1 Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur Module No. #01 Lecture No. #08 Deontological Theories Immanuel Kant Now, continuing to talk about, Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. (Refer Slide Time: 00:22) Let us, go ahead and see, where does he ground his Moral Theory? Now, he grounds his Moral Theory, on the notion of the Good Will. (Refer Slide Time: 00:30)
2 This is the starting point of, Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. Now, I quote from Immanuel Kant himself, there is no possibility of thinking, of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded with good, without qualification, except a Good Will. Intelligence, wit judgement. And, whatever talents of the mind, one might want to name, are doubtless in many respects, good and desirable. As, are such qualities of temperament, as courage, resolution, perseverance. But, they can also become extremely bad and harmful, if the will, which is to make use of these gifts of nature, and which in its special constitution, is called character, is not good. The same holds with gifts of fortune, power, riches, honour, even health, and that complete well-being, and contentment with one's condition, which is called happiness, make for pride. And often hereby, even arrogance, unless there is a Good Will to correct their influence, on the mind. And herewith, also to rectify, the whole principle of action, and make it universally conformable to its end. The sight of a being, who is not graced by any touch, of a pure and a Good Will, but who yet enjoys an uninterrupted prosperity, can never delight a rational and impartial spectator. Thus, a Good Will seems to constitute the indispensable condition, of being even worthy of happiness. This is from, excerpted from the groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Now, this as we come across, is the foundation of Kant's moral philosophy.
3 Till now, we have been talking about Consequentialism, about Utilitarianism, Hedonism. Most of the places, where we find, that well, there are certain nonmoral Consequences, that are brought forward by acts, and that decide on the moral parameter of the Act in question. Now, Kant here, makes a break in the tradition, and tries to find a moral grounding, that is atomic, that is fundamental, that is axiomatic. We have talked about, how Kant tried to, what were the objectives of Kant, in retrospect, we can see the picture, that Kant wanted to paint. Was where, the entire frame of morality, laid to rest on rationality. Now, that was a very difficult position to keep. Because, this was a time, when Kant was predominant. At that time, that was Kant's time, was filled with religion, with societal, with traditional values, as being the source of values. Now, can tradition be the source of values. The customs and the rules, that have been coming out, are they going to be the rules of the current system. Or, is there going to be something else. As we talked earlier, that Kant wanted to cleanse his system. He wanted to clean, the moral system of all external evidences, or of all empirical evidences, and wanted to ground it on rationality. Now, he introduces this notion of the Good Will. Now, what is the Good Will. The Good Will seems to be that, whenever all conditions, all capacities, all potencies in the world, are however desirable or undesirable they be, or by themselves not good without any qualification. That is, we require certain qualifiers, to make it good. Let us say, a strong human being, a physically well-built strong human being. Now, is that strength, a good thing, or a bad thing, is qualified, by how that person uses his strength. Does he use the strength, to bully others? Does he use his strength, to assist others in need? Now, this entity called the Good Will, is what makes a difference to all other properties in the world. That is what, Kant is trying to bring to light that, nothing inside or outside the world, is good without a qualification. So, everything is good or bad, depends on certain qualifications, except the Good Will. The Good Will is the fundamental atomic goodness, that you seek. Now, looking at the slide, we see that, Kant gives certain examples of character, power, riches,
4 honour, even health, and complete well-being, and contentment. So, he even talks about courage, resolution, perseverance. That, whatever these qualities are, they are good or bad, depending on the Good Will. So, then he later talks about, that the sight of a being, which not graced by any touch of a pure and Good Will, but yet enjoys an uninterrupted prosperity, can never delight, a rational impartial spectator. Thus, a Good Will seems to constitute, the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness. Now, what is Kant mean, when he says that, that a better pure and Good Will, but who yet enjoys an uninterrupted prosperity, can never delight a rational and impartial spectator. Let us take the example of a movie. Why do we like the film star, the hero, the Protagonist of the movie? Let us take a usual plot, where the protagonist