kant and moral duties

1. Kant and Moral Duties

2. Gene Hackman plays a doctor who has been kidnapping street people to use them in research to cure spinal injuries and paralysis Hugh Grant plays an idealistic, young research physician who has learned Hackman�s modus operandi and wants to stop him What is your moral argument against what Gene Hackman is doing?Gene Hackman plays a doctor who has been kidnapping street people to use them in research to cure spinal injuries and paralysis Hugh Grant plays an idealistic, young research physician who has learned Hackman�s modus operandi and wants to stop him What is your moral argument against what Gene Hackman is doing?

3. �and your rebuttal? What about Justice? What about individual rights? What about Justice? What about individual rights?

4. What is the Difference?

6. We don�t require moral theories to tell us that lying and homicide are wrong, and helping those in need is a good thing to do. Moral theories explain WHY these things are right and wrong, and give me REASONS for believing them so Moral theories also help illuminate �grey areas,� clarify difficult problems, or resolve conflicts that arise What do Moral �Theories� Offer?

7. What are the Characteristics of a Good Moral (Normative) Theory? Clear and unequivocal: Tell us what actions are right (or wrong) Reliable: Offers straightforward answers in a wide variety of situations and Able to resolve conflicts when they arise Comprehensive: Covers not only individual actions, but social and political practices, institutions, and policies

8. Characteristics of a Good Moral Theory (Continued) Psychologically realistic: Doesn�t depend on false assumptions about what people are like Yields predictable results in familiar situations Is not wildly at odds with our habits, intuitions, and customary responses to ordinary problems

9. Utilitarianism (review) The Principle of Utility (GHP) is a good example of most of these provisions� Gives clear answers, helps resolve many problems, explains and justifies our intuitions But the Extreme Measures story, or �shoot the prisoners� dilemma, illustrate issues (like justice, fairness, and rights) which are not sufficiently addressed Cost benefit analysis is a very logical means of decision making for business and preferential choices We have previously identified some wrinkles, however, in certain ethical situationsCost benefit analysis is a very logical means of decision making for business and preferential choices We have previously identified some wrinkles, however, in certain ethical situations

10. Saving Private Ryan Tom Hanks tries to justify risking the lives of his men for just one man� He is wrestling with the Utilitarian Calculus. Good follow-up to this is the clip from the Movie where Gen George Marshall justifies exactly this mission, quoting Lincoln.Tom Hanks tries to justify risking the lives of his men for just one man� He is wrestling with the Utilitarian Calculus. Good follow-up to this is the clip from the Movie where Gen George Marshall justifies exactly this mission, quoting Lincoln.

11. Chapter I�.Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals Good Will Reason Duty Rational Beings Self Discipline Acting on Universal Principle Suppose now, that for a being possessed of reason and a will, the real purpose of nature were his preservation, his welfare or in a word his happiness [function of Reason]Suppose now, that for a being possessed of reason and a will, the real purpose of nature were his preservation, his welfare or in a word his happiness [function of Reason]

