Kant's deontological ethics
“Asses Kant's deontological ethics”
introduction Kant’s deontological ethics cannot be defended, as there is a lack of human sentiment and the
first formulation of the categorical imperative is easily overcome.
This will show that Kant’s first formulation produces immoral maxims and does not regard the
importance of human sentiment proposing that Aristotle’s virtue ethics has a better account
The most crucial account is Kant’s categorical imperative as it is the basis
Kant's ethics Everyone is prescribed the same duties, which are completely impartial, in order to be moral you
must have the correct motivation (out of duty). In order to formulate these duties he posits the
categorical imperative (act only on that maxim whereby at the same time you can will it to be a
universal law)
cannot universalise killing example as this is a contradiction in their conception
Possible to blatantly However, Kant’s categorical imperative is weak at only formulating moral maxims which we have
maximise an to follow because it can produce immoral maxims, and prescribe those to people.
immoral maxim If the maxim has a minimal effect then it is possible to maximise it without having a contradiction
in conception. ‘ if I have nin letters in my name, I can punch one person a week randomly”. This
can be universalised as it has minimal effect. This directly undermines the point of the categorical
imperative
Truthful about what Rejects the argument that if we make it with minimal effect then we can maximise it, because this
we are maximising disregards being truthful about what we are maximising. ‘ if I have nin letters in my name, I can
punch one person a week randomly”. Is just maximising “punching random people”.
We can still We can still maximise immoral acts while satisfying his conditions (being honest with ourselves
maximise immoral about what we are maximising). Suppose the following situation.
while fulfilling Kant’s P1. i am desperate for money, I must have it in order to survive
conditions P2. i am too proud to ask for it, instead, i con people (promise to pay it back but do not)
P3.i would only do this if i were desperate
P4. i can universalise p2, as i am honest about the maxim i am universalising. (satisfies kant's
truth condition)
P5. this is staill a blatantly immoral action
C. therefore knats categorical imperative fails
This overcomes kant's response (fails to defend it)
Disregard for Specifically the claim ‘an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty’, in order to
human semantics show the absurdity of this claim, i will apply this reason to an example.
Father A and father B example.
Misrepresents the In order to defend his ethics, kant states that his categorical imperative ismereley a basis of
situation principles which we should act on, arguing that it provides people with autonomy, therefore
people can choose how to act within certain moral guidelines.
Unclear guidance There is unclear guidance on how to act which defeats the purpose of his theory
“Asses Kant's deontological ethics”
introduction Kant’s deontological ethics cannot be defended, as there is a lack of human sentiment and the
first formulation of the categorical imperative is easily overcome.
This will show that Kant’s first formulation produces immoral maxims and does not regard the
importance of human sentiment proposing that Aristotle’s virtue ethics has a better account
The most crucial account is Kant’s categorical imperative as it is the basis
Kant's ethics Everyone is prescribed the same duties, which are completely impartial, in order to be moral you
must have the correct motivation (out of duty). In order to formulate these duties he posits the
categorical imperative (act only on that maxim whereby at the same time you can will it to be a
universal law)
cannot universalise killing example as this is a contradiction in their conception
Possible to blatantly However, Kant’s categorical imperative is weak at only formulating moral maxims which we have
maximise an to follow because it can produce immoral maxims, and prescribe those to people.
immoral maxim If the maxim has a minimal effect then it is possible to maximise it without having a contradiction
in conception. ‘ if I have nin letters in my name, I can punch one person a week randomly”. This
can be universalised as it has minimal effect. This directly undermines the point of the categorical
imperative
Truthful about what Rejects the argument that if we make it with minimal effect then we can maximise it, because this
we are maximising disregards being truthful about what we are maximising. ‘ if I have nin letters in my name, I can
punch one person a week randomly”. Is just maximising “punching random people”.
We can still We can still maximise immoral acts while satisfying his conditions (being honest with ourselves
maximise immoral about what we are maximising). Suppose the following situation.
while fulfilling Kant’s P1. i am desperate for money, I must have it in order to survive
conditions P2. i am too proud to ask for it, instead, i con people (promise to pay it back but do not)
P3.i would only do this if i were desperate
P4. i can universalise p2, as i am honest about the maxim i am universalising. (satisfies kant's
truth condition)
P5. this is staill a blatantly immoral action
C. therefore knats categorical imperative fails
This overcomes kant's response (fails to defend it)
Disregard for Specifically the claim ‘an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty’, in order to
human semantics show the absurdity of this claim, i will apply this reason to an example.
Father A and father B example.
Misrepresents the In order to defend his ethics, kant states that his categorical imperative ismereley a basis of
situation principles which we should act on, arguing that it provides people with autonomy, therefore
people can choose how to act within certain moral guidelines.
Unclear guidance There is unclear guidance on how to act which defeats the purpose of his theory
