Immanuel KantImmanuel Kant

Duty EthicsDuty Ethics

The moral worth of an action depends on The moral worth of an action depends on motive motive

(do the right thing for the right reason)(do the right thing for the right reason)

“ “A good will isn’t good because what it A good will isn’t good because what it affects or accomplishes; it’s good in itself. affects or accomplishes; it’s good in itself. Even if by utmost effort, the good will Even if by utmost effort, the good will accomplishes nothing, it would still shine accomplishes nothing, it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself.”which has its full value in itself.”

Immanuel KantImmanuel Kant

The three contrastsThe three contrasts

1. Freedom (determination of will) 1. Freedom (determination of will)

Autonomous v HeteronomousAutonomous v Heteronomous

Autonomy : to act freely; to act according to Autonomy : to act freely; to act according to a law I give myselfa law I give myself

Heteronomy: to act according to desires I Heteronomy: to act according to desires I haven’t chosen myself; the rule that is haven’t chosen myself; the rule that is followed in response to external factors followed in response to external factors (laws of nature; desires and inclinations)(laws of nature; desires and inclinations)

The three contrastsThe three contrasts

2. Morality2. Morality

Duty v InclinationDuty v Inclination An act is only of moral worth if it is done from a An act is only of moral worth if it is done from a

sense of duty; i.e. if it is done from a motive sense of duty; i.e. if it is done from a motive which is not self-interest. (Kant acknowledges which is not self-interest. (Kant acknowledges that we may have emotions which support the that we may have emotions which support the morality of the act, but as long as they are not morality of the act, but as long as they are not the reason for performing the act, then the act is the reason for performing the act, then the act is of moral worth)of moral worth)

The three contrastsThe three contrasts

3. 3. ReasonReasonHypothetical v Categorical imperativesHypothetical v Categorical imperatives

(imperative = what we ought to do)(imperative = what we ought to do)Hypothetical : : means to ends reasoning; to get Hypothetical : : means to ends reasoning; to get X, we should do Y (the shopkeeper who gives X, we should do Y (the shopkeeper who gives the correct change so as not to get a bad the correct change so as not to get a bad reputation)reputation)Categorical : unconditionally demands Categorical : unconditionally demands performance of an action for its own sake; it has performance of an action for its own sake; it has the form "Do A."the form "Do A."

“ “If the action would be good solely as the If the action would be good solely as the means to something else, the imperative is means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as good in itself and therefore as necessary...for a will which of itself necessary...for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical.”categorical.”

Immanuel KantImmanuel Kant

How do we discover what How do we discover what imperatives are categorical?imperatives are categorical?

We ask the question – ‘does reason tell We ask the question – ‘does reason tell me that I would I want this action to be a me that I would I want this action to be a universal way of behaving?’universal way of behaving?’

This is the Principle of UniversalisabilityThis is the Principle of Universalisability

“ “Act only on that maxim whereby you can Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”a universal law.”

Immanuel KantImmanuel Kant

Kant’s Categorical imperativeKant’s Categorical imperative

Aside from universalisability Kant (showing Aside from universalisability Kant (showing his ultimate faith in the enlightened his ultimate faith in the enlightened capabilities of human nature) also detailed capabilities of human nature) also detailed that you should:that you should:

Act in such a way that you always treat Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a the person of any other, never simply as a means but always as an ends.means but always as an ends.

So, according to Kant, an act has moral worth So, according to Kant, an act has moral worth only if it is performed: only if it is performed:

autonomouslyautonomously, , deontologicallydeontologically (from duty) (from duty) according to categorical according to categorical

imperativeimperative

CriticismsCriticisms We run into dilemmas when a We run into dilemmas when a conflict of conflict of dutyduty arises. What if you are forced to lie to arises. What if you are forced to lie to save a life? Is telling the truth or saving the save a life? Is telling the truth or saving the life more important?life more important?

The ‘saint’ problem – Someone who The ‘saint’ problem – Someone who WANTS to live a good life of obligation WANTS to live a good life of obligation (duty) should (and would) be considered a (duty) should (and would) be considered a moral person according to common morality. moral person according to common morality. Kant, however, would seem to disagree.Kant, however, would seem to disagree.

CriticismsCriticisms MOTIVEMOTIVE is important according to Kant, but is important according to Kant, but the principle of universalisability asks us to the principle of universalisability asks us to consider the consider the consequencesconsequences (what would (what would happen if everyone acted in this way…?), so happen if everyone acted in this way…?), so Kant is forced to acknowledge that Kant is forced to acknowledge that consequences are important. consequences are important.

Is there really a moral imperative? Shouldn’t Is there really a moral imperative? Shouldn’t we consider that sometimes lying, for we consider that sometimes lying, for example, might be the RIGHT thing to do? example, might be the RIGHT thing to do?