Lecture

Two logics:
Deontology (duty, some rules you always have to follow: tell someone when you
cheated): whether an act is good or bad depends on the quality of the act itself
(morality is located in principles, duties and rights (when you have a duty to
someone, the other person has a right)in the act itself)
Often juxtaposed to:
Consequentialism: whether an act is good or bad depends on the consequences
(the end justifies the means)
Deontology (deon means duty):
- Concerned with adherence to certain rules and duties, a choice is right if it
conforms with a moral norm. Consequences in general, matter less. What
matters is intention, acting for the right reason (killing is wrong, even if you
could have killed Hitler, consequentialism is other way around).
- So, there are some rules like killing is always wrong. What the action is, is also
shaped by the intention
- Actions can be morally good, forbidden, permitted or required.
- Religious ethics has this idea as well: some rules you have to follow, then you
are doing good things. Actions may be justified by divine command.
Deontology in Kant:
- Most influential thinker in western ethics, still central for human rights and
human dignity.
- Yet, Kant held and expressed the idea that reason was not evenly found in all
human beings (for example, women can feel better instead of think better,
just like his racist views). This is crucial to critically reading and using Kant
against himself. He is needed, because a lot of western philosophical tradition
is based on Kantian ethics.
Ethics according to Kant: REASON:
- Reason allows us to find the source of right/wrong. It allows us to be moral
- What is moral can be discerned through reason. Not about our feelings)
- Moral principles that meet the demands of reason (are reasonable) are
universally valid
- Ethical duties, discerned by reason, are the same for all. This follows from the
point above.
- Moral duties should not be based on individuals, traditions, cultural contexts,
norms or God. Only reason matters. So not: what God says is moral.
- Being good means abiding by such duties for duty-sake.
- He does exclude small children and people with severe disabilities
Kantian ethics and Enlightenment connections:
- Emphasis on reason as source of knowledge (rather then tradition)
- Reason can uncover (moral) truths
- Belief in universally valid (moral) laws
- Reason grounds moral worth of human being
The aim of Kantian ethics:
- Kant seeks so ground what is good independently of subjective views or
uncertain outcomes.
- Kant’s aim is to develop an account of what is good that is objective and
universal: moral laws that apply for everyone everywhere
- The basis for these moral laws cannot lie in our empirical world (with all its
difference, variety and uncertainty) and should therefore be uncovered
through deliberation, using reason.
See ppt for quote.
Kantian ethics and order:
- Kant is concerned that without knowledge of the moral law, morality is
vulnerable to misperceptions and corruption.
- Kant want to establish certainty about what is morally good in a way that
applies to everyone, for example: moral truth
- There is a sense of morality as practices by people in everyday life being
‘messy’
- Kant want to create order by establishing a firm foundation for morality,
grounded in pure reason.
- So the test to test this is the categorical imperative
This categorical imperative: the instrument Kant develops to establish whether
an act conforms to the moral law. Three formulations of the categorical
imperative:
1. First formulation: see if it could be universalized: the universalizability
principle. (act only from a universalizable maxim).
a) What is a maxim: a rule for action, some would argue the maxim needs
to connect an action to the reasons for the action, such as the
motivation or goal.
A) To test whether a maxim can become a universal law, you should
ask yourself: what would it be like if everyone would be acting on
your maxim: then, are there LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES (not: is the
world better off or worse off) that arise that would not allow you to
REACH THE GOAL OF YOUR ACTION.
B) For example: false promise maxim: make a false promise in a
difficult situation, but if everyone does this, no one is going to
believe promises, then no one will believe promises, so you cannot
make a false promise, so your goal of making a false promise cannot
be fulfilled SO: LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY: consistency (can I fulfil the
purpose of my action (make a false promise) when everyone does
this), not what is best for the world.
C) Difference maxim & intention: maxim is the act with the intention,
also describes the act.