12. Kant 101 In our heads �we know what we want to do and what we SHOULD do Often what we want to do is NOT what we know we should do We experience our own moral conflict�that little thing called conscience (George Washington quote - ) 2) Kant reasons that the fact that we experience this conflict is evidence that we have a choice�if we had no choice, there would be no conflict. 3) Choice indicates free will � autonomy � that which separates us from baboons, dogs, cats and cockroaches � We have the ability to make conscious decisions to act against our simple desires, pleasures, and apparent happiness to do what is right. 4) How do we recognize our moral duties? From reason�intuitive reason and deduction allow us to identify universal principles (later class we will talk about Natural Law). 5)He even gives us a tool � the Categorical Imperative � to help us identify these universal principles and the Moral Law. These universal laws allow Kantian ethics to better consider things like justice and rights � important moral values which utilitarian ethics have trouble representing. 6) That is what�s going on inside our heads�lets talk about how we act. We can choose to act in accordance with Duty (the Moral Law)�we can also choose act in accordance with our inclinations or desires. 7) When we choose to do the right thing�simply because it is the right thing to do�Kant says that is a Good thing�in fact he says it is the best thing! 8) By Kant�s reasoning, if we ignore our moral obligations and act selfishly, we are being immoral. 9) Sometimes, our desires, inclinations and our duties coincide. Kant says that doesn�t necessarily make our actions immoral�we just don�t get extra credit� 10) For Kant�the Good Will is the greatest thing�not consequences�it is the choice to do what is right, simply out of respect for the moral law. Respect is something you give�it is a choice�Unlike utilitarianism, it is not the consequences that matter, it is purely the intent�Good Will that matters. In our heads �we know what we want to do and what we SHOULD do Often what we want to do is NOT what we know we should do We experience our own moral conflict�that little thing called conscience (George Washington quote - ) 2) Kant reasons that the fact that we experience this conflict is evidence that we have a choice�if we had no choice, there would be no conflict. 3) Choice indicates free will � autonomy � that which separates us from baboons, dogs, cats and cockroaches � We have the ability to make conscious decisions to act against our simple desires, pleasures, and apparent happiness to do what is right. 4) How do we recognize our moral duties? From reason�intuitive reason and deduction allow us to identify universal principles (later class we will talk about Natural Law). 5)He even gives us a tool � the Categorical Imperative � to help us identify these universal principles and the Moral Law. These universal laws allow Kantian ethics to better consider things like justice and rights � important moral values which utilitarian ethics have trouble representing. 6) That is what�s going on inside our heads�lets talk about how we act. We can choose to act in accordance with Duty (the Moral Law)�we can also choose act in accordance with our inclinations or desires. 7) When we choose to do the right thing�simply because it is the right thing to do�Kant says that is a Good thing�in fact he says it is the best thing! 8) By Kant�s reasoning, if we ignore our moral obligations and act selfishly, we are being immoral. 9) Sometimes, our desires, inclinations and our duties coincide. Kant says that doesn�t necessarily make our actions immoral�we just don�t get extra credit� 10) For Kant�the Good Will is the greatest thing�not consequences�it is the choice to do what is right, simply out of respect for the moral law. Respect is something you give�it is a choice�Unlike utilitarianism, it is not the consequences that matter, it is purely the intent�Good Will that matters.

13. Kant�s direct swipes� At Utilitarianism �A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes�it is good in the willing alone�� At Aristotelian Virtues �Intelligence, courage, resolution, determination�are good in many respects, but they can be bad or hurtful when the will is not good�� (see Adolph Hitler) At Ego-centric Ethics �Man feels in himself a powerful counterweight to all the commands of duty presented to him�the counterweight of his desires�.which pervert the dignity of the strict natural laws of duty�� I don�t have to do a cost benefit analysis I don�t have to find a mean between extremes of temperament (although that is admirable) It�s is not all about me� It is about doing your duty simply because it is the right thing to doI don�t have to do a cost benefit analysis I don�t have to find a mean between extremes of temperament (although that is admirable) It�s is not all about me� It is about doing your duty simply because it is the right thing to do

14. Kant�s Contrasting Strategy Morality seems to consist in various law-like principles, obligations, that limit our freedom �I ought�� (duty) versus I want�� (desire) The �Morally Good Will� (person of good character, integrity) recognizes the moral law as his own self-imposed limitations on individual freedom for the sake of all Human beings have moral dignity because of this power of reason to regulate their behavior unlike mere animals, we don�t just �have desires� or impulses and act on them, we also have AUTONOMY (the capacity for self-governance) Morality is an expression of that autonomy, it is �self-governance� Kant - These moral duties issue from our truly impartial rational desires, and so are expressions of our freedom (�Laws of Freedom�) Kant - These moral duties issue from our truly impartial rational desires, and so are expressions of our freedom (�Laws of Freedom�)

15. Kant: the �Supreme Principle� of Morality If we ask for the essential characteristic defining moral goodness or worth, we find: An action has �moral worth� if it conforms to the requirements of duty, and is done for the sake of duty (�and not for some other motive);

16. You Make the Call� A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So the husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that?

