1 / 21

Bumper Sticker Ethics S.Wilkins ITS YOUR DUTY KANTIAN ETHICS

Bumper Sticker Ethics S.Wilkins ITS YOUR DUTY KANTIAN ETHICS. Situation1 Soldier attacks-gun position Likely he will die in the first wave (Saving Private Ryan) Situation2 Juror:

erica-whitaker
Download Presentation

Bumper Sticker Ethics S.Wilkins ITS YOUR DUTY KANTIAN ETHICS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bumper Sticker Ethics S.WilkinsITS YOUR DUTYKANTIAN ETHICS Situation1 Soldier attacks-gun position Likely he will die in the first wave (Saving Private Ryan) Situation2 Juror: Defendant has a long criminal history. Instinct says He is guilty. But she must decide on evidence alone. Not guilty. Two situations involving DUTY regardless of consequences Centrepiece of Kant’s Moral Philosophy: Duty

  2. Being good is a matter of reverence for duty People who follow Kant care about rules and motives not results.  For Kant ethical obligation is not (like examples given) based on law. Military/Criminal.  Ethical duties should be the same for all in everyday circumstance.  Kant: Moral truth stands by itself; it is AUTONOMOUS and Self-Contained Rejects consequentialist ethics. CONSEQUENTIALISM - Relies on what is, it can never get us to ethics (OUGHT). Ethical decision making needs something other than consequences.  Kant: Reason alone should be the foundation. The ethical rules we adopt are those which show themselves to be logically consistent – no self contradiction. Moral principles that meet the demands of reason are always valid for everyone.

  3. For Kant ethical decisions are about MOTIVE NOT RESULTS • We should act out of the intention to do our DUTY

  4. The Categorical Imperative How do we discover what our DUTIES are? Answer: Through the use of categorical imperatives. ‘‘A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself apart from its relation to a further end’’ Categorical = That which is Absolute. A C.I. is then a command/law that allows no exceptions. C.I. is a general axiom that is not itself a moral rule, but a means of arriving at a specific moral rule that applies to everyone. It tells us how to know which ethical rules should be acted upon. C.I. : Learn:Act only on that maxim(1) through which you can at the same time will that it should be a UNIVERSAL LAW.(2)

  5. Example: I borrow some money, promise to pay it back by a certain time though I know this is not possible. Maxim(1)(Proposed rule of action): Whenever I believe myself short of money, I will borrow money, promise to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done. Should (1) become a C.I. (2)/universal law? Kant: NO! Universalising a maxim like ‘We should make promises we cannot keep’, is ultimately Self-defeating/irrational. Why? We deceive someone.We cannot exist without truth.  If all people lied there would be no truth left to deceive someone about. UNIVERSALIZING: ‘‘We should make promises we cannot keep’’ Would defeat the very purpose of using deceit because no one would believe any promise.  Since universalisation of a principle that says we promise to do what we cannot do, makes it impossible to deceive someone, it is self-contradictory; it violates reason. Summary: If we would want everyone to act on a maxim under consideration, it is our moral obligation to do it ourselves. It is our DUTY.

  6. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE VERSION TWO: -  Kant provides a second version of the C.I. ‘‘Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as the end’’ • Basically: Do our actions treat humanity as an end or do they use people as a means???????????? • Kant: People are Intrinsically Valuable; they should never be manipulated to achieve a goal.

  7. Example: Suicide- In this case we should not treat ourselves as a means. One would contemplate suicide only if one thought some benefit could be achieved by it-such as relief from anxiety. • This is morally wrong. In killing ourselves, we use a person (ourselves) as a means to an end (freedom from pain).

  8. Example: People are to be treated as ends-if they are used as a means to an end; they do not have freedom to make decisions. 1.  I compliment your appearance because I want you to like me 2.  You are being treated as a tool and not as a person with inherent value. 3  Why? Your freedom to respond demands on your ability to trust what I say. Insincere compliments limit your choice of responses and manipulate you. 4.  You are not able to freely respond to what I really think. 5. I have used you as a means to get something I want.

