condensed: kantian ethics

intro

there is nothing higher than reason

immanuel kant

for kant, other theories lacked courage and trust in intellect and reason. he wanted true autonomy, not following other’s rules. through reason, he thought we could rule our lives and understand the universe.

moral teachings

life without reason and morality has no value

kant

his values of reason, autonomy and freedom were fundamental. we have goals we set ourselves, we choose and fulfil them. we are freely choosing people. he saw error in following the church or a ruler, being heteronomous. we should follow moral law that is knowable by reason. 

duty

he believed we had an innate sense of duty, which reason recognises. we are obligated to tell the truth, and do good unto others. outcomes are untrustworthy and they can be emotionally swayed. we can use our free will to focus on intentions and acts. we cannot know effects or the future. the good will is duty, and good for its own sake. a good shopkeeper is honest because it is right and dutiful to do so.

this theory is deontological but kant notes that to determine duty one must determine outcome. one must do duty for duty’s sake because it is truly good.

absolutist

the command to do duty is invariable.

hypothetical imperatives

kant sees we have goals with steps toward them. if we do not take the steps, we will not become a lawyer. this is a hypothetical imperative. this is not an absolute command, like doing good. this is a categorical imperative.

categorical imperative

we need to outline what duty is if we are to do what it requires. kant developed a system with three forms, which are all interlinked.

first form

universalisability. we should only do what we are willing for everyone to do.

issues

• what about other moral judgements? i marry someone because i love them not because i want everyone to. i may not even want everyone to marry. things are not immoral for not being universalisable
• it can be bent to fit specific things
• what about trivial things? not everything is a moral thing or a habit, and preferences should not be made morally correct
• some things can be immoral and universalised. what if telling the truth leads to harm? it would be irrational not to lie.

second form

people are only ends in themselves. things should be for the good of people.

issues

an example is coventry during the war, when england allowed the germans to bomb and kill people despite knowing about it before in order to hide that they had cracked the enigma code. what choice should have been made here?

third form

kingdom of ends. insists on human dignity. actions for the sake of people and for good. we must act like what we do is law for everyone else, and everyone else would do the same thing. every choice is not personal, but one that everyone else should replicate.

immortality and god

he believed in inward devotion to god, not outward acts. it is exhibited through a moral life based on scripture. a criticism is that he leaves no room for god, but kant would say morality is not dependent on god. morality is rational, not from blind obedience.

postulates

1. we are free beings
2. we are immortal through the afterlife
3. god exists

our freedom is that we are rational and capable of knowing our duty. we made moral decisions to exercise freedom. god is the guarantor of rationale and immortality. one rewards the other. but we should be virtuous for the sake of it, not for the reward.

strengths

• clear: simple, lines up with golden rule
• reliable: everyone knows their obligations, laws can’t be broken for love or justice would be irrelevant
• authority: logical and reasonable, makes sense
• ends in themselves: obvious respect for human life, people like that
• just intentions: the fatal flaw of util is that bad actions can have good outcomes, this is not the case here

weaknesses

• lacks motivation: just because we know our duty doesn’t mean we will do it. we know some things are wrong and still do them.
• unrealistic: by nature people have different ideas, so not everyone will want the same things. universalising is too idealistic.
• unforgiving: kant believed in retributive justice, not allowing mercy. bentham believed punishment should be rehabilitative to break the cycle
• situationalism: universal rules aren’t practical because of human complexity. morality needs to be relativist not absolutist.
• consequences matter: consequences can matter more than intentions, breaking a rule to prevent harm is good