17. Kohlberg�s Stages of Moral Development Kohlberg has taught at the University of Chicago (1962-1968) and, since 1968, has been at Harvard University. Were you most concerned about punishment? �about YOUR wife living? �no �Good husband� would let his wife die, the druggist was �bad� �about the overall impact on society if everyone were allowed to rationalize stealing �It is our duty to preserve human life � more important than the law. Human life supersedes property �Would the druggist think differently if he were in the man�s shoes�or the wife�s? Universal principle of justice & Principle Conscience � Pre-conventional 1 Obedience and Punishment 2 Individualism, Instrumentalism, and Exchange Conventional 3 "Good boy/girl" 4 Law and OrderPost-conventional 5 Social Contract 6 Principled Conscience The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests. The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty. The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it. Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction. The last comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which moral development can be promoted through formal education. Note that Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage. I am grateful to Professor F. Clark Power of the University of Notre Dame (a former student of Kohlberg's) and to Professor Steve Chilton of the University of Minnesota for suggestions concerning this summary. Kohlberg has taught at the University of Chicago (1962-1968) and, since 1968, has been at Harvard University. Were you most concerned about punishment? �about YOUR wife living? �no �Good husband� would let his wife die, the druggist was �bad� �about the overall impact on society if everyone were allowed to rationalize stealing �It is our duty to preserve human life � more important than the law. Human life supersedes property �Would the druggist think differently if he were in the man�s shoes�or the wife�s? Universal principle of justice & Principle Conscience � Pre-conventional 1 Obedience and Punishment 2 Individualism, Instrumentalism, and Exchange Conventional 3 "Good boy/girl" 4 Law and OrderPost-conventional 5 Social Contract 6 Principled Conscience The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests. The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty. The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it. Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction. The last comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which moral development can be promoted through formal education. Note that Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage. I am grateful to Professor F. Clark Power of the University of Notre Dame (a former student of Kohlberg's) and to Professor Steve Chilton of the University of Minnesota for suggestions concerning this summary.

18. Kohlberg�s Stages of Moral Development Kohlberg has taught at the University of Chicago (1962-1968) and, since 1968, has been at Harvard University. Were you most concerned about punishment? �about YOUR wife living? �no �Good husband� would let his wife die, the druggist was �bad� �about the overall impact on society if everyone were allowed to rationalize stealing �It is our duty to preserve human life � more important than the law. Human life supersedes property �Would the druggist think differently if he were in the man�s shoes�or the wife�s? Universal principle of justice & Principle Conscience � Pre-conventional 1 Obedience and Punishment 2 Individualism, Instrumentalism, and Exchange Conventional 3 "Good boy/girl" 4 Law and OrderPost-conventional 5 Social Contract 6 Principled Conscience The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests. The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty. The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it. Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction. The last comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which moral development can be promoted through formal education. Note that Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage. I am grateful to Professor F. Clark Power of the University of Notre Dame (a former student of Kohlberg's) and to Professor Steve Chilton of the University of Minnesota for suggestions concerning this summary. Kohlberg has taught at the University of Chicago (1962-1968) and, since 1968, has been at Harvard University. Were you most concerned about punishment? �about YOUR wife living? �no �Good husband� would let his wife die, the druggist was �bad� �about the overall impact on society if everyone were allowed to rationalize stealing �It is our duty to preserve human life � more important than the law. Human life supersedes property �Would the druggist think differently if he were in the man�s shoes�or the wife�s? Universal principle of justice & Principle Conscience � Pre-conventional 1 Obedience and Punishment 2 Individualism, Instrumentalism, and Exchange Conventional 3 "Good boy/girl" 4 Law and OrderPost-conventional 5 Social Contract 6 Principled Conscience The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests. The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty. The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it. Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction. The last comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which moral development can be promoted through formal education. Note that Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage. I am grateful to Professor F. Clark Power of the University of Notre Dame (a former student of Kohlberg's) and to Professor Steve Chilton of the University of Minnesota for suggestions concerning this summary.

19. Some Notes on this Conclusion This does NOT mean that someone who does the �right� thing for the �wrong� reasons is acting wrongly, only that their action is not praiseworthy. �It merely means they get no �extra credit.� Kant allows that this confluence of actions and personal motivations is unusual. He wonders whether, on these criteria, there has ever been a truly �morally good will� in the world! Our duty presents itself to us in the form of �imperatives� (commands) that are absolute and binding. �i.e., categorical (no exceptions or excuses)

20. Terms to Know Categorical Imperative (CI) �Unconditional Obligation� �No alibi, must comply� Maxim Fundamental principle you act upon Rule of conduct Deontological Ethics Based on Moral Obligation As Johnny Cochran might say�No alibi, must complyAs Johnny Cochran might say�No alibi, must comply