  9. Treating people as an ends/inherently valuable, corrects a problem of consequentialist systems i.e.: The happiness of the majority/or some other end opens the door for exploiting people- i.e. SLAVERY. + Enslaving people constitutes the use of these individuals for the happiness of the majority. This cannot for Kant be tolerated

  10. POSITIVES 1.    Duty-Intuition that some things are right no matter what. Kant’s emphasis on Duty helps anchor morality so that we are not swayed by changing moods/emotions or sidetracked by unpredictable consequences. Duty as a basis –helps prevent choices being arbitrary and changeable.

  11. 2.    Laws like ‘Do not steal’ have an objective status: - • This separates us from emotions/wants. It does not care about how we feel about stealing. Similarly, Kant takes us beyond Non Ethical questions like: • ‘‘What do I want’’? And to ethical questions like: • ‘‘What is RIGHT?’’

  12. 3. For Kant ethics is like Mathematics or science: Truth is truth. Even if we change our thinking- the universe does not change. So: Ethical Laws do not change. They are not open to negotiation.  Kant’s system is attractive if you do not simply want to justify what you want to believe but really want to know what is right. I want B to be true BUT  A is the truth.

  13. 4. Ethics needs to be rational not irrational (this can be frightening). Kant asserts that an ethical conclusion must be rationally supported –this is preferable to a system that is not rationally supported.

  14. 5. Kant gives use a method of checking if our wants are ethical. ~we put ourselves in others shoes. ~we must avoid using people as means to an end.

  15. 6.Kant affirms God’s existence but God has no place in Kantian Ethics REASON alone is the foundation of moral truth. However Christians can be attracted to Kant’s ethic ~ There is objective moral truth. ~ Many of Kant’s ethical rules parallel the 10 commandments. ~ Scripture-Ethical directives for all = Kant’s rules Universalised.

  16. 1.What if there is a conflict C.I. Tell the truth- help a murder. Tell a lie- prevent a murder. Telling a lie cannot be a C.I., so do we help the murderer? We could create another C.I. e.g. ‘‘You should not help those who seek to murder innocent people.’’ Now we have two opposite C.I.’s. Kant does not help us choose!!! ‘Where is he? Let me Kill him!’ ‘Do I lie or do I tell him where Mr. C is?’ Problems?

  17. 2. Does Kant avoid circumstances completely? Kant certainly uses consequences to determine an action is rational or not. Never tell the truth = Irrational: world in which no one would believe you. Lies would be the norm. ‘‘On one hand Kant say consequences tell us nothing about ethics. On the other hand, consequences are consulted in determining whether a proposed rule is rational.’’

  18. 3. Is every rule we would universalise, a moral duty? We could make C.I.’s which are neither contradictory and are universalizable. But they could be: A.   Morally neutral. B.   So defines that it benefits one particular person. i.e. smile at strangers How do we know laws about honesty are more ethically significant than laws about smiling?

  19. 4. Is reason sufficient? Human reason is finite. To make our reason the sole standard of right and wrong leaves any ethical system open to error! A failure to reason Correctly ethically Might have greater Consequences. 2+2 =3 Oops, I made a mistake

  20. 5. What of love? Justicea Dutya People as endsa Reasona But where is God’s lover Mercyr Forgivenessr For the Christian Kant’s ethic allows us to fulfil our duty without loving people. This is a problem. There is no sense of fulfilling the demands of ethics because of love of God and persons=COLD LEGALISM.  JACQUES MARTAIN: “One might say that ethics of pure reason is a Christian ethic whose theological root has been severed leaving only the stiffened branches.”

  21. rLacks humanity And concern for People. Kant: allow someone to be murdered To avoid lying!!! Something is wrong rDuties do sometimes conflict. Which do we choose. Kant does not help aDutyMoral lawReasonJusticeDignity of people STEVE WILKINS

More Related