is strong, tuff, has overcome challenges, to preserve good. So, when Kant talks about the, impartial and rational spectator, he means us as the rational beings. Who do we attach value to? Or, who is the Protagonist? The Protagonist is one, who not only is strong. And, that strength, does not make him the Protagonist. For very often, the Antagonist, or the Villain, is much stronger than the hero. But, what makes the hero, hero, is the Good Will. Is the Good Will, without any qualification? That, he has the Good Will, that he has a good intention, that he is a good person, these are things, that make the agent, hero. So, this is what, an uninterrupted prosperity, will still not delight, the impartial and rational spectator. Because, it would not make a difference, or should not inspire the spectator, unless the spectator saw the evidence of the goodness, or of goodness of qualification. Now coming to the next slide. (Refer Slide Time: 08:48)
5 Now, Good Will for Kant, is at the centre of Ethics. What is he briefly do. Kant attempts to bring the locus of the moral domain, from theories empirical observations, back to the individual, in the individual's exercise of moral choice and freedom. Morality cannot be based on the evidence of the senses, and that persons have an inherent sense of morality. The objective of an Act is to be called moral, is not to benefit pleasure or satisfaction. An Act is moral, only if it is done from a sense of duty, and nothing else. The objective of an act, so as to be called moral, is not benefit, pleasure, or satisfaction, but an Act is moral, only if it is done from a sense of duty, and nothing else. Certainty comes from the mind, and not empirical evidences, in actively ordering the evidence of the senses. Now, what is Kant trying to say, here. First, that Kant attempts to bring the locus of the moral domain, from theories empirical observations, back to the individual, in the individuals exercise of moral choice and freedom. So again, this is a part of Kant's agenda to clear, morality from empirical sources, or from evidence of the senses. And, he is making a crucial thing here, that persons have an inherent sense of morality. So, the objective of an act, so as to be called moral, is not benefit, pleasure, or satisfaction. An Act is moral, if it is only done from a sense of duty, and nothing else. Now, this is very crucial in understanding, what Kant is trying to put forth. This is a crucial claim of Kant, that well, the moral Act is a conformity to the sense of duty, and
6 is not done for pleasure, or benefit, or even satisfaction. Now, if Kant were to ask Mother Teresa, that why do you serve the needy. And, if Mother Teresa would reply, that well, I serve the needy, because my heart goes out for the needy. I am touched, I am moved, I am emotionally charged, when I see the needy. And therefore, I serve the needy. To this hypothetical dialogue, Kant would reply that well, Mother Teresa, you are not moral in that sense. Because, you are not functioning out of a sense of duty, to your supposed moral acts, or from your empathy, from the pleasure, or from the satisfaction, that you derive, from serving the needy. It is not from a sense of duty. It is not, a cold calculated dispassionate sense of duty. Rather, it is a warm feeling of affection, oneness, and mercy, that is prompting you to the actions. So, that makes your action, that strips your action, of its morality. So, the sense of duty is nonnegotiable. The sense of duty is the only source of action. Now, so thereby, the certainty that comes for moral actions, and moral claims, come from the mind, and not from empirical evidences. So, empirical evidences, just provide you to that data. The mind orders the data. Now, let us go to the next slide. (Refer Slide Time: 13:08) Kant talks about this thing called, the Categorical Imperative. Very often abbreviated, as the CI. What is the Categorical Imperative? The test to determine, the right from the wrong. That is this, in a single claim, is what Kant means by the Categorical Imperative. The principal, to determine
7 the right. It can be known Apriori. That, is by reflection alone, as it is a part of our mental structure. Categorical, as opposed to hypothetical, or goal-based imperative, because it is a must, or is a binding First, let us talk about, these two claims. Now, what does Categorical Imperative mean? Now, the Categorical Imperative, would perhaps mean, not perhaps, but would definitely mean, something of a rule, of a moral command. Now, let us look at the board, to see, how best can we understand Categorical Imperative. This is quite a profound concept that, Kant has come up with. And, we are just skimming at the introductory level, to present a brief overview of, what Kant's philosophy is. (Refer Slide Time: 14:33) Now, there are judgements, we do. If I want X, I would ought to do Y, right. Now, look at these two. If I want X, I would do Y. A fairly simple, conditional statement. Now, this is something, which is called a Hypothetical Imperative. This part of it, is hypothetical. And, this part of it, is an imperative, or a command. Now, this is basically, the structure of most moral judgements, or most policies, maxims, that we have in our lives. That well, we want something. And, to achieve that, we do certain things. So, I want X. And, I ought to do Y, to get X. This is an example of, a Hypothetical Imperative. Now, let us look at an example of, a Categorical Imperative. Well, it is something like an