21. Observations about Categorical Imperatives (CIs) CI�s derive their authority from within � from the rational impulse to obey the dictates of Reason itself (as an expression of my autonomy) CI�s command absolutely, unconditionally, �no ifs, ands or buts� (no strings attached) CI�s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change Duty and the institution of morality are like this (Must comply- no alibi) �Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to or not, whether anyone will notice, reward, praise, or blame you (or not).�

22. Categorical Imperative (CI1):Formula of Universal Law CI1 � Formula of Universal Law: Suicide � Accepted (from reason) Natural law: We should protect life � Suicide is a contradiction of that Natural law Borrow money with intent not to pay back � Making promises with intent to break�if it were universal law, it would contradict the very meaning of a promise. Can you will universally that you do NOT to develop your talents? But can you make it a universal law to neglect those in need?Suicide � Accepted (from reason) Natural law: We should protect life � Suicide is a contradiction of that Natural law Borrow money with intent not to pay back � Making promises with intent to break�if it were universal law, it would contradict the very meaning of a promise. Can you will universally that you do NOT to develop your talents? But can you make it a universal law to neglect those in need?

23. Categorical Imperative (CI2) Formula of the End in Itself CI2 � Formula of the End in Itself If he does away with himself to escape pain, he is making use of a person (himself) as a means to maintain a more tolerable state of affairs until death. (3rd categorical � can you make suicide mandatory?) By lying you are using the victim as a means to an end Can�t just �not conflict� with Humanity as an end�.you must harmonize with this end. Responsibility goes beyond maintenance of this end�it requires for promotion this end. Can�t ignore it, can�t neglect it. If you don�t pursue others as an ends, you are using them as a meansIf he does away with himself to escape pain, he is making use of a person (himself) as a means to maintain a more tolerable state of affairs until death. (3rd categorical � can you make suicide mandatory?) By lying you are using the victim as a means to an end Can�t just �not conflict� with Humanity as an end�.you must harmonize with this end. Responsibility goes beyond maintenance of this end�it requires for promotion this end. Can�t ignore it, can�t neglect it. If you don�t pursue others as an ends, you are using them as a means

24. Imperfect or Positive duties are the fuzzy ones. Difficult to universalize�difficult to measure Pass a car with a unconscious lady in it that has caught fire�you know you will get burned if you save her�not life threatening, but certainly severe, if you try to save her. Most of us, despite the pleasure pain calculus, would feel an obligation to save her. It would be the right thing to do�it would be in accordance with the moral law. We would not be responsible for her suffering if we did nothing�we did not cause the car to catch fire�.but Kant says we have a duty to the public welfare � and we could reasonably make it a universal principle to help others in such a case.Imperfect or Positive duties are the fuzzy ones. Difficult to universalize�difficult to measure Pass a car with a unconscious lady in it that has caught fire�you know you will get burned if you save her�not life threatening, but certainly severe, if you try to save her. Most of us, despite the pleasure pain calculus, would feel an obligation to save her. It would be the right thing to do�it would be in accordance with the moral law. We would not be responsible for her suffering if we did nothing�we did not cause the car to catch fire�.but Kant says we have a duty to the public welfare � and we could reasonably make it a universal principle to help others in such a case.

25. The �Categorical Imperative Procedure� (CI3) CI3 - �The Kingdom of Ends� � Reason is both the source of moral law (legislator) and subject of the law (citizen). Accordingly: �Act always as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaking member of the moral community, bound to obey the laws you impose upon yourself and others� Translation: Can this act become a binding moral law for all of us (�including you)? Consider Congressman Mark Foley � He caught considerable heat because he passed legislation to protect children from internet predators, and then did not live by his own legislation. The moral repugnance was his hypocrisy! Consider Congressman Mark Foley � He caught considerable heat because he passed legislation to protect children from internet predators, and then did not live by his own legislation. The moral repugnance was his hypocrisy!

