Evaluating Kantian Ethics
Evaluating Kantian Ethics
Agree Disagree
● Categorical Imperative (Kant) - ● Imperfect Duties - Imperfect
Kant provided three formulations to Duties, those that are contradictions
discover Categorical Imperatives in will, seem to be based in
(absolute moral duties) that we teleology. Who gets to decide what
should follow for their own sakes. a rational being would will to be
The 1st Formulation requires that a universal law, and on what basis
maxim be universalisable with no
contradiction in conception or in will. ● Limited Reason (Plato) - Human
The 2nd Formulation requires that reason is limited by the material
the maxim does not treat others as a world. Our minds cannot reason
mere means to an end, but as an clearly if our thoughts are clouded
end in themselves. The 3rd by the desires of the body or the
Formulation requires that the maxim heart e.g emotion, disease, sleep
would be the kind we imagine within deprivation, hunger etc. Plato would
a perfect society, a ‘Kingdom of agree with this argument as he
Ends’. believed the soul has both rational
and irrational elements
● Three Postulates (Kant) - Kant
must postulate that we have free will ● Murderer at the Door (Constant) -
in order for morality and moral Imagine a murderer showing up at
responsibility to exist. Additionally it your door and asking you for the
is only right that those who do good location of your friend and telling
are rewarded with good results, you that he plans on going to where
however goodness is not defined by you say to kill your friend. Constant
outcome and we often see bad suggests the obvious solution would
outcomes for those who do good, so be to lie to the murderer, however it
Kant postulates that God, and by seems Kant would argue that it is
extension an immortal soul and better to tell the murderer the truth
afterlife, must exist in order to grant even if it results in the death of your
this. friend
Counter : Compatibilism (Hume), a ● Reasonable Expectation (Singer) -
freely chosen action is best defined In response to the Problem of
as an action that is in accordance Calculation, it can be argued we
with one’s will, regardless of can, to an extent, predict the
whether or not their will is outcomes of actions. Singer
determined by internal or external suggests that we ought to act on a
factors. Even in a deterministic ‘reasonable expectation’ regarding
universe an understanding of ‘moral what will maximise utility,
responsibility’ can be devised from a acknowledging the impossibility of
compatibilist definition of free will. any certain knowledge of the future.
● Good Will (Kant) - According to ● Responsible for Others (Hegel) -
Kant only good will is ‘good without Hegel criticised Kant for his radical
Evaluating Kantian Ethics
Agree Disagree
● Categorical Imperative (Kant) - ● Imperfect Duties - Imperfect
Kant provided three formulations to Duties, those that are contradictions
discover Categorical Imperatives in will, seem to be based in
(absolute moral duties) that we teleology. Who gets to decide what
should follow for their own sakes. a rational being would will to be
The 1st Formulation requires that a universal law, and on what basis
maxim be universalisable with no
contradiction in conception or in will. ● Limited Reason (Plato) - Human
The 2nd Formulation requires that reason is limited by the material
the maxim does not treat others as a world. Our minds cannot reason
mere means to an end, but as an clearly if our thoughts are clouded
end in themselves. The 3rd by the desires of the body or the
Formulation requires that the maxim heart e.g emotion, disease, sleep
would be the kind we imagine within deprivation, hunger etc. Plato would
a perfect society, a ‘Kingdom of agree with this argument as he
Ends’. believed the soul has both rational
and irrational elements
● Three Postulates (Kant) - Kant
must postulate that we have free will ● Murderer at the Door (Constant) -
in order for morality and moral Imagine a murderer showing up at
responsibility to exist. Additionally it your door and asking you for the
is only right that those who do good location of your friend and telling
are rewarded with good results, you that he plans on going to where
however goodness is not defined by you say to kill your friend. Constant
outcome and we often see bad suggests the obvious solution would
outcomes for those who do good, so be to lie to the murderer, however it
Kant postulates that God, and by seems Kant would argue that it is
extension an immortal soul and better to tell the murderer the truth
afterlife, must exist in order to grant even if it results in the death of your
this. friend
Counter : Compatibilism (Hume), a ● Reasonable Expectation (Singer) -
freely chosen action is best defined In response to the Problem of
as an action that is in accordance Calculation, it can be argued we
with one’s will, regardless of can, to an extent, predict the
whether or not their will is outcomes of actions. Singer
determined by internal or external suggests that we ought to act on a
factors. Even in a deterministic ‘reasonable expectation’ regarding
universe an understanding of ‘moral what will maximise utility,
responsibility’ can be devised from a acknowledging the impossibility of
compatibilist definition of free will. any certain knowledge of the future.
● Good Will (Kant) - According to ● Responsible for Others (Hegel) -
Kant only good will is ‘good without Hegel criticised Kant for his radical