D) Kant: at least four maxims are in line with his categorical imperative
(Shafer-Landau uses this to criticize Kant:
I) Do not deceive others (lying)
II) Do not harm oneself (suicide)
III) Do what is good for oneself (developing talents)
 IV) Do what is good for others (beneficence) (so think: can I be
good to others in a world where everyone is good to others:
yes: it passes the categorical imperative, no logical
inconsistency. Think this with the other point)
b) Strengths and downsides to this universalizability principle and maxims
(see also Shafer-Landau)
2. Formulation from humanity: Kant formulated the categorical imperative in
three different ways. This second formulation focusses on the duties we
owe to humanity: act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a
means
Shafer-Landau example: treating the plumber with respect is not using him
MERELY as a means, you still see him as a person, other example: rape and
slavery is treating others as a mere mean.
Human beings can set their own goals because they possess reason, that
is why we need to respect others, so you cannot treat others as a mean or
object, then you treat them in a way without respecting their reason. This
requires respect for humanity (but this is tied to rationality -> problematic?
Disabilities? Children?) And also: what does it mean to treat someone as an
end, and is there something beneath a mean (someone just sees no use in
someone)
3. Third formulation of the categorical imperative: People should follow the
law for themselves, focus on autonomy.
a) You need to understand the laws for yourself, we follow the moral law
not because we are told to follow this, but because we understand we
have to follow this.
b) This formulation is needed to ensure that the moral law is not imposed
on human beings as rational things.
c) This principle guarantees self-legislation.
We have access to reason, but we are not rational beings fully: so our desires and
emotions (with women more) get in the way of doing the good thing always.
Categorical imperative as three-step test
- The three principles of the categorical imperative can be seen as a three-step
test to consider whether a maxim should be come a moral law.
1. Stage 1: create a maxim
2. Yes: Stage 2: Could the maxim be a universal law (can the action of my
purpose be fulfilled if everyone does this), No: fails the categorical
imperative, it is morally wrong
3. Yes: Stage 3: Does it respect humanity as an end, No: fails the categorical
imperative, it is morally wrong
4. Yes: Stage 4: Could it be agreed by everyone?
5. Yes: moral law
- Important to remember: it is not enough that your action is in line with the
moral law, you need to do it because you feel it is your duty!!!! You have to
have respect for the moral law, rather than our desires or concern for its
consequences.
Criticism of Kantian ethics:
- Categorical imperative (very universalist) could produce awkward situations /
bad outcomes. Not lying does not always seem good. He lived like this himself
mainly, he had a very structured life: people think he might have had autism.
- Reasons as the ground for ascribing moral status proved historically
problematic. Many people were excluded from full consideration through a
denial of their rational nature.
- Is reason really all that matters? Can it provide us answers to moral
questions? How about our feelings? Should we not also look at the context?
- Is Kantian ethics too far-removed from our moral intuitions?
Also: helping without fellow-feelings are better? It should not be about inner
satisfaction, but it should be from duty, according to the categorical imperative,
otherwise it is still not entirely morally.
Strengths of Kantian ethics:
- Ideas of Kantian ethics about human worth underpin norms grounding human
rights and dignity
- Categorical imperative resonates with the Golden Rule, yet brings it to a
higher level (see Shafer-Landau)
- Focus on intentionality remedies some of the weaknesses of consequentialism
Contemporary deontology examples (it is more then Kant)
- Deontology is one of the most commonly uses=d ethical approaches.
Whenever people orient their ethical arguments around moral principles,
duties and rights, you know they are drawing from a deontological logic:
recognize it this way.
- Does not necessarily take a side in cases, you can defend pro-life and pro-
choice from deontology.
- See examples in ppt on abortion, animal rights and treatment of refugees.
- If you disagree with Kant, you can still be a deontologist, for example other
deontologist can use the divine command.
Strengths of deontology:
- If you feel Kantian ethics is problematic because it does not sufficiently
guarantee the rights and moral status of the disables, animals, or other
groups: you are probably still drawing from a different version of deontology
(because of the rights)
- Claims for universal moral status / respect are grounded in the idea that
morality is located in principles, duties and rights
- See two other points in ppt.
See conclusions in ppt.