26. Categorical Imperatives It�s important to keep in mind that the three formulations/derivations of the categorical imperative are just that, different ways, according to Kant, of formulating or deriving the very same question. That is, all three questions are in essence asking the same thing, are you being consistent in your actions. For example, to treat a person as merely a means and not as an end, yet at the same time want that person to treat you as an end is to be inconsistent, to engage yourself in a contradiction. And to will a moral law for yourself that you would not want others to will for themselves is, once again, to be inconsistent and to engage yourself in a contradiction. It�s important to keep in mind that the three formulations/derivations of the categorical imperative are just that, different ways, according to Kant, of formulating or deriving the very same question. That is, all three questions are in essence asking the same thing, are you being consistent in your actions. For example, to treat a person as merely a means and not as an end, yet at the same time want that person to treat you as an end is to be inconsistent, to engage yourself in a contradiction. And to will a moral law for yourself that you would not want others to will for themselves is, once again, to be inconsistent and to engage yourself in a contradiction.

27. False Promise: Using Test One

28. Bad Samaritan: Using Tests One and Two

29. Can I, or Kant I?

30. Part II Practical applications in the real world

31. Legal Example First Degree Murder Intent and consequence Attempted Murder Intent, no consequence Negligent Homicide Consequence, no intent

32. Would you do it? Where would Kant draw the line? All the way to the left. Where would Kant draw the line? All the way to the left.

33. What would Kant do? Consider the following � it is 1942. You are hiding Anne Frank, a young Jewish girl, to protect her from the Gestapo and Nazi policies of ethnic cleansing. Imagine you are Immanuel Kant - There is a knock at the door and an SS officer asks if you are hiding Jews in the attic. What do you tell him? Do you break the categorical imperative against lying? Categorical Imperative means � by definition � it is an UNCONDITIONAL requirement to always comply. Kant did not believe one should lie to protect others, as it would break the CI against lying. This illustrates one of the major criticisms of pure Kantian ethics � they can be too rigid.Consider the following � it is 1942. You are hiding Anne Frank, a young Jewish girl, to protect her from the Gestapo and Nazi policies of ethnic cleansing. Imagine you are Immanuel Kant - There is a knock at the door and an SS officer asks if you are hiding Jews in the attic. What do you tell him? Do you break the categorical imperative against lying? Categorical Imperative means � by definition � it is an UNCONDITIONAL requirement to always comply. Kant did not believe one should lie to protect others, as it would break the CI against lying. This illustrates one of the major criticisms of pure Kantian ethics � they can be too rigid.

34. Universal Principle Suppose� IED Victim Horrific Burns Brain damage Coma Life support $1,000,000 life insurance policy A wife knows her husband is injured in an IED attack. He has horrific burns, probable brain damage, is in a coma and is currently on life support. She asks that he not be kept artificially alive. Would you honor her wishes? Now, same case, but you know the wife also has a Million Dollar life insurance policy. Does this change anything? Would you feel any differently? Why or why not?A wife knows her husband is injured in an IED attack. He has horrific burns, probable brain damage, is in a coma and is currently on life support. She asks that he not be kept artificially alive. Would you honor her wishes? Now, same case, but you know the wife also has a Million Dollar life insurance policy. Does this change anything? Would you feel any differently? Why or why not?

35. Observations about Categorical Imperatives (CIs) CI�s derive their authority from within � from the rational impulse to obey the dictates of Reason itself (as an expression of my autonomy) CI�s command absolutely, unconditionally, �no ifs, ands or buts� (no strings attached) CI�s are universal, unconditional, NOT subject to variation or change Duty and the institution of morality are like this (Must comply- no alibi) �Do this, whether you want to or not, whether you can be made to or not, whether anyone will notice, reward, praise, or blame you (or not).� Grandma�s bad cookies, Anne Frank, �.What do these indicate? Is it simply we don�t always practice what we preach? Is it that there are few things we can REALLY follow unconditionally in a real world? Do we lack Moral Courage? Just as we felt that there were situations where Utilitarian reasoning didn�t cut the mustard (justice, rights, fairness)�are there areas where Kantian reasoning struggles?Grandma�s bad cookies, Anne Frank, �.What do these indicate? Is it simply we don�t always practice what we preach? Is it that there are few things we can REALLY follow unconditionally in a real world? Do we lack Moral Courage? Just as we felt that there were situations where Utilitarian reasoning didn�t cut the mustard (justice, rights, fairness)�are there areas where Kantian reasoning struggles?

