Section B Revision
Week 8+9 – Kantian Deontology – Fred Feldman, Rachel Rachels, Immanuel Kant
• This theory claims that there are unconditional moral rules that we must follow,
regardless of the consequences. Kants Aim: provide a better alternative to
consequentialist morality.
Why?
Consequentialism sometimes requires us to do actions that we have credible moral
reasons (independent of consequentialist reasons) to believe are morally wrong!). As
such, we’re in the market for an alternative moral theory that will be able to match
our strong considered moral judgments. Consequentialism made the morality of
some actions unstable. Consequentialism made promise keeping unreliable. That is,
it threatened the institution of promise keeping.
Deontology Claim: The morally right thing to do is the one which accords which
moral rules that satisfy the categorical imperative.
Argument: moral actions cannot be justified solely by their consequences. Some
actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.
Emphasis: the importance of following moral rules without considering the
consequences.
The morally right action is the one that accords with moral rules (duties). The moral
rules (and hence the moral status of the actions which follow from them) are
objective, unconditional, necessarily binding duties that arrived at by satisfying a
rational principle called the Categorical Imperative.
Kants Key Ethical Normative claim: The morally right action is the one that aligns with
objective, unconditional moral rules (duties), these rules are determined through the
satisfaction of a rational principle, known as the Categorical Imperative. So, the
morally right action is the one that follows these moral rules.
“The morally right action is one that accords with the moral rules arrived at through
satisfying the Categorical Imperative.”
A Categorical Imperative - fundamental normative principle from which all moral
rules (moral duties) are derived and take on their necessary, universal, and
unconditional nature.
Hypothetical Imperative - something that must be done depending on the outcome
(making it hypothetical). Follows the formula: “If you want X to come about, then
you ought to do Y”. something that you must do depending on what you want or a
particular outcome.
Categorical Imperative formulated:
1. The Categorical Imperative as the “Universal Law Formula”. (UL Formulation)
Act always in such a way that the maxim of your action could be willed as a
universal law. So, an action satisfies UL if you could turn it into a maxim (a rule
like version of your action) that can be willed as a universal law.
, - Coherence in conception & consistency in will
2. The Categorical Imperative as the “Formula for Humanity”. (FH Formulation)
Act always in such a way that you never use others as mere means, but always as
ends in themselves. So, an action satisfies FH if you can turn it into a maxim which
ensures that people will not be treated as mere means, but as ends in themselves.
o If the rule forms of actions thinking of perusing satisfies CI (categorical
Imperative), then action morally required & obligated to do it.
o Should moral rules satisfy CI, moral rules will take on nature of CI.
Kantian procedure for determining moral rightness of action.
1. Is it morally night to do X?
2. Turn doing X into potential rule, we ought to do 'x'
3. Put potential rule of ‘x’ to test by seeing if it satisfies CI
4. Does potential X-rule satisfy the CI.
5. Does potential x-rule satisfy ULF
6. Does it pass coherence in conception test?
If yes,
- Does it pass the consistency in the Will test?
- Does potential x-rule satisfy formula for humanity?
potential x-rule is a moral rule that is objective, unconditional & necessary binding.
If no, Potential x-rule cannot be a Moral Rule governing out morality.
, The IM (Inquiring Murder)
If a murderer that’s looking for your friend asked you if your friend is with you (they
are), would you lie to save their life?
Kant -> always telling the truth – moral rule.
He believes consequences can never justify an action.
1. The claim that there are unconditional; & necessary moral rules – unintuitive
results
2. Solutions end up potentially undermining tenets of their own moral theory.
3. To save from IM problem = backsliding into consequentialism/inconsistent with
theory.
Critiques
- UL – Arbitrary differences in duties
Can’t itself justify moral rules without having to accept that there will be arbitrary
differences in moral rules hence arbitrary acceptance of moral rules.
- UL – Threat to Subjection
Consistency in the will test makes moral rules too subjectivistic, produces objective
moral rules.
- FH – Undermines subjecting of CI
FH – never use others as a mere means but end in themselves.
Treating them as they would want:
▪ Subjective – people have own conceptions
▪ CI cannot be subjective!
- FH – FH is underdeveloped.
Not clear what it wants – Kant isn’t specific → theoretically underdeveloped
- FH – Animals & Rationality
Animals while non-rational, are worthy of moral consideration. Kant cant account
via FH;
▪ P1 – Moral Worth → rationality
▪ P2 – animals → no rationality
▪ C1 – animals → no moral worth
▪ C2 – treat animals however
- FH - Rational Animals (RA) & Non-rational Humans (NRH)
RA – treat differently → rationality not sufficient moral wroth → KD insufficient in
determining morality
Week 8+9 – Kantian Deontology – Fred Feldman, Rachel Rachels, Immanuel Kant
• This theory claims that there are unconditional moral rules that we must follow,
regardless of the consequences. Kants Aim: provide a better alternative to
consequentialist morality.