8 absolute moral command, it just says, do Z. If you want, you can fill this up with, no matter what. Now, the Categorical Imperative is saying, that well, no matter what, do Z. So, there is something, absolute about the Categorical Imperative. Okay, now let us not get confused, with the words and the phrases, that Kant uses. What Categorical Imperative essentially means, is that, well, there are some things, right, which are categorical. Categorical meaning, they have to be done right. They are an imperative, because they are a command. A command, which is categorical, or which is to be followed, for its own sake. It is not hypothetical. It is not a command, or an imperative, to be followed, for some goal. But, it is an imperative, or a command, to be followed, for its own sake. Now, here is where, Kant is unfolding his Moral Theory. That, it comes about that well, there are things that ought to be done, for its own sake. Right. Now, let us take a look at the slide. When we talk about hypothetical, it is goal-based. Because, it is a must or a binding, where the Categorical Imperative is done, for its own sake. Now, let us look at, Kant presented three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. The first formulation reads, Act only on that maxim, which you can at the same time, will to be a universal law. Now, this is a small sentence, but which puts forth, the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative. It says that, Act only on that maxim, which you can, at the same time, will to be a universal law. Now, what does it say. Well, what does a maxim mean? A maxim is a subjective principle of judgement. Let me write that, on the slide, for your clarity It means, a subjective principle of action, right. Okay. Act on that maxim, or that subjective principle of action, which you can at the same time, will to be a universal law. Now, let us say, these are the words, that we are using, Categorical Imperative, maxim, we are using these words, these phrases, which are directly from Kant. And thereby, let it not confuse you, or make it sound superfluous. These are words, used by our translations, from Kant's works. But, what we mean in essence, is crucial for you to understand, that well. Kant is saying, that well, what the first axiom, or the first formulation. It is not an axiom. It is a first formulation, of
9 the Categorical Imperative. And, as you can see, it is empty. It is bereft of any content. It does not claim, that there is any description, of what one must do. He just puts a formula. And, what is that formula? The formula reads, that Act only on that maxim, which you can, at the same time, will to be a universal law. Now, what is Kant saying? Kant is saying, that well, what is this filter of right, rightness, checker, which he calls the Categorical Imperative. Any Act is right, if the principle with which you act, can be universalised. That is, if you are okay, being the recipient of the act, rather than the doer of the act, then the Act is right. If you are okay, if the maxim, or the subjective principle of action, is generalised, is universalised, is everybody starts fooling that, if it is that, is okay with you. He gives rather an interesting example. He takes this example of, asking for a loan, when one knows that, one does not have the capacity, to repay the loan. Now, Kant postulates the situation, that well, a person who is in need of money, and has to ask for a loan, knowing fully, well, that he cannot repay the loan, he is in a quandary. Because, if he asks for a loan, saying that well, he cannot repay it, he would not get a loan. And, if he asks for a loan, promising that he would repay it, he is a clearly saying something, which he cannot do, or he clearly committing to something, which we cannot do. Now, it is the latter, that Kant thinks, is a challenge to the rationality of the agent. Now, if the agent assumes that, you he is able to fool, the one who is extending the loan, and commit repayment. Whereas, even while the time of accepting the loan, he knows that, he is not in a position to repay. Then, that person, is guilty, of not just breaking a promise, but of being irrational, of not being a rational human being, of belittling his rational human agency. Now, how does he do so? Let us look at the slide, to understand, how he does so. Well. Now, an un-universalizable maxim, is involved in the contradiction of will. Now, this is a term, that we need to pay attention to. Well. What Kant means by contradiction of will? Is the difficulty, or error, arising from breaking one's commitment, or breaking or more accurately, violating the Categorical Imperative.
