALLY GOOD if and only if it is morally WORTHY and morally CORRECT. Such actions come from the heart (proper motive) and the head (rational reason).

1. Kantian Ethics give us 3 moral concepts: a standard of DUTY, a RULE for action and a principle of RESPECT

1. An action has MORAL WORTH if it is done for the sake of DUTY, i.e. if and only if it proceeds from respect for the moral law. "What is my moral DUTY?"
   
   
   1. One acts for the sake of DUTY only when one acts out of concern for what is morally right.
      
      
      1. Moral duties are obligations, often expressed as commands or imperatives.
      2. Moral duties are not equivalent to legal or contractual obligations, these are conventional and conditional when moral laws need to be universal, i.e., they apply to everyone, always, regardless of goals or consequences.
         
         
         1. Perfect duties are those which bind us without exception. (click here for more on Kantian duties...)
         2. Imperfect duties must be weighed against other duties, these may be trumped by perfect duties.
            
            
      GOOD WILL motivates intrinsically good actions. Such actions are those which are done out of reverence for the moral law, or a good will. A person with a good will is never selfish, it is someone who only makes decisions that he or she holds to be morally worthy, taking moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior.
      
      
      1. An act is good only when its intention is also good; this must be one's sole motive.
      2. An act can be good even if it fails to produce what is desirable.
      3. An act is good if it cannot be used to inflict harm.
      4. If one acts for the morally right reasons, then one has a good will, however, having a good will doesn't mean one acts for the right reasons (one's reasoning must also pass the CI test).
      5. So an action can be morally worthy, if it comes from a good will, and yet that action can still be morally incorrect, for instance, if following its rational principle disrespects someone.
      6. Having a good will is necessary but not sufficient for acting morally.
         
         
      RATIONAL REASON reveals imperatives. It demands that we act rationally, in accordance with a good will or our ability to do what ought to be done.
      
      
      1. The rational will produces rules binding all rational, autonomous agents.
      2. The good will is a power to choose only that which reason independently of emotion or desire recognizes to be practically necessary.
      3. A good will is good unconditionally, not just for what it produces.
      4. A good will is not the sole good or the complete good: it is the highest good and that condition which makes us worthy of happiness (which IS the complete good).
      5. Even if one has the right reasons, one may not have a good will. One needs both for an act to have moral worth.
         
         
   2. An act derives its moral value from the RATIONAL PRINCIPLE by which it is determined (never from any results produced, however desirable).
      
      
      
2. Kant's Categorical Imperative is a rule for testing rules: "An action is MORALLY CORRECT if its MAXIM can and is willed as a universal law"
   
   
   1. It is never morally correct to act out of concern for any potential or actual consequence.
      
      
      1. Morality is the result of pure reason unhindered by caprice or unpredictable, unreliable outcomes.
      2. When we act to enhance our happiness, we are not acting as free agents because we are driven by instinct to pursue pleasure and avoid pain.
      3. One is free only when one is governed by self-determined laws of conduct.
      4. To act from feeling is also not to act freely because we do not choose the feelings we have.
         
         
   2. A MAXIM is a subjective rule by which we determine how we should behave, i.e. a rule by which we live.
      
      
      1. Rules cannot be self-defeating.
      2. Rules must be consistent with other duties or maxims.
         
         
   3. A UNIVERSAL LAW is a rule that can apply to everyone, everywhere, always. Genuine conflicts of obligations do not exist.
      
      
      1. Everyone must be able to comply; to say that anyone ought to X implies that anyone can do X.
      2. One must will that everyone comply in any similar situation.
         
         
         
3. We should always treat humanity with RESPECT, whether in our own person or in the person of any other, as an end-in-itself and never merely as a means to an end.
   
   KANT presumes:
   
   1. All persons are potentially autonomous, rational, free agents worthy of equal respect.To be free is to follow our own rational principles and never merely our own irrational impulses or desires.
   2. Our ability to act morally is the source of our dignity as ends-in-ourselves of equal intrinsic worth.
      
      

2. Imperatives

a hypothetical imperative: "If you want Y, then you must do X." (conditional command)

a categorical imperative: "Always do X." (unconditional command)

• Kant's categorical Imperative (CI): "Act only on that maxim whereby one can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

  Kant's Examples on How to Apply the CI ...
  

   

3. Kant's Argument for the Categorical Imperative

1. The form of a moral law is universal obligation.
2. A moral law is universal only if it applies to everybody, everywhere, always—even if it sometimes conflicts with self-interests, desires or natural inclinations.
3. Hypothetical imperatives are not universal, they serve self-interests—they apply only conditionally as means to desired ends.
4. Therefore, a moral law must be a categorical imperative.
5. Since it does not aim at the satisfaction of a particular desire, the categorical imperative has no particular content, but only the form of law.
6. Therefore, an action that conforms to a categorical imperative is one that is commanded by a universal law.
7. Therefore, the categorical imperative commands this:
   
   Act only on that MAXIM by which you can will, at the same time, that it should become a universal law.

—Does this conclusion follow from these assumptions?

 

4. Kant's Argument for The Principle of Universal Respect

1. Giving oneself a practical rule to follow implies that one has a purpose for doing so.
2. The purpose or end toward which a categorical imperative aims must be an ultimate end, not something that is a means to another end.
3. Everything in the world that has a purpose has its purpose given to it by humans. Only one thing gives itself its own purpose: autonomous, rational humans.
4. Therefore, a human is an end-in-itself, something self-determining, not a mere means to another end. This is the ultimate end toward which a categorical imperative aims.
5. Therefore, the categorical imperative commands this:
   
   Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in one's own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end, never as a means only.—Is this Principle practically wise among the disreputable and disrespectful?

5. Questions that test Moral Rules (all morally correct maxims must pass these tests)

1. Can the proposed rule consistently apply universally; i.e., to everyone? (universalizability test)
2. Does the proposed rule treat persons (including oneself) as ends-in-themselves, rational, autonomous beings with equal intrinsic worth? If anyone being forced, coerced or decieved, then their autonomy is compromised. (respect test)