36. Goods and Others� Kantian Ethics Strengths Realm of duty, free from utility Respect for persons Golden rule � do unto others, expressed in rational terms Reason based Weaknesses Hyper-rationality and lack of emotion The irrelevance of inclination Overly formal and universal i.e., most of our duties are in social roles Inflexibility Supererogation It requires us to be completely stoic�and we don�t cover stoicism until the last class! Pure motive of duty without inclination is probably impossible (Kantian rebuttle�we don�t have perfection in science either � scientific error, etc - ..but we know what the IDEAL IS) Complex situations don�t fit universal model (in fact it is hard to find cases that work as well as Kant�s 4 examples � suicide, promise keeping, etc) We give our highest medal to people who go above an beyond the call of duty�If the highest morality is defined by doing your duty, how can you possibly do more than your duty? Wouldn�t it be your duty to go beyond the call of duty? It requires us to be completely stoic�and we don�t cover stoicism until the last class! Pure motive of duty without inclination is probably impossible (Kantian rebuttle�we don�t have perfection in science either � scientific error, etc - ..but we know what the IDEAL IS) Complex situations don�t fit universal model (in fact it is hard to find cases that work as well as Kant�s 4 examples � suicide, promise keeping, etc) We give our highest medal to people who go above an beyond the call of duty�If the highest morality is defined by doing your duty, how can you possibly do more than your duty? Wouldn�t it be your duty to go beyond the call of duty?

37. Leave No One Behind ESTABLISH ACCEPTED MORAL RULES AND OBEY THEM APPLY THEM CONSISTENTLY TO ALL IN A FAIR AND JUST MANNER DO NOT ALLOW EXCEPTIONS RESPECT EACH OTHER MORAL CONFLICTS RIGHT VS WRONG RIGHT VS RIGHT JUSTICE VS MERCY TRUTH VS LOYALTY INDIVIDUAL VS COMMUNITY LONG-TERM VS SHORT-TERMESTABLISH ACCEPTED MORAL RULES AND OBEY THEM APPLY THEM CONSISTENTLY TO ALL IN A FAIR AND JUST MANNER DO NOT ALLOW EXCEPTIONS RESPECT EACH OTHER MORAL CONFLICTS RIGHT VS WRONG RIGHT VS RIGHT JUSTICE VS MERCY TRUTH VS LOYALTY INDIVIDUAL VS COMMUNITY LONG-TERM VS SHORT-TERM

38. Aviano EA-6BGondola Mishap

39. The Case Aircrew Flight Immediate Aftermath Aviano 4-8 Feb Cherry Point 4-8 Feb The Tape The Sequel

40. Lead in to Virtue Ethics How does Kant account for heroism? Is it our duty to go �beyond the call of duty?� Wouldn�t celibacy be immoral Couldn�t will it to be a universal law(�not for long, anyway) Which person is more moral? A pirate who returns a wallet A priest who returns a wallet It can�t be our duty to do more than our duty Aristotle would see heroism as a VIRTUE rather than an obligation. Kant would say the pirate � he does so unwillingly, but out of obligation Aristotle would say the Priest � He does so out of intent to do goodIt can�t be our duty to do more than our duty Aristotle would see heroism as a VIRTUE rather than an obligation. Kant would say the pirate � he does so unwillingly, but out of obligation Aristotle would say the Priest � He does so out of intent to do good

41. The Kantian point: We knew it was wrong We were using Santiago as means (to show the rest of the platoon that his actions were wrong) We were not respecting him as a person We made an exception for ourselves (even though we were following orders) Interestingly, in this movie, which is all about legal proceeding, evidence, witnesses, and the law, the main point at the end is a moral point. The law and the morality of the actions don�t always coincide, but in this movie, they are put together in the Sergeant�s line.The Kantian point: We knew it was wrong We were using Santiago as means (to show the rest of the platoon that his actions were wrong) We were not respecting him as a person We made an exception for ourselves (even though we were following orders) Interestingly, in this movie, which is all about legal proceeding, evidence, witnesses, and the law, the main point at the end is a moral point. The law and the morality of the actions don�t always coincide, but in this movie, they are put together in the Sergeant�s line.

43. Recap CI-procedure CI1 = formula of �universal law� Make it law� without any loopholes CI2 = �respect for persons principle� People as ends not means CI3 = �Kingdom of Ends� You are bound to obey the laws you make� for the Good of the Community Kant portrays the first two as derivations from the third, which attempts to portray the moral situation of a free, rational individual within a democratic society Produces a ��Systematic union of rational beings under common objective law