10 Now, let us look at this case, that is put on the slide. X makes a promise. And, X violates the promise, when suitable - for by the very Act of making a promise, X. Let us look at this example. Let us say, X makes a promise. And, X violates the promise, when suitable - for by the Act of making a promise, X does something, say P. And then, by violating it, when suitable, does something, which can be termed as, negating P. Now, X asserts P very well knowing that, she or he would negate P, later. This is the contradiction of will, that Kant points out. So, let us look at this. What is wrong with the contradiction of will, or what does Kant mean by the contradiction of will. Now, the Categorical Imperative is a binding, or is a sense of duty, that comes to us, from our own rationality. It is not something, which is enforced by anybody else. Let me make it simpler. Well. When you feel, that there is something, that you must do, no matter what. That, it is your duty to do, that particular act. Then, you are functioning from, a sense of duty, which in certain interpretations, could be the Categorical Imperative. Let us take the example of a Doctor, to whom an injured Terrorist, or an Extremist, or an injured Criminal, has come for treatment. Now, the oath of the Doctor, is to provide treatment to any Patient, or any victim, or any injured, who comes to him. But, knowing this, that well, if he does, extend treatment to this particular patient of his, there might be more harm, than benefit to people at large. But, the patient is none other than a criminal, who is most likely to do, something wicked or evil, he is rendered back to his health. Now, what is the Categorical Imperative here say. The Categorical Imperative is, your sense of duty. If this, well, what you would like to be done to you. It is like the religious adage, that do unto others, what you would like others to do to you. Now, the Categorical Imperative here, would be to do, what is your call of duty. Now, look at it, on the slide. Now, when X is asserting something, that well, you should do this. Or, he makes a false, in this particular case of loaning. He makes a false promise, that he can repay the loan. He is actually contradicting his will, contradicting himself. Because, he is asserting something, which he knows that, he would negate later.
11 Asserting P, fully knowing that, it would be negated later. So, considering the doctor example too, when the doctor provides treatment to the patient, who happens to be a criminal. Well, if doctor just does his duty. Then, he is not contradicting his well. But well, if he has the sense of duty, that he should help all. Then, by not helping, or not treating the criminal, he does something, which is contradicting his will. (Refer Slide Time: 28:25) Now, there have been other formulations of the Categorical Imperative. There are three formulations, that Kant has come up himself with. Now, notice that, all these formulations, are of the Categorical Imperative, are bereft of any content. They are just forms, right. Now, the second formulation says that, Act, so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person, or in that of another, never as a means only, but always at the same time, as an End. So, this brings into focus, that well, we must use, or we must see each individual, each person, as an End in himself, right. Now, this also interestingly has many ramifications, especially in political philosophy, that we are all equal on the moral plane. This is the claim, that is coming out, from this formulation. The third functional, or autonomy formula would say, that the idea of the will, of every rational, being as a will, that legislates universal law, right. So, that we are all autonomous. Now, we need not to go in further detail, about these formulations, unless and until, we would like to make a specialised study of Kant.
12 (Refer Slide Time: 30:06) Now, coming to the next slide. Now, it is rumoured, or it is said, that well, Kant being a bachelor himself, had a manservant of sorts, with him to look after his daily needs. And, they both loved each other. And, the manservant was of course, simple. And, when Kant narrates his philosophy, after a long decade of, or decades of writing, the manservant is amazed. That well, you have taken, and he almost accuses Kant, that you have taken morality, away from religion, and god. And perhaps, you have nothing to cater for, in religion. And, that it is rumoured, struck Kant so much, that he invented these, or he conjectured these postulates of morality, that in a conceited way, or in a hidden way, bring back the notion of god, that his manservant, was very much looking forward to. Well, we will just briefly go, over these postulates of morality. First, it says, that the freedom of the will. To experience moral choice, and therefore, they are off to arrive, at the sense of duty, one has to have the freedom of the will. Existence of god. Acting out of the sense of duty, must eventually lead to happiness, in the long run, if not in the short run. And, this can be possible, if the world is designed so, so there must be a designer god. Fairly self-explanatory. The conjecturing the existence of god, to present, that do acting by one s sense of duty, must eventually lead to happiness. Or, is that Consequentialism, creeping into Kant system. In the third one, is the immortality of the soul. Acting out of duty, may cause harm and pain, in the short run.
