Duty
Kant believed that duty was key to normative ethics. By duty, Kant refers to your moral obligation
and resolve to do the right thing irrespective of outcomes. Actions should be made based on what
you believe is the right thing to do regardless of consequences or what you are being told by others.
Kantian Ethics is therefore deontological as “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect
expected from it.”
o Kant’s ethics empowers the individual. It provides the deontological structure which
enables people to discover their duty and reject the heteronomy of church or society. It
allows the individual to do the right thing even when contrary to religious or societal
laws.
Kant claims that morality is based on objective duties but ideas of duty do differ. Adolf
Eichmann, one of the key orchestrators of the Holocaust, claimed in his trial to have lived
according to a Kantian definition of duty.
Hypothetical Imperative
Hypothetical imperatives are teleological commands of reason based around desires. These are
actions that are a means to end and relative - doing ‘X’ because you wish to achieve ‘Y’. Kant
believed that hypothetical imperatives were actions made by our animal self, empirically, as they are
based off desires. They are contingent and conditional -depending on other factors. Kant’s rejection
of hypothetical imperatives ensure that we are doing the right thing, unconditionally, for the right
reasons and not for some alternate and possibly selfish motive.
Kant’s approach to ethics is purely rational and requires only logic and reason. Some would
say this makes it cold and uncaring leaving no room for sympathy, caring or compassion.
David Hume believes that emotions have a role to play in ethics and that “reason is and
ought to be the slave of passions.”
Constant argues that if we can’t lie then society would soon become impossible. White lies
or lies for good reasons are needed to help society function.
o Clark points out that Kant leaves the door open for silence – refusal to answer.
Categorical Imperative
On the other hand, categorical imperatives are deontological commands of reason based around
good will. These actions are an end in itself, absolute (unconditional) and universal - doing ‘X’ for the
sake of ‘X’. Kant believed that categorical imperatives were actions made by our God like self,
rationally instead of empirically.
As with any absolutist ethical system there is great inflexibility.
W.D Ross points out that Kant does not address the issue of what to do when two duties are
in conflict. The categorical imperative gives us no way of prioritising. Not all duties can be
simultaneously categorical such as keeping promises and relieving distress e.g I’ve made a
promise to follow the orders of my commanding officer who is now telling me to torture
prisoners.
Consequences do matter e.g ‘inquiring murderer.’ Kant says that we can never know for
certain the consequences of our actions and that, for example, you could lie and say your
friend is not in just for the murderer to leave but then find your friend having snuck away.
James Rachels believes Kant underplays our ability to predict consequences with accuracy.
Kant believed that duty was key to normative ethics. By duty, Kant refers to your moral obligation
and resolve to do the right thing irrespective of outcomes. Actions should be made based on what
you believe is the right thing to do regardless of consequences or what you are being told by others.
Kantian Ethics is therefore deontological as “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect
expected from it.”
o Kant’s ethics empowers the individual. It provides the deontological structure which
enables people to discover their duty and reject the heteronomy of church or society. It
allows the individual to do the right thing even when contrary to religious or societal
laws.
Kant claims that morality is based on objective duties but ideas of duty do differ. Adolf
Eichmann, one of the key orchestrators of the Holocaust, claimed in his trial to have lived
according to a Kantian definition of duty.
Hypothetical Imperative
Hypothetical imperatives are teleological commands of reason based around desires. These are
actions that are a means to end and relative - doing ‘X’ because you wish to achieve ‘Y’. Kant
believed that hypothetical imperatives were actions made by our animal self, empirically, as they are
based off desires. They are contingent and conditional -depending on other factors. Kant’s rejection
of hypothetical imperatives ensure that we are doing the right thing, unconditionally, for the right
reasons and not for some alternate and possibly selfish motive.
Kant’s approach to ethics is purely rational and requires only logic and reason. Some would
say this makes it cold and uncaring leaving no room for sympathy, caring or compassion.
David Hume believes that emotions have a role to play in ethics and that “reason is and
ought to be the slave of passions.”
Constant argues that if we can’t lie then society would soon become impossible. White lies
or lies for good reasons are needed to help society function.
o Clark points out that Kant leaves the door open for silence – refusal to answer.
Categorical Imperative
On the other hand, categorical imperatives are deontological commands of reason based around
good will. These actions are an end in itself, absolute (unconditional) and universal - doing ‘X’ for the
sake of ‘X’. Kant believed that categorical imperatives were actions made by our God like self,
rationally instead of empirically.
As with any absolutist ethical system there is great inflexibility.
W.D Ross points out that Kant does not address the issue of what to do when two duties are
in conflict. The categorical imperative gives us no way of prioritising. Not all duties can be
simultaneously categorical such as keeping promises and relieving distress e.g I’ve made a
promise to follow the orders of my commanding officer who is now telling me to torture
prisoners.
Consequences do matter e.g ‘inquiring murderer.’ Kant says that we can never know for
certain the consequences of our actions and that, for example, you could lie and say your
friend is not in just for the murderer to leave but then find your friend having snuck away.
James Rachels believes Kant underplays our ability to predict consequences with accuracy.