Why?
Consequentialism sometimes requires us to do actions that we have credible moral
reasons (independent of consequentialist reasons) to believe are morally wrong!). As
such, we’re in the market for an alternative moral theory that will be able to match
our strong considered moral judgments. Consequentialism made the morality of
some actions unstable. Consequentialism made promise keeping unreliable. That is,
it threatened the institution of promise keeping.
Deontology Claim: The morally right thing to do is the one which accords which
moral rules that satisfy the categorical imperative.
Argument: moral actions cannot be justified solely by their consequences. Some
actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.
Emphasis: the importance of following moral rules without considering the
consequences.
The morally right action is the one that accords with moral rules (duties). The moral
rules (and hence the moral status of the actions which follow from them) are
objective, unconditional, necessarily binding duties that arrived at by satisfying a
rational principle called the Categorical Imperative.
Kants Key Ethical Normative claim: The morally right action is the one that aligns with
objective, unconditional moral rules (duties), these rules are determined through the
satisfaction of a rational principle, known as the Categorical Imperative. So, the
morally right action is the one that follows these moral rules.
“The morally right action is one that accords with the moral rules arrived at through
satisfying the Categorical Imperative.”
A Categorical Imperative - fundamental normative principle from which all moral
rules (moral duties) are derived and take on their necessary, universal, and
unconditional nature.
Hypothetical Imperative - something that must be done depending on the outcome
(making it hypothetical). Follows the formula: “If you want X to come about, then
you ought to do Y”. something that you must do depending on what you want or a
particular outcome.
Categorical Imperative formulated:
1. The Categorical Imperative as the “Universal Law Formula”. (UL Formulation)
Act always in such a way that the maxim of your action could be willed as a
universal law. So, an action satisfies UL if you could turn it into a maxim (a rule
like version of your action) that can be willed as a universal law.
, - Coherence in conception & consistency in will
2. The Categorical Imperative as the “Formula for Humanity”. (FH Formulation)
Act always in such a way that you never use others as mere means, but always as
ends in themselves. So, an action satisfies FH if you can turn it into a maxim which
ensures that people will not be treated as mere means, but as ends in themselves.
o If the rule forms of actions thinking of perusing satisfies CI (categorical
Imperative), then action morally required & obligated to do it.
o Should moral rules satisfy CI, moral rules will take on nature of CI.
Kantian procedure for determining moral rightness of action.
1. Is it morally night to do X?
2. Turn doing X into potential rule, we ought to do 'x'
3. Put potential rule of ‘x’ to test by seeing if it satisfies CI
4. Does potential X-rule satisfy the CI.
5. Does potential x-rule satisfy ULF
6. Does it pass coherence in conception test?
If yes,
- Does it pass the consistency in the Will test?
- Does potential x-rule satisfy formula for humanity?
potential x-rule is a moral rule that is objective, unconditional & necessary binding.
If no, Potential x-rule cannot be a Moral Rule governing out morality.
, The IM (Inquiring Murder)
If a murderer that’s looking for your friend asked you if your friend is with you (they
are), would you lie to save their life?
Kant -> always telling the truth – moral rule.
He believes consequences can never justify an action.
1. The claim that there are unconditional; & necessary moral rules – unintuitive
results
2. Solutions end up potentially undermining tenets of their own moral theory.
3. To save from IM problem = backsliding into consequentialism/inconsistent with
theory.
Critiques
- UL – Arbitrary differences in duties
Can’t itself justify moral rules without having to accept that there will be arbitrary
differences in moral rules hence arbitrary acceptance of moral rules.
- UL – Threat to Subjection
Consistency in the will test makes moral rules too subjectivistic, produces objective
moral rules.
- FH – Undermines subjecting of CI
FH – never use others as a mere means but end in themselves.
Treating them as they would want:
▪ Subjective – people have own conceptions
▪ CI cannot be subjective!
- FH – FH is underdeveloped.
Not clear what it wants – Kant isn’t specific → theoretically underdeveloped
- FH – Animals & Rationality
Animals while non-rational, are worthy of moral consideration. Kant cant account
via FH;
▪ P1 – Moral Worth → rationality
▪ P2 – animals → no rationality
▪ C1 – animals → no moral worth
▪ C2 – treat animals however
- FH - Rational Animals (RA) & Non-rational Humans (NRH)
RA – treat differently → rationality not sufficient moral wroth → KD insufficient in
determining morality