13 So, there has to be an immortal soul, as the agent to achieve the good sought, in this lifetime. So, it is very often seen that, living by one s duty, might actually cause more pain and harm in the short run. So, Kant conjectures, that there has to be an immortal soul, that benefits, from the good, that could be accumulated over time. So ultimately, these postulates are trying to hint, especially the second two postulates, could be accused of letting in Consequentialism, from the window. Now, these postulates are according to Kant, are implied in our sense of moral obligation. (Refer Slide Time: 33:08) Now, let us sum up. So, briefly, what is Kant s position. Kant wanted to establish, a moral system on the unshakeable foundations, of reason or rationality, indifferent to the less sturdy foundation, of empirical evidence. Moral choice, is the basis of asserting free will. Moral acts, only emerge from a sense of duty. Drawing satisfaction out of the performance of a moral Act, strips the Act of its morality. Morality is always a matter of conscious choice. Duty is to be performed, only for its own sake. That is, duty for duty sake. This is also known as Rigorism, as attributed to Kant. So, let us now, sum up. That well, Kant in the Deontological tradition, which we have taken, the first example of a Deontological rule, Deontological tradition, as Immanuel Kant. The second example, we will be taking. Next is W D Ross. Now, Immanuel Kant as an example of, the rule Deontological tradition, tries to ground morality on
14 rationality, and makes morality, an atomic affair. It does not make morality, depend on any non-moral consequences. And, what is it, that enforces morality? It is nothing but, one's own rationality, that enforces morality. For, when one violates the Categorical Imperative, one brings in the contradiction in will. And, this contradiction in will, is violating one's morality. So, this contradiction is a symptom of irrationality, or the denial of rationality, so intrinsic and valuable to human beings So, what is the Categorical Imperative. It is briefly, the principle of universalizability. It has three formulations. It talks about well, that an Act is right, only if it can be universalised. So, what in principle, or in essence, is the universalizability claim. That well, I as an individual, have no special rights, or special position, on the moral plane. So, if I assume, that anybody in my situation, would Act like this. Suppose, I choose an Act X. Now, if anybody in my situation, could or should Act X, then this is a right thing to do. So, the Categorical Imperative, is the filter for determining right from wrong. It is a rule. But nevertheless, it is a rule without any content. It is a rule of a form. It is giving, one a form. A form, that well, if this is the situation, we place it in the form. And then, if it is universalizable, then it is right. If it is not universalizable, it is wrong. Let us take an example. If we think, that well, anybody who is poor should steal. I am poor today. And, I would steal from the rich. And, this is right, only if I would consider, that anybody who is poor, perhaps poorer to me. Or, that one day, I become rich, and she or he, steals it from me. Then, it becomes as universalizable. But, then there are again, various issues with universalizability. Say, something, of course Kant talks about this too. That, if we could universalise something as trivial, as tying one s left shoe string first, every time. So, yes, Kant does refine his theories, to incorporate. It is a detailed exhaustive theory to, which has its essential grounding, as we have discovered. And, as we have talked about, that essential grounding is always on the, Categorical Imperative, or on the content, that universalizability as the criteria of determining right, of there being a rule, not being of a content less rule, in
15 discerning the right from the wrong. With this, we come to a close of our discussion, on Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy.
Kant The Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals (excerpts) 1 PHIL101 Prof. Oakes Section IV: What is it worth? Reading IV.2 Kant s analysis of the good differs in scope from Aristotle s in two ways. In
Suppose.... Kant You are a good swimmer and one day at the beach you notice someone who is drowning offshore. Consider the following three scenarios. Which one would Kant says exhibits a good will? Even
Humanities 4: Lectures 17-19 Kant s Ethics 1 Method & Questions Purpose and Method: Transition from Common Sense to Philosophical Understanding of Morality Analysis of everyday moral concepts Main Questions:
Kant s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals G. J. Mattey Spring, 2017/ Philosophy 1 The Division of Philosophical Labor Kant generally endorses the ancient Greek division of philosophy into
Duty and Categorical Rules Immanuel Kant Introduction to Ethics, PHIL 118 Professor Douglas Olena Preview This selection from Kant includes: The description of the Good Will The concept of Duty An introduction
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS In ethical theories, if we mainly focus on the action itself, then we use deontological ethics (also known as deontology or duty ethics). In duty ethics, an action is morally right
Deontological Ethics Kant An action's moral value is determined by the nature of the action itself and the agent's motive DE contrasts with Utilitarianism which says that the goal or consequences of an
Kantian Deontology - Part Two Immanuel Kant s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Nathan Kellen University of Connecticut October 1st, 2015 Table of Contents Hypothetical Categorical The Universal
Deontology: Duty-Based Ethics IMMANUEL KANT KANT S OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARIANISM: 1. Utilitarianism takes no account of integrity - the accidental act or one done with evil intent if promoting good ends
PHI 110 Lecture 29 1 Hello again. Today we re gonna continue our discussions of Kant s ethics. Last time we talked about the good will and Kant defined the good will as the free rational will which acts
PHILOSOPHY 431 Is Morality Rational? Topic #3 Betsy Spring 2010 Kant claims that violations of the categorical imperative are irrational acts. This paper discusses that claim. Page 2 of 6 In Groundwork
Kant's Moral Philosophy I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (178.5)- Immanuel Kant A. Aims I. '7o seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality." a. To provide a rational basis for morality.
Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur Module No. #01 Lecture No. #02 Introduction to Ethics An assessment of Ethical Relativism And
Benjamin Visscher Hole IV Phil 100, Intro to Philosophy Kantian Ethics I. Context II. The Good Will III. The Categorical Imperative: Formulation of Universal Law IV. The Categorical Imperative: Formulation
A Categorical Imperative An Introduction to Deontological Ethics Better Consequences, Better Action? More specifically, the better the consequences the better the action from a moral point of view? Compare:
Lecture 12 Deontology Onora O Neill A Simplified Account of Kant s Ethics 1 Agenda 1. Immanuel Kant 2. Deontology 3. Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives 4. Formula of the End in Itself 5. Maxims and
Lecture 6 Workable Ethical Theories I Participation Quiz Pick an answer between A E at random. What answer (A E) do you think will have been selected most frequently in the previous poll? Recap: Unworkable
Categorical Imperative by Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal Assistant Professor (Philosophy), P.G.Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh http://drsirswal.webs.com Kant Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant (1724 1804)
Kant, Deontology, & Respect for Persons Some Possibly Helpful Terminology Normative moral theories can be categorized according to whether the theory is primarily focused on judgments of value or judgments
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Founder of Deontology The right act is that which is in accordance with the correct moral rule (GK. deon) or principle (Kant calls these maxims ) Rejects hedonism Rejects consequentialism
Ethical Theories A (Very) Brief Introduction Last time, a definition Ethics: The discipline that deals with right and wrong, good and bad, especially with respect to human conduct. Well, for one thing,
Duty Based Ethics Ethics unit 3 Divine command as a source of duty Stems from the monotheistic (Judeo/Christian/ Islamic) tradition An act is good if it is commanded by God, bad if it is forbidden by God.
Chapter 2 Normative Theories of Ethics MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. Consequentialism a. is best represented by Ross's theory of ethics. b. states that sometimes the consequences of our actions can be morally relevant.
1 FINAL EXAM SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONS PHILOSOPHY 13 FALL, 2004 Your name Your TA s name Time allowed: one and one-half hours. This section of the exam counts for one-half of your exam grade. No use of books
Peter Bornedal, General Lecture, 203 Immanuel Kant Kant lived in the Prussian city Königsberg his entire life. He never traveled, and is famous for his methodic and rigorous lifestyle and high work ethics.
Chapter 2: Reasoning about ethics 2012 Cengage Learning All Rights reserved Learning Outcomes LO 1 Explain how important moral reasoning is and how to apply it. LO 2 Explain the difference between facts
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS SECOND SECTION by Immanuel Kant TRANSITION FROM POPULAR MORAL PHILOSOPHY TO THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS... This principle, that humanity and generally every
TOPIC: Philosophy 1000 Lecture Introduction to Kant s deontology of Categorical Imperatives. KEY TERMS/ GOALS: Conformity with duty vs. motive from duty. Deontology. Kant s focus on agent s motives rather
1 INTRODUCTORY HANDOUT PHILOSOPHY 13 FALL, 2004 INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY---ETHICS Professor: Richard Arneson. TAs: Eric Campbell and Adam Streed. Lecture MWF 11:00-11:50 a.m. in Cognitive Science Bldg.
PHI 1700: Global Ethics Session 13 March 22 nd, 2016 O Neill, A Simplified Account of Kant s Ethics So far in this unit, we ve seen many different ways of judging right/wrong actions: Aristotle s virtue
Lecture 6 Kantianism Participation Quiz Pick an answer between A E at random. What answer (A E) do you think will have been selected most frequently in the previous poll? Recap: Unworkable Ethical Theories
Kantianism: Objections and Replies Keith Burgess-Jackson 12 March 2017 Kantianism (K): 1 For all acts x, x is right iff (i) the maxim of x is universalizable (i.e., the agent can will that the maxim of
Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism Ethical Theory Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) in Practice Criticisms of Consequentialism Kant Consequentialism The only thing that determines the morality of
Deontological Ethics From Jane Eyre, the end of Chapter XXVII: (Mr. Rochester is the first speaker) And what a distortion in your judgment, what a perversity in your ideas, is proved by your conduct! Is
This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library] On: 24 May 2013, At: 08:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Deontology Marianne Talbot University of Oxford Department for Continuing Education 1 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) schriftman.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/immanu... 2 Kant believed that morality is a system
Quiz 1 (Out of 4 points; 5 points possible) Ethical Theory (continued) In one clear sentence, state one of the criticisms of consequentialism discussed in the course pack. (up to 2 bonus points): In one
KANT, MORAL DUTY AND THE DEMANDS OF PURE PRACTICAL REASON The law is reason unaffected by desire. Aristotle, Politics Book III (1287a32) THE BIG IDEAS TO MASTER Kantian formalism Kantian constructivism
Lecture 6 Workable Ethical Theories I Participation Quiz Pick an answer between A E at random. (thanks to Rodrigo for suggesting this quiz) Ethical Egoism Achievement of your happiness is the only moral
IMMANUEL KANT Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals [Edited and reduced by J. Bulger, Ph.D.] PREFACE 1. Kant defines rational knowledge as being composed of two parts, the Material and Formal. 2. Formal
Introduction to Philosophy Philosophy 110W Spring 2011 Russell Marcus Class 26 - April 27 Kantian Ethics Marcus, Introduction to Philosophy, Slide 1 Mill s Defense of Utilitarianism P People desire happiness.
38 Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals [Ak 4:422] [Ak4:421] what one calls duty is an empty concept, we can at least indicate what we are thinking in the concept of duty and what this concept means.
A2 Ethics Revision Notes Page 1 of 7 Kantian Deontology Deontological (based on duty) ethical theory established by Emmanuel Kant in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Part of the enlightenment
Deontology: Duty-Based Ethics IMMANUEL KANT A NOTE ON READING KANT Lord Macaulay once recorded in his diary a memorable attempt his first and apparently his last to read Kant s Critique: I received today
1 2 19 general questions about the nature of morality and about the meaning of moral concepts determining what the ethical principles of guiding the actions (truth and opinion) the metaphysical question
CMSI Handout 3 Courtesy of Marcello Antosh 1 Terminology Maxims (again) General form: Agent will do action A in order to achieve purpose P (optional: because of reason R). Examples: Britney Spears will
25 Animals in the Kingdom of Ends Heather M. Kendrick Department of Philosophy and Religion Central Michigan University email@example.com Abstract Kant claimed that human beings have no duties to animals
Chapter 1 A primer of major ethical theories Our topic in this course is privacy. Hence we want to understand (i) what privacy is and also (ii) why we value it and how this value is reflected in our norms
introductory lectures in bioethics Foundations of Bioethics Paul Menzel Pacific Lutheran University (philosophy, emeritus) Visiting Professor of Bioethics, CUHK 17 October 2015 Centre for Bioethics, CUHK
Tools Andrew Black CS 305 1 Critical Thinking Everyone thinks, all the time Why Critical Thinking? Much of our thinking is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or down-right prejudiced. This costs us
Can Christianity be Reduced to Morality? Ted Di Maria, Philosophy, Gonzaga University Gonzaga Socratic Club, April 18, 2008 As one of the world s great religions, Christianity has been one of the supreme
Sidgwick on Practical Reason ONORA O NEILL 1. How many methods? IN THE METHODS OF ETHICS Henry Sidgwick distinguishes three methods of ethics but (he claims) only two conceptions of practical reason. This
Philosophy 110W: Introduction to Philosophy Spring 2011 Class 26 - April 29 Kantian Ethics Hamilton College Russell Marcus I. Good Will, Duty, and Inclination The core claim of utilitarianism is that the
GCE Religious Studies Advanced Subsidiary GCE Unit G572: Religious Ethics Mark Scheme for June 2011 Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing
Autonomous Machines Are Ethical John Hooker Carnegie Mellon University INFORMS 2017 1 Thesis Concepts of deontological ethics are ready-made for the age of AI. Philosophical concept of autonomy applies
Some Ethical Theories Some Distinctions Ethical principles can be categorized according to whether they take judgments of value or judgments of obligation to be primary 1 I. Species of Moral Judgment I.
Practical Rationality and Ethics Basic Terms and Positions Practical reasons and moral ought Reasons are given in answer to the sorts of questions ethics seeks to answer: What should I do? How should I
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Königsberg, Prussia, (now Germany) where he spent his entire life, never traveling more than about
Philosophy of Religion The Role of Love in the Thought of Kant and Kierkegaard Daryl J. Wennemann Fontbonne College firstname.lastname@example.org ABSTRACT: Following Ronald Green's suggestion concerning Kierkegaard's
1 -- did you get a message welcoming you to the coursemail reflector? If not, please correct what s needed. 2 -- don t use secondary material from the web, as its quality is variable; cf. Wikipedia. Check
The Common Structure of Kantianism and Act Consequentialism Christopher Woodard RoME 2009 1. My thesis is that Kantian ethics and Act Consequentialism share a common structure, since both can be well understood
An Evaluation of Normative Ethics in the Absence of Moral Realism Mathais Sarrazin J.L. Mackie s Error Theory postulates that all normative claims are false. It does this based upon his denial of moral
Ethics Prof. Vineet Sahu Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur Module No. #01 Lecture No. #01 Introduction to Ethics Crito - A Socratic Dialogue Hello, welcome
Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals Immanuel Kant (1785) Kant, Groundwork, Early Modern Texts version 1 Jonathan Bennett revised an English translation of Kant s text, to provide the version below.
The Pleasure Imperative Utilitarianism, particularly the version espoused by John Stuart Mill, is probably the best known consequentialist normative ethical theory. Furthermore, it is probably the most
A Rational Solution to the Problem of Moral Error Theory? Benjamin Scott Harrison In his Ethics, John Mackie (1977) argues for moral error theory, the claim that all moral discourse is false. In this paper,
Moral Obligation by Charles G. Finney The idea of obligation, or of oughtness, is an idea of the pure reason. It is a simple, rational conception, and, strictly speaking, does not admit of a definition,
SUMMARIES AND TEST QUESTIONS UNIT 6 Textbook: Louis P. Pojman, Editor. Philosophy: The quest for truth. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. ISBN-10: 0199697310; ISBN-13: 9780199697311 (6th Edition)
ETHICS - A - Z Absolutism Act-utilitarianism Agent-centred consideration Agent-neutral considerations : This is the view, with regard to a moral principle or claim, that it holds everywhere and is never
TitleKant's Concept of Happiness: Within Author(s) Hirose, Yuzo Happiness and Personal Growth: Dial Citation Philosophy, Psychology, and Compara 43-49 Issue Date 2010-03-31 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/143022
An Epistemological Assessment of Moral Worth in Kant s Moral Theory Immanuel Kant s moral theory outlined in The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (hereafter Grounding) presents us with the metaphysical
Artificial Intelligence: Valid Arguments and Proof Systems Prof. Deepak Khemani Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module 02 Lecture - 03 So in the last
Backward Looking Theories, Kant and Deontology Study Guide Forward v. Backward Looking Theories Kant Goodwill Duty Categorical Imperative For Next Time: Rawls, Selections from A Theory of Justice Study
Answers to quiz 1. An autonomous person: a) is socially isolated from other people. b) directs his or her actions on the basis his or own basic values, beliefs, etc. c) is able to get by without the help
Previous Final Examinations Philosophy 1 For each question, please write a short answer of about one paragraph in length. The answer should be written out in full sentences, not simple phrases. No books,
Draft of 3-6- 13 PHIL 202: Core Ethics; Winter 2013 Core Sequence in the History of Ethics, 2011-2013 IV: 19 th and 20 th Century Moral Philosophy David O. Brink Handout #9: W.D. Ross Like other members
Notes on Moore and Parker, Chapter 12: Moral, Legal and Aesthetic Reasoning The final chapter of Moore and Parker s text is devoted to how we might apply critical reasoning in certain philosophical contexts.
The Human Deficit according to Immanuel Kant: The Gap between the Moral Law and Human Inability to Live by It Pieter Vos 1 Note from Sophie editor: This Month of Philosophy deals with the human deficit
Glasgow s Conception of Kantian Humanity Richard Dean ABSTRACT: In Kant s Conception of Humanity, Joshua Glasgow defends a traditional reading of the humanity formulation of the Categorical Imperative.
LESSON 2 OF 23 James M. Grier, Th.D. Distinguished Professor of Philosophical Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan WE503 Christian Ethics: A Biblical Theology of Morality
UTILITARIAN ETHICS Evaluating actions The principle of utility Strengths Criticisms Act vs. rule A dilemma You are a lawyer. You have a client who is an old lady who owns a big house. She tells you that
Consequentialism Deontology (Virtue Ethics) Consequentialism Deontology (Virtue Ethics) Consequentialism the value of an action (the action's moral worth, its rightness or wrongness) derives entirely from